Everybody over 56 years old likely remembers the 18 ½ minute gap in Richard Nixon’s White House Watergate tapes after Nixon had ordered erasures to hide things he said concerning Watergate.  In the current Comey craze of testimony, there’s a 105 ½ hour gap in James Comey’s testimony that proves that critical parts of Comey’s testimony is at best materially false, and, at worst, highly perjurious with the intent of committing crimes against the United States.

That 105 ½ hour gap is the time between when President Trump on Friday morning “tweeted” that “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” and when Comey alleged in his recent Senate Intelligence Committee testimony that he “woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation.”

Between 9:32 Friday morning and let’s guess 3 am that next Monday night, there are approximately 105 and ½ hours.  In short, Comey’s Senate testimony states that it took James B. Comey, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the United States of America, 105 ½ hours after President Trump’s “tapes” tweet to realize “that there might be corroboration” of his memos. This is so ludicrous that it exposes his entire testimony as a web of perjury.

As a preface, this essay is not going to vet the already reported grave chronology inconsistency in Comey’s “memo” testimony.

Instead, ,first, let’s examine the exact documentary record regarding this 105 ½ hour gap.

President Trump’s tweet at 8:26 AM on 12 May 2017 read:

“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

Next, James B. Comey, Jr.’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony under Republican Senator Susan Collins read as follows:

“COLLINS: And finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?

COMEY: Yes.

COLLINS: And to whom did you show copies?

COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday, after I got fired, that I better hope there’s no tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.

And my judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.

COLLINS: And was that Mr. Wittes?

COMEY: No, no.

COLLINS: Who was that?

COMEY: A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.

COLLINS: Thank you.”

Let’s examine Comey’s 105 ½ hour gap on its face.  Can anyone believe Comey woke up in the middle of Monday night 105 ½ hours after Trump’s Friday tweet because until Monday night “it didn’t dawn on [Comey] originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation.”  Can anyone believe that it took the former Director of the FBI 105 ½ hours after Trump’s tweet to have a “dawning” Eureka moment of understanding that there “might be corroboration for our conversation”!  Either Comey 100% lied, or Comey is an idiot.  Since, Comey is clearly not an idiot, it is logically and practically inescapable that Comey is lying about the whole incident.  And his entire testimony on every issue must be viewed as gravely suspect.

Why would Comey  say “I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, because it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might be a tape.”  If Comey’s real-time contemporaneous memos were truly accurate and 100% truthful, why would Comey even need to have “corroboration” to be true? Comey was apparently already more than willing to orally, ex post facto, testify to many things in the past that he didn’t need extra “corroboration” for.  Here, a real-time document is generally, in and of itself, more probative than ex post facto testimony of past event.  So, is Comey saying if Trump had never tweeted about “tapes,” that Comey would never have disclosed the memos?

More to the point, why didn’t Comey, upon his firing, immediately give the memos to his immediate superior, the Deputy Attorney General as vital governmental evidence?  Or, alternatively, why didn’t Comey immediately send his memos to the Senate Intelligence Committee when they requested his testimony?  One would have thought his supposedly “unclassified” memos would have been vital to the Senate committee’s preparation for his testimony.

In conclusion, Comey’s 105 ½ gap proves that the critical core “story” of Comey’s Senate testimony is anomaly.  This is not a he said versus she said” this a “Comey said versus Comey said.”  Something is very, very wrong with Comey’s testimony.  And, there must be an immediate criminal investigation into every aspect of it including subpoenas for Comey’s computers on which he wrote those memos.  The FBI must examine the meta data of those Comey memos and see what and when the memos were written and how they were changed over time.

Much ado has been made about the detailed “Trump said/Comey said” factual narrative that former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. testified to at the recent June 9, 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee under oath and under penalty of perjury.

In this essay, I’m not going to quibble with the factual accuracy of Comey’s Trump allegations.  Nevertheless, from this one Comey transcript and the Comey testimony, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that James B. Comey, Jr. purposely and immutably perjured himself.

How?  In his testimony and written statement, Mr. Comey repeatedly emphasized his contemporaneous believe in the real-time vital and urgent public and governmental purpose of his documenting his conversations with President Trump in contemporaneous written memos.  Comey repeatedly testified that as the then sitting Director of the FBI, he believed that President Trump, now the President of the United States of America, would later “lie” about his Trump/Comey meetings.

