The Political Cost of Backing the Saudi Monarchy + The Ignored Miami Herald Bombshell

Theresa May has announced that she will meet with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in Buenos Aires at the Group of 20 summit. Add her name to a list of Western leaders, along with France's Emmanuel Macron, who are attempting to whitewash MbS' image post-Khashoggi.

On Wednesday the U.S. Senate at least took the first step to invoke the War Powers Act (as recounted in this morning's editorial "The Senate Steps Up on Saudi Arabia: Even Lindsey Graham — Lindsey Graham! — is offended by the administration’s callousness toward the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."). The editorial board of The New York Times believes the chances slim that congress can block vital U.S. assistance of al-Saud and the United Arab Emirates in their war on Yemen. But I'm not so sure.

Lindsey Graham has pledged to interrupt the order of business in the senate until CIA director Gina Haspel appears. And we have yet to hear from Turkish president Recep Erdogan. My guess is he is springing a trap. Once zombie May and boy king Macron genuflect and kiss the jeweled hand of the crown prince, Erdogan will make a move, further compromising the already cadaverous May and Macron.

We'll see. One thing is for sure. The longer Trump fronts for the Saudi monarchy, and the longer the United States facilitates the starvation of a nation, the more likely he loses in 2020.

Many who pay attention to politics believe that American voters don't care about overseas conflict. I think that's untrue. A majority of voters might not give a hoot, but there is a significant fraction that does, and that fraction pulls from both the left and the right; that fraction also pulls other voters along with it.

U.S. support for the Saudi monarchy is radioactive politically. How else to explain congress' sole override of an Obama veto when it enshrined into law the ability of the 9/11 families to sue the kingdom of Saudi Arabia? That happened in September of 2016. Since Trump was actively campaigning against the House of Saud at the time, complaining about the kingdom's support of terrorism, at the same time he was promising to work with Russia and Assad to end the war in Syria, one can argue -- and for me it's persuasive, given Trump's narrow victory -- that Trump is in the White House based on his criticism of the Saudis on the campaign trail.

May is finished; so is Macron; as is Trump.

May, a caretaker of an elite consensus for which there is no popular support; Macron,a ruse, a PSYOP; Trump, a bestial wail meant to frighten the turnkey but it turns out that Trump is a more sadistic turnkey than the turnkey (Hillary) whom he bested.

****

I've seen no mention -- not in Reuters, AP, NYT -- of the bombshell story published in the Miami Herald this week about Jeffrey Epstein's pedophilia network. I saw it in yesterday's Significant Digits:

80 women
Eighty women say they were molested or “otherwise sexually abused” by Jeffrey Epstein, a Palm Beach multimillionaire hedge fund manager accused of assembling a “cult-like network of underage girls,” whose friends included former President Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Epstein could have spent the rest of his life in prison, but instead a plea deal was struck whereby he’d serve 13 months in jail and an FBI probe into his victims and other powerful figures potentially involved in his crimes was shut down. [Miami Herald]

What Hath Neoliberalism Wrought?

A must-read this morning is "‘The Numbers Are So Staggering.’ Overdose Deaths Set a Record Last Year." by Josh Katz and Margot Sanger-Katz:

The recent increases in drug overdose deaths have been so steep that they have contributed to reductions in the country’s life expectancy over the last three years, a pattern unprecedented since World War II. Life expectancy at birth has fallen by nearly four months, and drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for adults under 55.

“The idea that a developed wealthy nation like ours has declining life expectancy just doesn’t seem right,” said Robert Anderson, the chief of mortality statistics at the C.D.C., who helped prepare the reports. “If you look at the other wealthy countries of the world, they're not seeing the same thing.”

In a separate report, the C.D.C. also documented a 3.7 percent increase in the suicide rate, another continuation of a recent trend. The increases were particularly concentrated in rural America, and among middle-aged women, though the suicide rate for men remains higher than that for women at every age.

What hath neoliberalism wrought?  This. A culture whose goal is to monetize everything. It doesn't offer much in the way of "chicken soup for the soul," does it?

The gist of the story by the Katzes is that opioid prescriptions are falling while overdose deaths continue to rise. The increase is attributable to fentanyl, a synthetic opioid.

Peak neoliberalism is distinguished by drug overdoses, suicide and homelessness. Make no mistake. This is a political problem. The divination of markets and the monetization of everything does not lead to a healthy society.

The Yellow Vests protests underway in France are being compared to a medieval peasant rebellion. The French elected Macron thanks to a huge PSYOP -- how else to explain a significant victory for a candidate of the elite espousing ideas from the era of Clinton and Blair? --  whose effects appear to be wearing off.

Macron is doomed, and so too is his parliamentary organization, En Marche! Good news. Unfortunately the zombie nature of neoliberalism allows it to shamble along even though it is dead. Look at Theresa May. How long is her Tory government going to tear and gnash, scratch and slobber in governance before new elections are held?

The hyper concentration of wealth combined with the quasi-ambient nature of digital technology has given us a savage society that is killing the planet. Will we find a way out of this necropolis?

Assange New-World Bound? + Poroshenko a Bust + a Month of Brexit Scaremongering

A must-read is Craig Murray's "Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies":

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Another must-read is Moon of Alabama's "Ukraine - Poroshenko Launched Clash With Russia To Gain Dictatorial Powers - He Failed":

Poroshenko could start a provocation elsewhere. He could attempt to reconquer the Donetzk airport. But while he might itch for losing more fights, a full blown war is out of question. Kiev's army is low on morale and would be defeated within days. 

Poroshenko's rule was catastrophic for the Ukraine. In several cities the central heating and warm water supply is broken. Ten-thousands will have to freeze during the winter, some of them to death. Since Poroshenko came to power millions of able Ukrainian workers have fled or work abroad, most of them to Russia. The most industrialized regions are in firmly in rebel hands. Most of the population is poor, the bureaucracy is utterly corrupt and the country is practically bankrupt. 

