1."Riyadh can no longer automatically depend upon U.S. diplomatic and military support against Iran in its
competition for power and influence in the Persian Gulf. "
It would seem that Saudi (and a few friends) and Israel have been the ones messing around in the internal affairs of other Nations in the area. Getting stabbed in the back by a 'former partner' is not a new trend for the US of Israel. In a year or so when Iran's health is back to where it should have been 30 years ago and the advances in human rights that will be on display with contrast sharply with the oppressive regimes of Saudi and the Arab States that went along with her in trying to overthrow the Syrian Government.
2. "This explains Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's uncompromising hostility toward the Geneva agreement even at the expense of doing grave damage to Israeli-U.S. relations. "
The damage was done by Russia, a few moves that pointed to her coming to Syria's aid with the newest hardware that is more than a match (defensive action) than Israel aiding the rebels with hi-tech air support. (arrow3 munitions and aircraft used as the diversion to hide how the explosives were delivered)
3. "Prospects of improved relations with Iran are likely to nudge Washington further down this road thus fracturing the international alliance against Assad and reducing prospects of genuine regime change in Damascus."
It isn't going to work like that, that 737 crash in Russia was a fencepost through the heart of American foreign policy. The US would love that deal, Russia is the one who will get all the 'contracts' for Iran and Syria and the EU and Israel won't bat an eye as the US dollar goes belly up and North America (US and Canada) will be a living example of why you better not start a war you can't finish. Don't think the Bankers are just watchers from the sideline, they are the ones that pull the strings.
4."The Iranian-U.S. rapprochement is likely to lower the political temperature in Iraq and improve Maliki's chances of maintaining control thus conceding to Iran the role of the primary external player in Iraq at least for the next several years, if not indefinitely. "
The US will lose all influence, China is already making large investments that will pull Iraq into her corner of commerce. (rather than military strength)
5. "The battle for a post-Hamid Karzai Afghanistan is already on between the Taliban and the Kabul regime on the one hand and among the various factions and ethnic groups contending for power and influence in the country on the other."
He could stay in power simply by not renewing any deals with the US as 'support', even Libya will get UN Troops rather than American troops to quell the violence that came as a result of a false war against Libya.
That about sums up my view of the article. The headlines can push the US as being the 'instigator' and it is simply wrong, US has to go along because she nor Israel can take on either Iran or (even more-so) Russia. We have enough resourses that our economy could survive intact but we better get out of foreing politics and get down to fixing what is wrong in our own backyard or we will end up asking Haiti for a hand-out. (another failed US run operation)