And, concomitantly, James B. Comey, Jr., as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acted to protect the hallowed institution of the FBI, and institution of that very American republic, needed to write his contemporaneous real-time memos of his President-Elect, and President Trump conversations – on government laptops in government vehicles, and using governmental instrumentalities.  But in the exact and very same testimony and transcript, Comey testified, under oath, that his contemporaneous real-time memos, written while he was sitting Director of the FBI, were not government or public documents, but were, instead, merely Comey’s own “personal” documents that he could later release however he wanted to, whenever he wanted to, and to whomever he wanted to.

In the abstract, how could a contemporaneous real-time written memorandum,about the “facts” and circumstances of a Presidential meeting, written by a sitting Director of the FBI, where the FBI Director wrote the memo specifically and solely because the FBI Director believed that the President of the United States of America would later “lie” about the legal and factual substance of the meeting, not be a government document!

Or, more specifically, if Comey currently, on June 9, 2017, testified that in the contemporaneous real-time of his writing, his written memos were as vital for the public and governmental purpose as he testified to on June 9, 2017, then his contemporaneous real-time memos were always government documents from their redaction to and including on June 9, 2017.

And, therefore, Comey’s current, June 9, 2017, Senate testimony that his contemporaneous real-time memos were his “personal document” or his “personal” property , when he released them to the New York Times through a third non-governmental party, and on June 9, 2017, is perjury.

To make matters infinitely worse for Comey, Comey knew he had to testify on June 9, 2017, that the written memos were always (from their redaction, to and specifically including on June 9, 2017) his “personal” property because otherwise the memos would have had numerous legal restrictions and felony prohibitions to their illegal and unauthorized release.  If the contemporaneous real-time memos were government property when Comey wrote them, then the memos would have always been government property, including when he released them to the public, and on June 9, 2017 when he testified about them.

The only possible way the memos weren’t government property when Comey leaked them after he was fired and on June 9, 2017, would be if the memos were never government or public property, and always Comey’s “personal” property.  And, since Comey had already illegally released the memos through his law school professor friend, Comey was, and is, in an inescapable legal box.

But instead of Comey, up front, admitting the memos were government property and, up front, admitting to improperly releasing the documents, Comey was forced into testifying in front of the Senate to an even greater lie – that the memo documents were Comey’s “personal” property.  So now, Mr. Comey can’t un-testify his Senate perjury that his real-time contemporaneous memo documents were not his “personal” property on June 9, 2017  because he testified, under oath, that they were his “personal” property.  Comey’s perjury is now set in immovable, immutable stone.

Here are some of the critical passages from Comey’s Senate statement and Comey’s Senate testimony all entered by James B. Comey, Jr. under oath, and under penalty of perjury, that illustrate this issue:

James B. Comey Jr.’s June 9, 2017 Senate Prepared Statement:

“January 6 Briefing

. . .I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone.”

Under Ranking Democrat Senator Mark R. Warner’s questioning:

“Warner: Now, you’ve had extensive experience at the Department of Justice and at the FBI. You’ve worked under presidents of both parties. What was it about that meeting that led you to determine that you needed to start putting down a written record?

COMEY: A combination of things, I think — the circumstances, the subject matter and the person I was interacting with. Circumstances first: I was alone with the president of the United States — or the president-elect, soon to be president.

The subject matter: I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI’s core responsibility and that relate to the president — president-elect personally.

And then the nature of the person: I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document.

That combination of things, I’d never experienced before, but it led me to believe I’ve got to write it down, and I’ve got to write it down in a very detailed way.

WARNER: I think that’s a very important statement you just made. And my understanding is that then, again, unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record.

Did you feel that you needed to create this written record or (ph) these memos because they might need to be relied on at some future date?

COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations, and I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them, especially the ones that were substantive.

I knew that there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself, but to defend the FBI and — and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigative function. That’s what made this so — so difficult, is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter, and the particular person.

WARNER: And so, in all your experience, this was the only president that you felt like, in every meeting, you needed to document, because at some point, using your words, he might put out a non-truthful representation of that meeting?

Now…

(CROSSTALK)

COMEY: That’s right, Senator.”