There will likely be dozens of corruption cases brought up against Poroshenko himself as soon as he loses power. If he is smart he will flee the Ukraine the very day his term ends.

With regards to Brexit, the campaign to frighten people over the consequences of not accepting May's withdrawal agreement has begun in earnest. There is no support for the withdrawal agreement in parliament. Nonetheless the next several weeks will be spent whipping up terror over a crash-out.

The scenario that Yves Smith outlines is a no vote in parliament followed by an adverse market reaction and then a re-vote which results in passage. It's fanciful.

The one bright spot that I can see is that after May fails to secure passage the second time around she will have to stand down. New elections will be called. Smith thinks that this is irrelevant in terms of the Brexit timeline; that a crash-out will commence. But I don't think so. I think the EU would have to grant the UK time to form a new government which could present its Brexit plan to parliament.

Good News in the Making: Let's Take a Moment to Commend the Mainstream

Some good news. Tomorrow or Thursday the U.S. Senate will take another war powers resolution vote. The last one, in March, garnered 44 votes. That was prior to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the increase in mainstream coverage of the genocidal Saudi-UAE-U.S. war on Yemen. Bob Menendez says this time it will likely pass. Bernie Sanders thinks the same.

Other good news is the possibility that Argentina will bring criminal charges against crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) for his leading role in the war on Yemen. There is a Group of 20 summit this week in Buenos Aires which MbS is scheduled to attend, showing the world it is perfectly normal for a despot to butcher a critic and then take a star turn on the red carpet.

I was mistaken in my belief that by now Erdogan would have weighed in on Trump's absolution of MbS. Yesterday Turkish investigators, apparently looking for Khashoggi's remains, searched a Saudi mansion south of Istanbul.

Rest assured, Erdogan is not done with the Khashoggi affair. The timing was not propitious for additional developments. There was May's appearance for a climactic Brexit vote in Brussels Sunday, as well as the reappearance of Banderastan top of the fold. Maybe another bomb will drop while the crown prince's ringed fingers are kissed in Buenos Aires.

This is a time to celebrate the efforts of the mainstream. Human Rights Watch, The New York Times, Reuters have all kept our noses to the grindstone to make sure the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is held to account.

Kerch Strait Crisis: Poroshenko Requests Martial Law

What's bizarre about the reporting of the naval clash between Russia and Ukraine at the Kerch Strait is that The New York Times dispatch, written by Andrew Kramer, "Ukraine, After Naval Clash With Russia, Considers Martial Law," while hewing to the Western line that Russia is at fault, nonetheless manages to add flesh to a dark Ukrainian conspiracy, the likes of which you won't find on RT or Sputnik. According to Kramer,

At a midnight meeting, Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council said it would ask Parliament to declare a state of martial law. That raised alarms that President Petro O. Poroshenko could use the incident to delay a presidential election scheduled for March that polls suggest he is unlikely to win.

“This whole story grows more complicated by the fact that during martial law, it is forbidden to hold presidential, parliamentary or local elections, as well as strikes, protests, rallies and mass actions,” Mustafa Nayyem, a member of Parliament, posted on Facebook.

Poroshenko is polling in the single digits. Clara Weiss in "Russia fires on and captures Ukrainian Navy ships" adds some texture to the political mood in Kiev:

Poroshenko’s escalation of the military conflict with Russia is driven, to a large measure, by the growing domestic crisis of his regime. Almost five years after an imperialist-orchestrated, fascistic coup brought it to power, the Poroshenko regime is mired in crisis. Recent media reports suggested that some one million people in Ukraine live on the brink of starvation.

Hundreds of thousands have left the country since 2014, fleeing war and social devastation (see: “Ukraine’s depopulation crisis”). The past months saw several strikes by Ukrainian miners, railway workers and other sections of the working class. Polls show Poroshenko with the highest negative ranking of any candidate in the upcoming presidential elections.

Post-coup Ukraine is a failed state project of the West, different from but similar to Kosovo and Libya. The heat can be turned up or the flame reduced to a low burn depending on the whims of leaders in Europe and the United States; sending Ukrainian warships unannounced into the Sea of Azov is an effective way to goad the bear while at the same time bolstering their chosen lackey Petro Poroshenko.

I thought Iran would be the target for a martial crisis during the lame duck, but maybe it's Mother Russia.

Brexit Deal is DOA in Parliament

The last couple of days there has been a distinct shift in the prestige press's reporting of prime minister Theresa May's quixotic attempt to move her Brexit deal with the EU across the finish line.

Case in point is the outlandish "A Brexit Compromise Nobody Likes: What Could Be More English?," by Ellen Barry, which appeared on Thanksgiving Day. Based on the Tories' inability to muster a vote of confidence, combined with an overnight flip in May's standing in the opinion polls, mainstream organs of opinion are now fluffing the possibility that the Brexit agreement, which the EU ratified today, can clear the House of Commons.

An example of this is today's principal New York Times story on the topic, "U.K. and E.U. Leaders Clinch Brexit Divorce Terms," by Stephen Castle and Steven Erlanger. First, from the opening, and, then, the concluding paragraph:

The journey has been long and tortuous for both sides, and the drama is hardly over. Mrs. May must still get approval for the deal — a dense, legally binding divorce settlement and a set of political promises for Britain’s future relationship with the bloc — from an outspokenly unhappy British Parliament.

[snip]

No one in Brussels knows any better than people in Britain about what is coming next, but there is considerable hope that somehow Mrs. May will pull it off.

This isn't reporting; this is poppycock. Call it "public diplomacy," propaganda, information warfare, whatever, it is bullshit, which any cursory web surf will quickly reveal.

