The Trump-Kushner team found a way to give the Arab countries something they wanted at a price Israel could afford.

Arabs have no illusions about Turkey given the historical treatment of Arabs under the Ottoman Empire and its no secret that the Turks are not too fond of Arabs.
Iranians think even worse of Arabs.

Though Turkey and Iran are now vying for ME hegemony, do not think that their mutual distrust will obviate some sort of alliance betwixt the two. Stranger things have happened as history demonstrates.

In the most cynical sense, one can say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend; thus allowing some Arab nations (and more will jump on this train) to recognize Israel.
That being said, there no way on earth that Obama or Bush II could have done what Trump did.

Extraneous events may grease the skids for major policy changes, but it takes a PERSON(S) to initiate that change or take advantage of that change.
This is where Trump excels.

He saw the futility of all previous peace initiatives in the ME and also saw that these previous failures did not influence in the slightest the world view of the State Dept / foreign affairs “experts;” they were bound by ideology and “process,” and could not / would not see outside of the 30 year old paradigm of no peace unless the Palestinians could be brought around.

Obama bought into this paradigm and given his hate-America-first worldview and his contempt for Israel, he would never would have even considered brokering any deal whatsoever. And I will surmise that all his advisors were selected by him because they would not disagree with him (in which case, why have advisors? mirrors are much cheaper).

Bush II never could have done this deal either; I just don’t think he would have had the foresight nor personality to buck the prevailing foreign affairs “experts.”

REAL leaders – good or bad – know when to jump into the fray and effect change. They see circumstances unfolding and realize they can and should attempt something previously considered impossible.

Regarding “equilibrium” in “…a new geostrategic equilibrium…”, this is pure Obama-administration Orwellian double-speak: using a neutral—even desirable or positive—term in connection with one of the world’s top sponsors and exporters (if not the top sponsor/exporter) of state terrorism, a tyrannical Islamic state that intimidates and oppresses significant segments of its own population, attacks its neighbors when it feels it has to make a point and consistently threatens to destroy the State of Israel.

To be sure, what Obama calls “equilibrium” is “superiority”.

Of course, there’s no push-back by the media hacks covering the story.

Regarding Iran’s declared and acted-upon intentions “to go nuclear both to counter the strength of Israel and because of its minority Shite (sic) position…” such an assessment appears to ignore—though perhaps it is implied—a) the Mullahs’ threats not merely to “counter” Israel but to destroy it; and b) the religio-ideological dimension of the Islamic “Republic’s” need for Shiite dominance in the Shiite-Sunni feud/battle (for historical reasons going back over 12 centuries), including threats to attack its immediate neighbors should the latter behave in ways the mullahs believe is against Iran’s interests of regional hegemony (AKA “equilibrium” according to Obama).

To be sure, intense paranoia within the Islamic world cultivated successfully down the ages (not always unjustifiedly)—and particularly amongst certain elements of the Shia—is a great motivator to behave aggressively towards one’s perceived enemies.

I am kind of surprised that with the push by Iran to go nuclear, that SA did not just already go and buy weapons from Pakistan. But perhaps they don’t trust themselves to have a nuclear capability as they are technically limited and have internal tribal rivalries to manage as well.

That link was an error for some reason. I don’t have time to find the post right now and link to it again, but it was to an old article of mine (2015) about Iran, about the same person you had linked to.

I’m not sure what you mean by “blind links.” If you mouse over a link you’ll see what it is before you ever click on it. If it had been the link I intended it to be, you would have seen that it was a post on my blog with a title that would have explained the relevance.

Your links usually lead me to something I already know or I’ve already read or, in this case, something I wrote an hour ago.

Generally speaking, I don’t click on blind links anyway. If someone doesn’t have the time to provide a clue why a link is meaningful to me, I don’t have the time to bother clicking.

Please see this.

They’re on the same page vis-a-vis “The Big Satan” and “The Little Satan”.

(It’s called “double track” strategizing. But even so if one wishes, one could stroke one’s chin and analyze it til the cows come home….)

True enough, it was looking pretty clear that The Little Satan was (and is) an easier target.

But come Tuesday, we’ll see just how vulnerable the Obama administration correctly(?) judged the situation in America.

File under: How do you solve a problem like Those Big and Little Satans?….

As far as the president is concerned, the less we know about his Iran plans, the better. Yet those plans, as Rhodes stressed, are not a minor or incidental component of his foreign policy. To the contrary, they are central to his administration’s strategic thinking about the role of the United States in the world, and especially in the Middle East.

–Michael Doran, “Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy”
https://www.hudson.org/research/10989-obama-s-secret-iran-strategy

This is certainly true, but it’s an aspect of credentialism. Where those with credentials are assumed competent, and those without are … not.

All the experts have been writing articles and books and giving interviews dispensing with their mostly consensus “wisdom”, and getting plenty of high pay and status for it. But writing books about facts – who did what when where & how – was easy to check. But “why” the leaders and people did what they did, “why” is never a “repeatable fact”, with people.

In science, why something does or doesn’t work, or how well, has unchanging reasons. With people, because people are always changing, why they did something in the past is never a scientific guide to what they’ll do in the future, like tomorrow.

These (not really) experts thought they knew why the actors acted they way they did. What they thought about others was wrong, even about many they thought they knew. Credentialed folk HATE to be wrong.

Sometimes I’m wrong. I hate it. If I’m talking to my wife, she notes that I’m upset at her – but I’m not. I am upset that I was wrong, so I am upset and talking to her while upset. Now we joke about it, because we became conscious of this. But there times in the past it was a problem.

Many experts hate being wrong; and Trump is showing (the world!) that they’re wrong; so their hatred of being wrong becomes hatred of being shown wrong becomes hatred of Trump showing that they’re wrong.

That emotional (but usually unrecognized) feeling is then amplified by media lies and expert rationalizations (??!) and support from their Hate Trump echo chamber, so they even think they have good “reasons” for hating Trump. But a big part of it is that they were wrong, and hate that.

Also note that I work hard to find Truth, so that I’m seldom wrong on facts. People good at avoiding wrong facts are usually the ones who get credentials as experts, and it is good to get facts right. Credentialed folk who are Trump haters are used being better at getting facts right, so it’s tough for them to see how it’s possible for their analysis to be not right.

Fear of Shia Iran’s nukes and loss of Saudi leadership is likely the biggest driver of the Sunni greater willingness to deal above the table with Israel. It was Trump whose artistry got the Deal. (He wrote the book! Read many years ago.)