Additional, Sen. Earner questioning:

WARNER: And I — I found it very interesting that, in the memo that you wrote after this February 14th pull-aside, you made clear that you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified.

If you affirmatively made the decision to write a memo that was unclassified, was that because you felt, at some point, the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and come clear and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the American people?

COMEY: Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work. I need to document it and preserve it in a way — and — and this committee gets this, but sometimes when things are classified, it tangles them up. It’s hard…

WARNER: Amen.

COMEY: … to share it within an investigative team. It’s — you have to be very careful about how you handle it, for good reason.

So my thinking was, if I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger a classification, that’ll make it easier for us to discuss, within the FBI and the government, and to — to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us.

Under Republican Senator Collins’ questioning:

“COLLINS: OK, you mentioned that, from your very first meeting with the president, you decided to write a memo memorializing the conversation. What was it about that very first meeting that made you write a memo, when you had not done that with two previous presidents?

COMEY: As I said, a combination of things. A gut feeling is an important overlay on it (ph). But the circumstances — that I was alone, the subject matter, and the nature of the person that I was interacting with and my read of that person.

(UNKNOWN): The nature of that person (ph)?

COMEY: Yeah, and — and — and, really, just a gut feel, laying on top of all of that, that this — it’s going to be important, to protect this organization, that I make records of this.”

Under Republican Senator Roy Blunt’s questioning:

“BLUNT: So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document? You consider it to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to?

COMEY: Correct. I…

BLUNT: Through a friend?

COMEY: … I understood this to be my recollection, recorded, of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out.”

To repeat, focus, and emphasize this critical question and testimony:

“BLUNT: So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document? You consider it to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to?

COMEY: Correct.”

There you have it.  Under Sen. Blunt’s blunt question as to whether Comey, in the present tense, meaning at the time of Comey’s June 9, 2017 Senate hearing testimony, believed the contemporaneous memo documents not to be a “government document,” and to be Comey’s “own personal document,” Comey stated: “Correct.”

And then Comey specifically expounded and explained that that’s why Comey “felt free to share” the document with any one he wanted to after he was no longer FBI Director.  But, in the exact same testimony, Comey testified that his real-time contemporaneous redaction was,  “Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work.  I need to document it and preserve it . . ..”;  and, that “it’s going to be important, to protect this organization, that I make records of this.”  Hence, Comey directly testified that his real-time memos were needed “to document it and preserve”

Presidential communications that were, “Well, I remember thinking, this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work.”  “Our work” was not Comey’s “personal” work, but the work of the government and the public.   Comey testified directly that he made “records of this” that were going to be “important, to protect this organization,” the “organization” of the FBI, the epicenter of law and order of the United States.

Anyone in the world, most specifically James B. Comey, Jr., would conclude that Comey’s memos were governmental memos, government documents, and governmental property  from the very second he wrote them.

The key point here is that if the real-time memo documents were government documents when they were written, they would always remain government documents and then Comey would not have “felt free to share” them with any one he wanted.  “Sharing” government documents, isn’t “caring,” it’s a felony.  And, Comey perjured himself on June 9, 2017 by testifying that they were Comey’s “personal documents” to escape being accused of illegally releasing what were clearly governmental, public property documents.

But, Comey’s June 9, 2017 “personal document” Senate testimony was prefaced by repeated explicit Comey June 9, 2017 Senate testimony about how Comey believed at the time of their contemporaneous drafting, and while sworn as the Director of the FBI, of how vital his real-time memos were to protect not only the institution of the FBI, but also, most importantly, the United States of America in the future.  Hence, Comey’s very immediate testimony of the real-time vital government nature of his memos, proves Comey’s subsequent testimony that the memo documents were Comey’s “personal document” is not true.

A grand jury should be empanelled immediately by Attorney General Sessions to prosecute Comey to the fullest extent of the law.  This is not an issue for Special Prosecutor Mueller who is a long-time friend of James Comey, and therefore conflicted.  This is an issue for the President of the United States of America, and the sitting Attorney General of the United States of America.  The very existence of the Republic is facing a clear and present danger.