The math hasn't changed in parliament: Corbyn, leader of Labour, is opposed; Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, is opposed; Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Arlene Foster is opposed (the DUP is May's coalition partner). May's Brexit deal is dead on arrival.

The idea shared by May and Brussels is for one last game of chicken -- it's the May-EU withdrawal agreement, or crash-out; take it or leave it -- with the fervent hope that the House of Commons buckles. As explained in Barry's story, this fanciful scenario unfolds like this:

And many in Westminster began speaking confidently of a new wrinkle. Mrs. May might not muster enough Parliamentary support to pass the bill in mid-December, according to Rob Ford, a professor of politics at the University of Manchester. But if her government survives long enough to put it to a second vote, he said, she has a good chance of getting it through.

“The groups that dislike it will realize that there is no way of getting their preferred outcome,” he said. “The deal could be as popular as leprosy with the public and that strategic calculus would not have changed one iota.”

This is zombie neoliberalism: the shambling walking dead rotting carcass of a political-economic paradigm which Western leaders refuse to put down.

May's government will come down though if it loses the Brexit vote next month. And that's truly something to celebrate.

Trump Wades Directly into the Khashoggi Brier Patch

Trump's statement regarding the Saudi assassination of Jamal Khashoggi was a pitchman's defense of the crown prince and the kingdom: Iran is the enemy; the world is a dangerous place; and the Saudis pump a lot of oil and purchase a lot of U.S. weapons. Go piss off, basically. No additional sanctions against Saudi Arabia.

The midterms were the beginning of the end for Trump. Trump's kowtowing to the absolutist monarchy of al-Saud before the dust has even settled on those midterms is more proof of his coming demise.

Trump's troubles in regard to the kingdom have just begun. Already the senate foreign relations committee has requested a determination from the administration as to who is responsible for Khashoggi's murder. Trump will have to consult the intelligence agencies, agencies that have already assessed, the CIA at least, that crown prince Mohammed bin Salman is to blame.

Then there is the question of Erdogan's next move. Turkey has outmaneuvered the United States and al-Saud at every turn. I would expect a rejoinder to Trump's statement before the end of the Thanksgiving holiday weekend.

Pelosi

Stories have appeared over the last few days about the odds of Nancy Pelosi resuming the role of speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. A letter signed by 16 Democrats opposed to Pelosi was made public yesterday.

Sixteen is not a lot, but Pelosi critics assert that it is the tip of the iceberg; that though no challenger has stepped into the ring to fight it out for speaker, Pelosi will not be able to reach the magic number 218 when the new congress is sworn in, and it is only then that Pelosi's replacement will emerge.

Perry Bacon of FiveThirtyEight runs through the possibilities this morning in "Who Could Become Speaker Of The House If Pelosi Doesn’t?" Bacon thinks Pelosi is vulnerable. And that she is. But she is not nearly as vulnerable as her opposition. Pelosi delivered a blue wave (currently predicted to be Dems +40) significantly larger than the one in 2006 that made her speaker the first go-round.

The one turd in Pelosi's punch bowl is that many Democratic freshman campaigned against Pelosi in 2018, promising to vote against her if elected. Now that they're elected one of the first votes they take can't be to renege on a prominent campaign promise.

Whether there are enough freshmen who took an anti-Pelosi pledge to block her from 218 remains to be seen. It's probably the main reason Bacon considers Pelosi's demise a distinct possibility.

Pelosi has to go. No doubt about it. The next two years are still going to be "All Trump, All the Time." And with McConnell running the show in the senate, a Democratic speaker is going to be reduced to a GOP foil. It would certainly be nice to have some new leadership heading into a presidential election. The problem is the Democratic Party is not able to provide that leadership.

MbS Absolved in Exchange for an End to War in Yemen? + Path of Exit from Brexit Emerges

Brexit and the Khashoggi affair now seem to be unfolding on synchronized calendars. Tomorrow the White House is supposed to present the result of its investigation into the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi. It's a foregone conclusion that crown prince Mohammed bin Salman will not be held responsible, putting Trump at odds once again with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mark Landler provides the Khashoggi rehash in "Despite Evidence on Khashoggi, Trump Sticks With the Crown Prince. Why?" It contains a good quote from Bruce Riedel, former spook now with Brookings:

Given the passions generated by the Yemen war on Capitol Hill, the White House is likely to use the Khashoggi affair as leverage to force Prince Mohammed to wind down the conflict as quickly as possible. But Saudi experts warn that this will be difficult since an abrupt Saudi retreat would further tarnish the prince’s image inside the kingdom.

“It’s very clear that what the administration wants is to buy off Congress with Yemen,” Mr. Riedel said. “But it doesn’t solve the underlying problem, which is that Mohammed bin Salman is a destabilizing force in the region.”

Theresa May travels to Brussels this week ahead of Sunday's EU summit. The word is that she is trying to secure concessions to keep additional ministers from bolting her cabinet. As Reuters reports, "The EU is due to hold a summit to discuss the draft deal on Nov. 25. Some Brexit-supporting ministers are reported to want to rewrite parts of it, though Germany has ruled this out." (Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism predicted that this would happen, that the draft would be used to elicit more negotiations with the EU.)

At the same time the number of Tory letters asking for a confidence vote is approaching the magic number 48. My guess is a confidence vote is a sideshow and that the real danger for May is more defections from her cabinet.

Corbyn came out yesterday and agreed to a second Brexit referendum. The die is cast. May goes. Snap elections. New parliament. Re-vote Brexit.

The problem is the March 29 deadline. Can it be postponed?

Trump Shifts from Rope-a-Dope to Cover-up on Khashoggi

The big announcement on the Khashoggi affair that Trump had promised last week ended up being nothing of the sort. Seventeen Saudi nationals were sanctioned for their role in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That news was overshadowed by the announcement of the Saudi public prosecutor that the kingdom would seek the death penalty for five of the accused. Then that news was overtaken the following day, Friday, by the CIA's conclusion that crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was to blame for the plot to assassinate and dismember Khashoggi in Istanbul.

