No Peace Dividend from Bolton's Firing

The Saudis major oil processing facility, the largest in the world, Abqaiq, was struck and damaged Saturday by a swarm of Houthi drones. Aramco has suspended production there and at another struck refinery, Khurais.

The debate now is over who is responsible. The Houthis have claimed responsibility, and the Iranians have denied it, but the U.S. is blaming Iran:

The government released satellite photographs showing what officials said were at least 17 points of impact at several Saudi energy facilities from strikes they said came from the north or northwest. That would be consistent with an attack coming from the direction of the northern Persian Gulf, Iran or Iraq, rather than from Yemen, where the Iranian-backed Houthi militia that claimed responsibility for the strikes operates.

The Saudis, however, have not, as of yet, publicly blamed Iran. And Trump appears to be deferring to al-Saud about what to do next.

The Saudis are obviously reticent to blame Iran and escalate military tension in an already hair-trigger environment because The Kingdom would be Iran's primary target, along with the myriad U.S. bases spread across the region. If Trump chooses to flex U.S. muscles and let fly a punitive one-off attack on Iran, something he opted out of in June after the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, Armageddon will be the likely result. Iran will take the opportunity to break out of the box Trump has put it in.

Any direct military conflict with Iran will guarantee that Trump is a one-term president. War with Iran is hugely unpopular, and that's a bipartisan sentiment.

If it looked for a moment like firing Bolton meant Trump would parade as a peacemaker for the next 18 months, no such luck.

Clearly the trajectory here is for Trump to strike Iran. He'll try to limit it to a one-off, but Iran will respond. Then we're on the escalation elevator.