October 18th’s suicide bombing in Iran near the Pakistan border was the subject of the top three articles in October 20th’s Asia Times.
Â
“Conventional wisdom suggests that the terrorist strike by Jundallah in southeastern Iran on Sunday might have had the backing of the United States or Britain,” M K Bhadrakumar opens the first.  Yet “clearly,” he concludes, Obama would have to be “out of his mind to have his intelligence agencies mount a terrorist attack on Iran which would torpedo his own gameplan to address the Iran nuclear file at the present sensitive juncture” (Saudi-Iranian hostility hits boiling point).Â
Â
In the second, Pepe Escobar cautions “but one thing is the Obama administration’s priorities; another is the agenda of ‘full spectrum dominance’ types at the Pentagon and the CIA…Chaos in Iranian Balochistan derails the [Iran-Pakistan] pipeline – something that is an absolute priority for full spectrum dominance: Washington wants its horse, the Trans-Afghan (TAP) pipeline, to win at all costs. A ‘victory’ of the IP pipeline means Gwadar port in [Pakistani] Balochistan falling into China’s orbit, not the US’s”  (Jundallah versus the mullahtariat).Â
Â
In the third, Kaveh L Afrasiabi quotes a Tehran professor, “‘There is now a serious crisis of Iranian confidence in Mr Obama and many people are asking: is he really in charge and who calls the shots on US policy in the region? Did Mossad pull this off without notifying the White House, or in cahoots with them [the US]?'” (Iran’s nuclear talks also hit)
Â
Here at Antiwar, in Our Two-Faced Iran Policy, Justin Raimondo raises the possibility that the U.S.’s “terrorism” complements its “talk,” the idea being “to keep the Iranian regime off-balance, and make them more amenable to compromise…In any case, we are walking a tightrope” and the presence of “the very powerful Israel lobby” is a major reason why “military conflict with Iran may be unavoidable.”        Â
Â
With the suicide bombing in Iran occurring as the Pakistan situation degenerates (and now, Baghdad blasts echo far and wide), Reuters blogger Myra MacDonald is almost reduced to prayer: “In my 25 years of journalism, I’ve rarely seen a situation move so quickly.  I’d like to think there is someone in power who is not only keeping pace, but keeping ahead” (Afganistan, Pakistan … and all the other countries involved).
Â
“Someone?” I don’t think she has in mind Osama bin Laden, so, if it’s not the Obama administration and/or a CIA-Pentagon cabal and/or the Mossad, that leaves—The Duchy of Grand Fenwick!
Â
Leaving aside the question of who, if anyone, is driving, to where is the train hurtling? What humongous wreck awaits?
Â
The U.S. falling off the “tightrope” into an Iranian “quagmire” is one possibility, but even as I write, the words “unprecedented” and “spin out of control” appear in a Reuters article, the subject of which is “India-China tensions” (Afghanistan in focus at trilateral meet in India).  For a bigger dip into an “electrified” atmosphere, with a similar warning that “an accidental slip or go-off at the border would erode into war,” see M K Bhadrakumar’s The dragon spews fire at the elephant. For a treatise on how “the wider struggle between the powers of Eurasia and the nations of the Periphery, led by the United States,” could manifest itself in a nuclear war, there’s Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China?