Yesterday, in response to questions about the CIA conclusion, Trump promised another really big announcement, this one in two days.

The resignation Friday of the National Security Council official responsible for the Persian Gulf is a strong tell that in two days the Trump White House will shield the crown prince from punishment for his role as mastermind of the Khashoggi hit. Some form of window dressing will be presented as suitable reprisal for a rogue operation right under MbS's nose, and then the administration will turn the page.

The problem is that it won't be possible to turn the page.

On the Khashoggi affair Trump has made the slight but nonetheless discernible (and momentous) shift from rope-a-dope to cover-up. He's going from a position of "Okay, let's wait and see." to "The crown prince is not the guilty party. Let's move on."

The Western media monopoly will cry "Huzzah!" and flambé the administration. Khashoggi news already regularly tops the Reuters world news feed; The New York Times publishes a new substantive report seemingly daily. The paper's video documentary is a compelling indictment that the Khashoggi hit was so elaborate it must have had state sanction. And remember, in Saudi Arabia the royal family is the state.

The other prime player who will block any Trump move to change the subject is Erdogan. What got lost last week is David Kirkpatrick's story "Turkey Calls for International Inquiry in Khashoggi Killing."

Even if Trump attempts to cover-up for the crown prince Turkey is prepared to go to the United Nations. Then what the does the U.S. do, vote against a fact-finding commission? After its ruckus over the Skripals?

Then there is congress. To avoid a vote on U.S. support for the war on Yemen, the GOP, which controls the house for a couple more months, tucked it into a bill removing the gray wolf from the endangered species list. It narrowly passed. This gives you an idea how toxic anything having to do with al-Saud is now. While in the senate you have Bernie Sanders crusading against U.S. involvement in Yemen.

When the new Democratic house takes over in January there will be no way to stop it from invoking the War Powers Act. That's why there is a push now by the Saudi-UAE-U.S. coalition to take Hodeidah before the end of the year. That's why peace talks were called off until the end of the year.

By fronting for crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Trump is about to make things exponentially worse for himself and the House of Saud.

Not Enough Time on the Current Calendar for Another Brexit Referendum

The conventional wisdom that seems to have cohered over the last few days is that May's Brexit deal is dead on arrival in parliament. An example is Benjamin Mueller's "Theresa May and Her Brexit Deal Are on the Brink. Here’s What We Know":

There’s little chance the deal gets through Parliament.

The agreement, struck between negotiators in Brussels and Mrs. May’s government, faces a long road ahead, even if Mrs. May manages to hold on to her job.

The first stop (if it gets that far) is a summit meeting of European Union leaders on Nov. 25. The deal has their support, and it will ultimately need the backing of the European Parliament.

More troublesome is a mid-December vote by the British Parliament, which also gets a say on the agreement. Mrs. May needs 320 votes there for a majority. By one estimate, she will have to cobble together about 85 of those from members of the opposition Labour Party and deeply skeptical allies.

The problem is that a divided country has finally been united — in disliking the deal.

For those who want Britain to remain in the European Union, the deal is worse than staying in the bloc under the current terms, because it forces Britain to adopt European trading rules without having a say in what they are.

For those who want to sever ties, it’s worse than a clean split from the European Union, because the agreement could trap the country in a regulatory system it can’t unilaterally leave.

For anyone keeping up with the reporting on Brexit the present situation was inevitable. This past summer you had Corbyn come out against May's Chequers plan; Nicola Sturgeon signaled her opposition; Boris Johnson resigned. So it has been sort of obvious since July what this outcome would be. The only thing that has kept us in a state of suspension of disbelief is a mainstream media and its "go along to get along" relationship with government.

A re-vote of the 2016 referendum seems the only clear path out of the impasse. In order for that to happen I think snap elections have to be called, a Labour government elected and then a new Brexit referendum staged.

It doesn't look like there is time for that though. The end date is March 29, 2019. If May's Brexit deal isn't going to be voted by parliament until mid-December, that means her coalition won't collapse until then (because it looks like she will survive any near-term confidence vote).

May's government has to go pronto.

Brexit Chickens Come Home to Roost

“It is ... mathematically impossible to get this deal through the House of Commons. The stark reality is that it was dead on arrival,” Conservative lawmaker Mark Francois said.

The first comment to make about the crisis that has erupted for Theresa May's government following the meeting of her cabinet yesterday to approve a draft Brexit agreement is how sunny the first stories were. I was looking at the Reuters world news site yesterday afternoon and the message was, "What a triumph for May!"; "Rule, Britannia!"; "Pass me the orange marmalade!" Stephen Castle's report for The New York Times, "Brexit Deal Gets Backing From Theresa May’s Cabinet," is a good example:

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain faced down hard-line critics Wednesday and won the support of a jittery and divided cabinet for a plan to quit the European Union, preserving her push to avert an economically damaging rupture with the bloc in March. 

For Mrs. May, frequently criticized as wooden and lacking in strategic thinking, the victory represented a rare validation of her leadership. It also provided a glimmer of light at the end of the Brexit tunnel.

It was all bullshit.

This morning Castle performs an abrupt about-face in "Two U.K. Cabinet Ministers, Including Chief Brexit Negotiator, Quit," so much so a reader could sustain a whiplash injury:

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain faced a deep political crisis on Thursday after two cabinet ministers quit her government, including Dominic Raab, her chief negotiator on withdrawal from the European Union — decisions that threaten to wreck not only her plans for the exit but also her leadership.

The surprise resignation of Mr. Raab on Thursday morning followed a tense, five-hour meeting of the cabinet the previous day, during which ministers reluctantly agreed to sign off on Mrs. May’s draft plans for departure from the European Union, a process commonly known as Brexit.

