I think it would be a mistake to understand these strikes in terms of a dog wagging presidential diversion. The US faces real problems in its geopolitical control of the Middle East and real popular resistance to its occupation of Saudi Arabia (one should not forget what a psychological blow the hit on the US military installation must have been). And it is only stupidity that would allow US intelligence to think this popular resistance is spearheaded by billionaire terrorists, whatever groteque role they are playing. Indeed the attempt to eliminate this one will only embolden popular resistance from Egypt through Lebanon to Syria and throughout the Gulf.
At any rate, speaking of Alan Freeman, we should not forget his analyses of US imperialism in the Gulf. The US has been successful in
keeping itself the major arms exporter to this most profitable mega market, providing security to some of the most grotesque reactionaries in the annals of world history, and more importantly it has been successful in ensuring that oil continues to be priced in dollars (about the dynamics of this I would love to be more informed; for example does oil continue to be priced in dollars because of the on going demand by Arab elites for US weapons and security? If this is a ridiculous hypothesis, please correct me.)
Without the latter (pricing of oil in dollars), the euro would probably be sure to sink the dollar as world reserve currency--which would then threaten the continued ability of this late imperial power to buy time from its monstrous trade deficits. This is quite an important 'conjuncture' for the imperial US to reassert its control over the Middle East--the lynchpin of US global power, according to Eqbal Ahmad. And the renewed imperial projection is sure to lead to much bloodshed while one should expect that in this context of escalation the US will give the greenlight to Israel to finish the Palestinians off. I honestly think that until know Clinton was trying to pursue a more 'moderate' course, rightfully fearing the popular Arab and Muslim resistance an even more aggressive stance would provoke. And with a newly aggressive India (and my suspicion remains that the US and India were in high level secret agreement about the recent nuclear tests) Pakistan will not be able to lend much support to any popular resistance to the US occupation. Maybe the US thinks it can control the situtation now that Pakistan has its own problems or maybe such self-deception is necessary because it must attempt to maintain imperial control.
If Clinton has previously had enough sense to understand that such US military strikes and retailiations will only further destabilize the region and make US rule ever more bloodly (by squandering the little socalled soft power it had left), he surely had to kow tow to the hawks after his personal debacle. And it is no surprise that this most ugly of men would do so.
This nonsense about a K long wave upswing should be dismissed; we have entered a period of global depression and soon it will be a period of escalated militarism, wars and revolution.
best, rakesh