You may have carefully read all the newspapers about the Middle East, but you will likely have never heard about the three Syria cities of At Tanf, Abu Kamal, or Ar Rusafah.  But the soon-to-be-determined military control of the geographic area bounded by these 3 Syrian cities in Syria’s south east corner will determine the fate of the entire world.

If Iran and its proxies control these three Syrian cities, Iran will have achieved its strategic goal of creating a topologic unbroken ground corridor from Iran through Iraq, through Syria, through Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea.  If Iran fails to secure this geographic Syrian triangle, Iran’s tens of billions of dollars spent to mass-murder Syrian Sunnis to create the foundation of its neo-Safavidic Empire will collapse under its own weight, and Iran’s Khomeneist Shiite Regime will likely implode.

Therefore, next month’s military victors in the battle for this strategic triangle will dictate decades of future conflict, or future peace in the Middle East and the world.

What’s the first order of battle?  If the Islamic State leaders are truly Sunnis, American and US Coalition forces should convince the Islamic State to cede and surrender Raqqah immediately, so US coalition forces can focus on and secure the At-Tanf/Abu Kamal/Ar Rusafah triangle immediately.  Otherwise, the US coalition will have to divert precious and scarce resources to conquering Raqqah, while Iran is redeploying its forces to steal the Triangle.

The question is simple.  Does the Islamic State want the Iranian Shiites to win the At-Tanf/Abu Kamal/Ar Rusafah Triangle, to win Syria, and become the unstoppable Shiite hegemon?  Or does the Sunni Islamic State want the Shiite Iran to lose?  The catastrophic scenario would be for the US coalition forces to win the Raqqah battle against the Islamic State, only to lose the Syrian war to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The second order of battle?  Trump’s minions must convince the Russians that it is in Russia’s ultimate strategic national interest to allow the US coalition to quickly and decisively win the At-Tanf/Abu Kamal/Ar Rusafah Triangle.  The US must convince Russia that an Iran with a ground corridor through Syria to the Meditteranean  is as catastrophic to Russian vital national security interests in 2017 as Hitler’s acquisition of Czechoslovakia and Poland was to the Soviet Union in 1939.  Then, Stalin partnered with Hitler in building Hitler the highway for his Wehrmacht to invade the Soviet Union.

Once Iran militarily digests this Iraq-Syrian land corridor, Iran won’t need Russia anymore. Putin will have created a unstoppable Islamic Terror Superpower. Putin should remember Stalin’s exuberant celebration of occupying half of Poland was a short-lived delusion that soon came crashing down on his head when he had to face the ugly reality of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union that came close to occupying Moscow itself.

Iraq is a modern-day Czechoslovakia, and Syria is a modern-day Poland. It is the Iranian war that will lay the groundwork for the next Iranian-Safavidic violent expansion throughout the Middle East.

The third order of battle? This weekend President Trump must make the stakes clear to the Sunnis gathered in Saudi Arabia to meet him. President Trump must bring truth to Arab and Islamic fantasies. He must tell them Israel, and the ‘West Bank’ are not the issue; the only issue is fighting Iran and controlling the At-Tanf/Abu Kamal/Ar Rusafah Triangle. The Arabs and the Sunnis themselves must contribute blood and treasure to securing this strategic triangle and killing the Iran monster before it can metastasize into an unstoppable one.

The US and the US coalition forces have to move, and move fast to control the At-Tanf/Abu Kamal/Ar Rusafah Triangle so as to avoid an Iran that will cause the death and destruction of millions of people for many, many decades into the future.

In dealing with Assad, Russia, and Iran, Tomahawks are great weapons.  But, in many ways, Tomahawks are so “20th Century.”  And while, some conflicts like North Korea require 20th century kinetic weapons, the defeat of Syria and Iran merely requires President Trump’s thumbs.  Those thumbs carry more TNT than our greatest nuclear bombs.

Trump’s and hence America’s greatest weapon is called “Twitter.”  Trump can defeat Assad and Iran in Syria without virtually ever firing a kinetic weapon, but by firing Tweet-bombs about Assad and Iran anti-Arab campaign of death insttead.  And to weaponize his Tweeter feed, Trump has to first understand what the Middle East’s fight is all about:

Oil. Locate the oil, and you'll understand what the fight is all about. Share on X

“Oil?” you say, pshaw, it’s about the Sunni-Shiite split.  Balderdash.  The entire Middle East conflict is about the Iranian Persians perversely using the false flag of Shia Islam to incite the Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites to commit mutual genocide.  It’s the old method of divide and conquer the Arabs to steal their oil.