Mr. Raab’s departure was not only unexpected but also deeply damaging to Mrs. May’s authority, increasing the risk that she might face a leadership challenge from rebel lawmakers inside her own Conservative Party.

Shortly after his announcement, Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, resigned, adding to the turmoil.

Reuters, which is where the quote at the top of the post originates, is much the same this morning: "British PM May battles to save Brexit deal as ministers quit." The Guardian is running a live blog.

As ministerial resignations multiply, a confidence vote will likely take place. May needs the support of majority of Conservative Party MPs to survive. She might get it because there is no clear candidate to succeed her.

Yves Smith susses out the details in her post "Brexit: Brexit Minister Raab Resigns; May to Face Hostile Parliament. Update: Two More Resignations, Bringing Total So Far to Four, Now Six."

What's fueling the revolt is all that doom and gloom about what was in the draft agreement proved to be true -- a customs union that amounts to "vassalage"; an Irish backstop which effectively separates Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom -- and what's worse, the agreement, rather than being merely transitional, acting as a bridge while Britain and the EU negotiate a fuller understanding, appears to be more permanent than anticipated.

It's obvious that May's coalition government is cooked. It's past time for new elections.

May's Days are Numbered

The text of the draft Brexit deal has not been made public. Prime minister Theresa May will present it to her cabinet shortly. The question is how many of her ministers will resign when the text reveals what most suspect, what Yves Smith has termed a "half-pregnant Brexit": a customs arrangement with the European Union which maintains duty- and quota-free access along with EU regulations on competition, state subsidies, as well as adherence to European Court of Justice rulings; and there will be some sort of Irish backstop, which for all intents and purposes will bind Northern Ireland closer to the Republic of Ireland.

No one likes this deal. Tory "Leave" ultras, "Remain" neoliberals, Corbyn Momentum Labourites, Ulster unionists all have promised to reject May's draft if it contains what people think it does.

Stephen Castle captures the prevailing sentiment at the end of his story "Britain and E.U. Agree on a Draft Deal for Brexit":

One influential pro-Brexit lawmaker, Steve Baker, said on Tuesday that about 50 pro-Brexit Conservative lawmakers might oppose Mrs. May’s deal.

“What the prime minister is likely to ask us to support is not merely imperfect. It is to put us into a position that is worse than Article 50, worse than E.U. membership — less of a voice, more difficult to escape from.”

“It’s not kind of a grubby compromise that we can put up with and sort later,” he added. “It’s worse than membership.”

Even if May can weather this cabinet meeting without a revolt, and she is then able to present the draft to the EU for a vote at the end of the month, it will still have to clear the British parliament after that, and, from what I can tell, there's no way that happens.

For one, May's coalition partner, Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, is opposed. According to The New York Times' helpful "Brexit Draft Deal: Moment of Truth for May as U.K. Cabinet to Meet":

The prime minister’s Conservative Party does not have a majority in Parliament, so her government relies on Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, which voiced opposition to the deal even before it was made public.

The D.U.P.’s leader, Arlene Foster, made clear in her statement late Tuesday that she was not happy with the emerging deal. She was traveling to London on Wednesday.

Jeffrey Donaldson, a senior D.U.P lawmaker, went further, telling the BBC on Wednesday that what he had heard of the draft Brexit deal “undermines the constitutional and economic integrity” of the United Kingdom, and warning that he was not afraid of precipitating a general election by opposing the plan.

I don't have an organic sense of the British parliamentary system, but it seems to me that if the DUP is unhappy with the draft Brexit deal once it's made public the Orangemen can collapse May's government even before the deal reaches a parliamentary vote.

Brexit was never about economics; it was always about politics and the Conservative Party's effort to staunch the bleeding caused by UKIP's Little Englanders.

Just as the road is running out on Trump's "Lost Cause" nationalism, so too are the days numbered for Theresa May and her attempts to muddle through with a Brexit vote she inherited.

Khashoggi Back in the News

Now that the U.S. midterm elections are out of the way -- with the exception of high-profile races in Florida and Georgia -- a steady diet of Khashoggi news has resumed. On successive days over the holiday weekend the NYT's David Kirkpatrick, the Gray Lady's principal reporter during the Arab Spring revolution in Cairo's Tahrir Square, with various pen pals, published:

• "Turkey’s President Says Recording of Khashoggi’s Killing Was Given to U.S."
• "Saudis Close to Crown Prince Discussed Killing Other Enemies a Year Before Khashoggi’s Death"
• "‘Tell Your Boss’: Recording Is Seen to Link Saudi Crown Prince More Strongly to Khashoggi Killing"

Before Erdogan arrived in Paris for the centenary commemorating the end of World War One, he announced at a press conference in Ankara that Turkey had provided to the U.S., Germany, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia copies of the audio recording of Khashoggi's murder. The U.S. declined to comment. France denied it.

Sunday The New York Times tied in the Mueller probe with the Khashoggi killing by reporting that George Nader and Joel Zamel met with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman's right-hand an, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, to pitch a plan to sabotage Iran's economy. Al-Assiri was more interested in talking about Murder, Inc. He wanted to know if Nader and Zamel could assassinate Qassim Suleimani, the leader of the Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Nader demurred, but said that there was a company in the UK that he could refer al-Assiri to.

As Kirkpatrick and his co-authors put it:

Both Mr. Nader and Mr. Zamel are witnesses in the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, and prosecutors have asked them about their discussions with American and Saudi officials about the Iran proposal. It is unclear how this line of inquiry fits into Mr. Mueller’s broader inquiry. In 2016, a company owned by Mr. Zamel, Psy-Group, had pitched the Trump campaign on a social media manipulation plan.

Then, yesterday, something of a first. We are actually getting snippets of dialogue from the Khashoggi murder audio recording. One of the 15-man Saudi hit team, Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, can be heard to say, Tell your boss the deed is done.

