This has the potential to be catastrophic for the United States. The resources of this country are finite, so there is a limit to how many simultaneous conflicts this country can handle. I suspect that coutries that buy a geat deal of oil from Iran (notably China and Japan) who also hold a large portion of US government debt and dollar reserves have a few things to say about this matter. Whether or not China and Japan can outweigh the Israel Lobby in changing the attitude of our corrupted political parties in Congress and bring the US government to its senses remains to be seen. If not, I can foresee a time in the not too distant future in which the Israel Lobby will rue the day they ever got the US into one war beyond the capability threshhold.

This is only the beginning. Wait until Mexico's derivatives to cover the slide in oil prices expire. Expiration plus rapidly declining production in Mexico will greatly reduce the size cash cow the government has beein using for years. When Mexico ceases to export oil (projected to be 2012) the game will be over. I do not see how the US can prevent any major chaos in Mexico from spillling over into the US. The situation has the potential to destabilize the US.

The evidence is that these wars are really about securing oil supplies in the post peak oil era. Even Alan Greenspan admitted as much.

Asia Times reported that the new US strategy is to allow Pakistan to fracture, and then build a pipeline from central Asia to an independent Baluchistan, by way of Afghanistan. This is a dangerous strategy that could easily backfire. Unleashed chaos in Pakistan could easily have unpredictable, catastrophic consequences.

US Ambasador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad was one of the negotiators for an American consortium with the Taliban to build such a pipeline. This appears to be one of the driving motives behind what is happening in the region. At this point, the US is becoming ever more like the old Roman Empire in its later days -- dangerously overextended, with the core unprotected.

I am glad you noted that Ukrainian public opinion is firmly against membership in NATO. I first saw a report of this fact in the German press back when the idea of admitting Ukraine into NATO was first broached. I find it interesting that the American press ignored the survey, while the European press cited it as a reason not to admit Ukraine. The European members of NATO wisely decided not to extend an offer to Ukraine because of this lack of support. But at that time, NATO did extend offers of admission to Albania and Croatia. (What has the defense of Albania and Croatia to do with the defense of the United States or Europe?) NATO has been an alliance in search of a reason to exist since the end of the Cold War in 1991. Lately, the European press indicates that splits in the alliance over the long term futility of current operations in Afghanistan are more likely to tear the alliance apart than anything else. How much longer will the European governments continue to support US led operations that have little chance of success?