After Iran has instigated the Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs to annihilate each other, Iran intends to waltz right into the Gulf States and steal the Gulf Arabs’ oil resources in the Black Gold Triangle.  The Black Gold Triangle straddles the Sunni-Shiite divide between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and holds 56% of the world’s oil supply.

Nothing proves this point more than Iran’s recent assassination of Hezbollah’s second to Nasrallah leader  Mustafa Badreddine because Badreddine, the Hezbollah hero, argued that  Shiite Persian Iran was using the Hezbollah, also Shiite (but Arab,not Persian) as “canon fodder” in Iran’s war in Syria.  In the Iranian Persian version of Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” some Shiites are “more equal” than others.

Specifically, Arab Shiites are perfectly suitable for martyrdom to advance the Persian Shiites’ war aims.  Or more exactly, for the Persians, all Arabs are ripe for killing, and it’s best if they mass-murder each other.

As a prefatory point, what’s very dangerous, now, is that by Trump administration’s merely attacking “Assad” and/or “Iran,” he feeds the Iranian weaponization of the Sunni-Shiite conflict  narrative, rather than disarming the Iranian-inspired intra-Arab hate.  Trump needs to explicitly call out Iran’s intra-Arab sectarian Sunni-Shiite poison as the real evil malignant force that it is, not further widen the sectarian divide.

Once Trump throughly understands Iran’s divide-and-conquer-the-Arabs plan, using  false-flag Sunni-Shia self-genocide strategy, he can begin to Tweet about it effectively.  To begin with, how about:

Against Iran, Trump’s twitter is mightier than his sword Share on X

Or, for another example, another tweet can read:

Why are Arab Sunnis and Arabs Shiites mass-murdering each other? Answer: Iran's false-flag sectarian poison! #StopIntraArabHate. Share on X

Another can read:

Why is #Iran stealing the #Ahwazi Shiite Arabs' Oil? #StopIran'sArabFalseFlag. Share on X

Or, another:

Why does Iran love sending Iraqi Shiite Muslim Arabs to die in Syrian mass-murder of Sunni Muslim Arabs? Answer: the Arabs' oil resources. #StopIran'sArabMurderNow. Share on X

Or how about:

The Hezbollah Shiite Arabs are Iran's useful-idiots murdering Sunni Arabs. #HezbollahIranianUseful-Idiots. Share on X

I haven’t counted the letters, but Trump can send multi-part Tweets.  After all, he is the President of the United States.

I can go on forever, but you get the idea. The 21st century Middle East War is a war of the mind where the United States must fight in the mind-to-mind combat battle space. President Trump has to use the 21st weapon of Twitter to effectively and tersely reach the minds the enemy and ally alike.

Trump’s Twitter,reprogramming the Sunni-Shiite Arab self-hate brainwashing Iran has instilled in the Arab world, can pave the way for the United States to defeat the waxing Iranian neo-Safavidic Empire.

When you boil Syria down to its principal players, there are only three: Russia, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  With Assad’s chemical attack, people have been misdirected from the reality by blaming the powerless Assad.  But Assad doesn’t mvoe without direct Iranian permission.  So, the real question is why did Iran launch a chemical weapons attack?

The answer is simple: Iran desperately needs Russia and the United States to get into a hot war in Syria so as to enable Iran to pick up the shattered pieces.  In contrast, the United States and Russia desperately need each other to defeat Iran’s waxing neo-Safavidic Empire from stretching from Iran to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

In order to see why Iran is attempting to foment a Russia/US battle, one has to boil the Syrian theater into the child’s hand-against-hand game of ROCK/PAPER/SCISSORS-shoot.  When one child flashes PAPER against the other child’s ROCK, the “paper” envelops and beats the rock. When one child flashes PAPER against the other child’s SCISSORS, the scissors cuts and beats the paper.  When one child flashes SCISSORS against the other child’s ROCK the rock smashes and beats the scissors.

Russia is the “rock,” Iran is the “paper,” and the United States is the “scissors.”