Of course Mutreb doesn't say, Tell MbS the deed is done. But at this point everyone knows that the crown prince is guilty of murder.

Trump has promised a big announcement this week of punitive measures directed at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So far all the U.S. has managed are public statements promising to discontinue in-flight refueling of Saudi-UAE fighter-bombers and promising to level sanctions against the guilty Saudis under the Global Magnitsky Act.

Trump sinks or swims with the crown prince. The administration's launch of its total embargo on Iran got off to a shaky start last week. But all in all it's proceeding as planned. SWIFT has cut off Iran's central bank. The Iranian economy will be suffocated gradually.The U.S. needs Saudi regional clout. It can't sanction both al-Saud and the Islamic Republic of Iran simultaneously and expect anything other than failure. So expect Trump's "big announcement" about Saudi Arabia to be all smoke and mirrors.

A real difficulty for the U.S. position in Yemen is that control of the House now returns to the Democrats. There are plenty of indicators that Congress is not going to be satisfied with an administration proclamation ending mid-air refueling. All assistance to the Saudi-UAE coalition must stop.

Hodeidah is hanging by a thread. Peace talks have been pushed back to the end of the year, not the end of the month as originally promised. The Saudis no doubt demanded the delay in order to have time to capture Hodeidah and bring the Houthis to the bargaining table as supplicants. As is often reported, 80 percent of all food comes through Hodeidah. Once the Saudi-UAE-U.S. coalition takes control of Hodeidah, they control Sanaa.

One positive development to note: the reporting on the war in Yemen has definitely improved since the Khashoggi assassination. For instance, the latest dispatch from Al Jazeera goes beyond the usual "more than 10,000 killed," citing 56,000, and then concludes:

Concerned by the rise of the Houthis, a US-backed Saudi-UAE military coalition intervened in 2015 with a massive air campaign aimed at reinstalling Hadi's government.

Since then, data collected by Al Jazeera and the Yemen Data Project has found that more than 18,000 air attacks have been carried out in Yemen, with almost one-third of all bombing missions striking non-military sites.

Weddings, funerals, schools and hospitals, as well as water and electricity plants, have been targeted, killing and wounding thousands.

Some Thoughts on the National Football League Season Currently Underway

There is plenty to consider this Friday morning -- a breakthrough on Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU is rumored; the Saudi-UAE-U.S.-led offensive against Hodeidah is approaching a tipping point; peace talks between the U.S. and North Korea have been postponed -- but I want to unburden myself in regards to the National Football League.

We're currently in week ten of a 17 week regular season, which is followed by another month of playoffs, capped by the U.S. religious national holiday, the Super Bowl.

At an earlier time I used to post regularly on the National Football League. So far this season, I've done only one. It had to do with the season opener and the continuing panic over the ratings drop.

There is some evidence from the beginning of the season that the loss of viewers has ceased. The reason being given is an increase in high-scoring, competitive games.

I think that's a fair assessment. The problem is, I'd say, is that the games over the last month-plus, while still high scoring, have not been competitive. Take last night's game in Pittsburgh. The Steelers routed the Panthers in a blowout. From early in the second quarter the outcome was never really in doubt.

It's a problem for the league if two of the marquee teams can't provide engaging entertainment.

Another example: Last Sunday night's ballyhooed match-up between Brady and Rodgers, Patriots vs. Packers. It was basically a nothing burger. Brady is still Brady, maybe a notch or two below what he was in his prime, but Rodgers is clearly not the player he once was. His game is based on mobility and peak athleticism. He's suffered too many injuries; and now that he's in his mid-30s, his powers of rejuvenation are greatly diminished. It's a problem for the league because Aaron Rodgers is its commercial exemplar.

There are other problems too: the horrendous quality of the Oakland Raiders and the disappearance of Marshawn Lynch; the poor start of the defending champion Philadelphia Eagles; the horrendous quality of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Bright spots are the rise of the Los Angeles Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs and their prolific offenses.

We'll have to take a look at the ratings after the Thanksgiving holiday. We very well could see a return to last year's poor numbers.

2018 Midterms: Realignment Election

This morning World Socialist Web Site argues that the European elite, based on press reaction to Tuesday's midterms in the United States, believe Trump is here to stay and the constituents of the "indispensable nation" have fully embraced fascism.

That's way off base. Trump showed the inherent weakness of the Bannon strategy of catering to a hard-shell Dixiecrat base. Yes, Trump triumphed in the senate, but that victory only highlighted the essentially undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate.

The piece to read this morning is Thomas Edsall's "The Polarizer-in-Chief Meets the Midterms." Edsall goes into the Trump lock on the senate. He also succinctly lays out the import of the 2018 midterms in his opening paragraphs. Basically, thanks to Trump, it was a realignment election, but not in the ways the Republican Party wants:

There is no clearer sign of the changing shape of the Democratic coalition than the fact that going into the 2018 midterm elections, six of the 20 richest congressional districts were represented by Republicans but that when the new Congress is sworn in, all 20 will be represented by Democrats.

The Democratic Party is continuing to extend its core support among minority constituencies — now 41 percent of the Democratic electorate— into upscale, often suburban, areas as college-educated white women abandon the Republican Party in droves and as education, more broadly, becomes a new partisan dividing line.

There are, to give another example, 13 well-to-do congressional districts that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. All 13 have Republican congressman. On Tuesday, Democrats won 10 of those districts.

What European observers don't understand about U.S. politics is it never strays far from the Civil War. That's bedrock. Needless to say, it's not terribly wise to base a strategy for national governance on the Lost Cause.

Hillary Deemed the Big Winner, Pelosi likely Speaker and Trump on Thin Ice for 2020

The tally this Wednesday morning is Democrats +26, with votes in tossup California districts still being counted. So it's likely to look like Democrats +30 when all is said and done. Enough to control the U.S. House of Representatives, but nowhere near the blue tsunami predictions of Dems +50 of several months ago.

Trump's midterm shellacking is looking a lot like the shellacking that W. took his second midterm in 2006. Then, hailed as a great blue dog triumph, it was Dems +30, with Nancy Pelosi becoming the first female speaker of the house.

Interestingly, the principal "morning after" write-up in The New York Times ("Democrats Capture Control of House; G.O.P. Holds Senate" by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns) attributes Democratic gains to Clintonian centrism:

The Democrats’ broad gains in the House, and their capture of several powerful governorships, in many cases represented a vindication of the party’s more moderate wing. The candidates who delivered the House majority largely hailed from the political center, running on clean-government themes and promises of incremental improvement to the health care system rather than transformational social change.

To this end, the Democratic gains Tuesday came in many of the country’s most affluent suburbs, communities Mrs. Clinton carried, but they also surprised Republicans in some more conservative metropolitan areas. Kendra Horn, for example, pulled off perhaps the upset of the night by defeating Representative Steve Russell in central Oklahoma.

FiveThirtyEight agrees, saying the Democratic capture of the house is attributable to the party's strong showing in Romney-Clinton districts:

Indeed, a theme of the evening was that suburban areas came up big for Democrats.

We’ve often used so-called “Romney-Clinton districts” as a stand-in for these areas — districts that voted for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 but switched their allegiance to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Republicans had hoped that these places had voted for Clinton because of an aversion to President Trump, but that they would remain loyal to their more traditionally Republican representatives. That didn’t end up being the case. Not only did Democratic House candidates win most Romney-Clinton districts, but in at least six of the 13 races, they did so by margins that exceeded Clinton’s margin over Trump.

Given this conventional wisdom, don't bet against Pelosi resuming her role as speaker.

But what does this election say about Trump? He's popular with rural America, not popular in the suburbs and despised in the metropolis.

What's interesting is that if we look at the Trump GOP through the lens of Kevin Phillips' breakthrough The Emerging Republican Majority we see a Republican Party moving in the opposite direction from the one Phillips' plotted. Phillips saw the future of the GOP in the new working-class suburbs created out of white flight and "negrophobia." Those suburbs are now Democratic (Washington's Eighth CD is a wonderful illustration). Overtly racist messaging is not enough anymore. The only place lynch-mob appeals resonate is with the rural electorate.

And you can't capture the electoral college with rural votes alone.

Europe Awaits U.S. Midterm Election Results

Besides igniting a conflagration in the Middle East that has the potential to dwarf all others of the last 40 years, Trump's war on Iran, which began phase two yesterday with punishing sanctions on the Iranian energy and banking sector, is a challenge to Europe. Can Europe act on its own or is it merely an appendage of the United States?

We'll find out shortly.

The European Union has vowed to stick with Iranian nuclear deal, the JCPoA, the deal that Trump is trying to scuttle. In order to keep Iran's economy from collapsing, Europe must find a way around U.S. control of the global banking system.

Steven Erlanger reports in "As U.S. Sanctions on Iran Kick In, Europe Looks for a Workaround" that

But the Europeans have found it difficult to set up an alternative payment mechanism to sidestep the American-dominated banking system and allow Iran to continue selling its oil and goods. The so-called special purpose vehicle would act as a clearing house: Iran’s proceeds from sales of oil and gas would be offset against Iranian purchases, a form of barter without explicit financial transactions.

So far, however, no European country has agreed to host the vehicle, for fear of American retaliation.

In a joint statement issued on Friday, the European Union foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and the foreign and finance ministers of Britain, France and Germany said they “deeply regret” the reimposition of American sanctions and that work would continue to set up the special payment vehicle.

“We remain committed to implementing” the nuclear deal “as a matter of respecting international agreements and of our shared international security, and expect Iran to play a constructive role in this regard,” the statement said.

Realistically, European officials say, they may be able to preserve only 20 percent to 30 percent of existing trade with Iran, given that large European companies with ties to the United States have already pulled out of Iran or are in the process of doing so to avoid the sanctions. Stefano Stefanini, a consultant and former Italian diplomat based in Brussels, said that the European officials think 40 percent would be optimistic.

Of all the issues between Europe and the Trump administration, Iran has become the most divisive. The Europeans are actively working against United States policy, which effectively puts them in league with Russia, China and Iran.

“It is a huge strain in the trans-Atlantic relationship,” Mr. Stefanini said.

If the Europeans manage to create “a small breach in the hold that the U.S. has on international financial transactions, that could be replicated,” he said. And if they fail, he said, “it will be another big grievance with Washington, creating another minefield.”

So far, European unity is holding, but there are worries among some European officials that Britain may not remain so firm in the face of a Washington that wants to give little quarter to Iran.

There is plenty to be skeptical about in terms of Europe's chances of pulling this off: Germany is headed for elections sooner rather than later; the UK, for Brexit; Italy, for confrontation with Brussels. It's not a propitious time to strike a blow to dollar hegemony and erect the foundation of a future multi-polar world.

On the other hand, the existential nature of the breech between Europe and the United States is reason for hope. It is now -- after the about-face on the JCPoA, after Yemen, after Khashoggi -- undeniable in elite circles that the U.S. is an unhinged, predatory, destructive power. There is no pot of gold at the end of the U.S. rainbow. It's all death and destruction.

Capitals around the globe are watching to see what happens today. Does the population of the "indispensable nation" support this rainbow of death and destruction?

If Trump somehow manages to hold the House for the GOP, and thereby earns distinction as a super-historical figure of realignment in a class with FDR, then Europe will have to quickly get busy building bridges to Russia and China.