Iran’s strategy is to envelope Syria like a piece of paper, topologically combining Iran’s Iraqi “paper,” along with Iran’s Hezbollah/Lebanon “paper” to form a patchwork-quilt Shiite Empire spanning from Iran/Persia through Iraq, and Syria, and Lebanon into the Mediterranean Sea. As an example of this, Iran just announced it was to build a trans-Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon railroad.  Russia is the “rock” trying to bash the Sunni opposition to pieces in order to carve-out its eastern Mediterranean naval outpost and military enclave.  The United States, through Sec of Def Mattis, under the strategic cover of defeating ISIS in Eastern Syria is the “scissors” against Iran’s “paper” Shiite Empire.  The United States with its indigenous allies is trying to efficiently occupy eastern Syria from the Kurds in the north to Jordan in the south.  By topologically “cutting” off Iran’s patchwork piece of paper, Iraq, from Iran’s patchwork piece of paper, Syria, the United States is attempting to defeat Iran’s waxing paper Shiite Imanate.

Before Iran’s chemical attack in the name of Assad, the western Syrian rock strategy of Russia, and the eastern scissors strategy of the United States were avoiding each other, complementing each other, and together quietly weakening the whole Syrian paper envelopment strategy of Iran.  This was great for Russia and the US, but bad for Iran.  Iran saw the United States’ cutting its patchwork-quilt in two in eastern Syria as an existential threat to the grand strategic arc of its contiguous Mesopotamian/Levantian/Mediterranean swatch of Empire.  Therefore, Iran had to do something to instigate a hot war between the United States and Russia.  And presto, Iran bombs civilians with Sarin using Assad’s planes, Assad takes the fall, and Russia and the United States are escalating against each other.

Russia and the United States urgently need each other to thwart Iran’s scheme to control the Middle East.  It is in both Russia’s and United States’ worst strategic interests to allow Iran to become the colossus of the Middle East.  Syria is big enough for Russia and the United States to find a modus vivendi and  live with each other, allowing each to achieve strategic goals.  Russia and the United States have a mutually exact goal i- both aim to defeat the ISIS Sunni Caliphate and the Iranian Shiite Imanate. To defeat both Islamic radical terror threats requires Russia and the United States to work together, and not fight each other.  In the current war against both Sunni and Shiite radical Islamic terror, the United States and Russia are critically necessary for one another as allies, not inimical enemies.

Putin is drowning in Syria. Putin currently has no Syrian exit strategy, none at all. At $50 a barrel, Putin’s cash-flow approaches zero, and his sanctioned economy is dead in the water. Even though Putin’s sure to win his 2018 rigged-election, he still wants out of Syria before he has to campaign in earnest.

In addition, 80% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni and Putin is siding with Shiite Iran and Shiite/Alawite Assad to commit genocide on Sunnis. That is definitely not good. Close to 100% of the Muslims living in and near Russia are Sunni.

Putin needs a Syrian exit strategy, and needs one fast. With Assad’s Idlib Sarin nerve gas massacre, the opportunity exists for Putin to make a deal with President Trump to abandon Iran and Assad, but keep his naval base at Tartus.

The deal is simple. More importantly, as a preface and taking a step back, NATO, Russia and the United States actually have a common enemy: Radical Islamic Terror. They are all on the same team.

The broad outline of the deal is this: Russia abandons Assad and Iran in Syria in return for keeping Tartus and pocketing the ethnically Russian-speaking areas of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, but Russia allows Western Ukraine to join NATO. As an immediate pre-deal, the Minsk Agreement is implemented, and there is a pull-back from the Minsk Line by both parties.

As an additional element, the West has to initiate a complete review of the entire Kosovo/Serbia problem. For in many ways, former-President Clinton began this entire pro-Muslim empowerment and armament. The global pro-Muslim empowerment has to stop.

With Russia and the United States working together, they can evict Iranian militias including Hezbollah and insert a moderate Muslim Syrian government that will satisfy all the neighboring Sunni Muslim countries. With Putin and Trump working together on Syria, both will get a Nobel Prize. Russia’s involvement with Assad’s and Iran’s genocide wil be forgotten.

Putin and the United States have an opportunity to close a grand deal, greatly benefitting both. And if Putin and Trump make a deal, the entire world will be a much safer place – without the genocidal hegemonic Assad and his Iranian masters.