Then again if the Democratic vote is solid and Trump is rejected by a wide margin Europe will probably want to dawdle for another couple of years waiting for the next Obamaesque neoliberal savior to materialize in 2020 and knit the uni-polar world back together.

2018 Midterms

Consensus opinion is tomorrow the Democrats will win the House; the Republicans, the Senate. Nothing in the last month -- the pipe bombs, a synagogue shooting or the immigrant caravan -- has changed this overall picture.

Trump has made the midterms about himself, which, while helping the GOP hold the Senate (by boosting rural turnout), guarantees strong Democratic participation at the polls, something we saw numerous times in various special elections over the last year-plus.

The Democrats don't have a unifying set of policies or a unified leadership, but what they do have is a "Never Trump" message. In this case, "No" should be enough. Much has been made about Trump's rock-solid 40% support, but the other side of that coin is the rock-solid national majority that disapproves of Trump.

These midterms are the first national election since the Trumpocalypse of 2016. Not only is Trump tilting against a generic ballot that favors Democrats (albeit one that has narrowed substantially), but he is also tilting against history. In the last century, the president's party almost always loses seats. The two exceptions were FDR during the dark days of the Great Depression and George W. Bush post-9/11. Trump is not in the same category of super-history. But it's not for lack of trying.

I live in a very blue bubble. Voter registration is up in the King County. This is a good sign because, for the most part, King County determines which way the state votes. There is a modest carbon "fee" on the statewide ballot, which has been a magnet for millions of dollars in Big Oil attack ads.

There is also a competitive race in the suburban 8th CD that has been held by the GOP for decades. My guess is that if the Democrats can capture the district it will mean that Trump is routed.

Trump's Iranian Oil Sanctions already a Bust

In "Despite Stigma of Khashoggi Killing, Crown Prince Is Seen as Retaining Power," by David Kirkpatrick and Ben Hubbard, the two reporters assess Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman's standing a month into the Khashoggi affair. (The story today is that Khashoggi's body was dismembered and then dissolved.)

Elite opinion considers the U.S.-Saudi strategy of waiting out the public's outrage to be a winning one. The Trump administration appears confident that it can limit to the merely cosmetic any sanctions that congress might impose. Already military brass and banking "masters of the universe" are speaking up on behalf of the kingdom:

One person familiar with the White House deliberations said the administration expected that bipartisan pressure from Congress will force the imposition of some sanctions.

But the White House intends to keep the sanctions limited enough to avoid a rupture with Prince Mohammed. For one thing, he remains central to the plans of the president’s son-in-law and Middle East adviser, Jared Kushner, including hopes to build an Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran and to pressure the Palestinians into a peace agreement.

Two people close to the Saudi royal court said Mr. Kushner and Prince Mohammed communicate often, including by text message, and multiple times since Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance. A White House spokesman declined to comment about those communications.

[snip]

The crown prince’s stature in Washington may be stabilizing, with at least a handful of American voices extolling the importance of the Saudi-American alliance.

“There is no change in any military relationship we have with Saudi Arabia,” Gen. Joseph Votel, the top United States commander in the Middle East, told the military publication Defense One.

Major figures in finance signaled that they, too, intended to look past the killing. “I understand the emotion around the story,” John Flint, the chief executive of HSBC, told Reuters, “but it is very difficult to think about disengaging from Saudi Arabia given its importance to global energy markets.”

Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JP Morgan Chase, said that he had accomplished “nothing” by dropping out of the prince’s investment conference and that his bank expected to continue to pursue business with the kingdom. “Being engaged is not a bad thing; it does not mean you condone everything,” Mr. Dimon said at a conference organized by the publication Axios.

Ms. Yahya, of the Carnegie Middle East Center, said such responses send an instructive message to other Arab strongmen.

“You can be even more brutal than you already are,” she said. “Just be smarter about it next time. Don’t kill a well-known journalist inside a consulate.”

The crown prince's public rehabilitation is a necessity because Monday Trump launches his oil sanctions on Iran.

Always a long shot, today's announcement of sanction waivers to some of Iran's biggest customers (India, Japan) is basically an acknowledgment of failure by the administration.

Gardiner Harris had a good write-up the other day ("As New Sanctions Loom, U.S. Push Against Iran Faces Steep Obstacles") about the delusional nature of Trump's Iranian oil sanctions:

The administration’s stated goal for its sanctions campaign is for Iran to make a dozen fundamental changes to its domestic and foreign policies, including ending its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Few analysts believe the present Iranian government could fulfill the demands and survive.

“There is no way the Trump administration will be able to achieve its 12 stated objectives because they’re utterly unrealistic,” said Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Unless significant changes are made, it’s a policy destined to fail.”

Pompeo Calls for Ceasfire in Yemen

According to "U.S. and Britain Seek Yemen Cease-Fire as Relations With Saudis Cool," by Gardiner Harris, Eric Schmitt and Rick Gladstone:

Mr. Pompeo emphasized that the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are fighting the Saudi-led coalition, must first stop firing missiles at Saudi Arabia and its chief ally, the United Arab Emirates. But he also said that “subsequently, coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen.”

Note the "in all populated areas" qualifier. So Pompeo's ceasefire appears to apply only to cities.

The Pompeo ceasefire is being interpreted as a way to salvage the war on Yemen before Congress returns to work:

Already troubled by the Yemen war and outraged over Mr. Khashoggi’s killing, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been calling on the Trump administration to penalize Saudi Arabia. On Wednesday, five Republican senators asked President Trump to cut off civilian nuclear talks with the Saudis in a letter reported by NBC News.

The administration’s Yemen cease-fire proposal appeared aimed at least in part at heading off congressional fury and preserving the Saudi relationship.

“This is clearly something that’s driven by events that the U.S. government wants to get out in front of,” said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Whether the calls by the United States and Britain will be backed by stronger action to pressure the Saudis and other combatants in the conflict was not clear.