Will US strike Syria? I look at the astrology

A number of you have emailed me about the astrology of the US/Syria situation. Will the US attack? Astrology is not about inevitabilities but trends and likelihoods. So here’s my analysis in plain English – with footnotes for fellow astrologers.

In the week of September 9, the US Congress will be asked to back President Obama’s proposed military action against Syria. I have chosen September 9th for this forecast because this marks the first day of the US government’s debate. I looked at three natal-transits charts: Syria’s, the US’s and Obama’s. All three charts suggest a likelihood of US military action against Syria.

Syria (1 January 1944, midnight, Damascus)

On the 9^th, violent and disruptive energies are present.[1] Actions decided on between September 9 and 11[2] will have the quality of violence with a transformative effect – whether this happens days or weeks or months later. The action is aimed squarely at the governing power[3]. At the same time, there is a major indication that power is exerted over the governing authority in some shape or form – and this indicator remains valid to October 29[4]: it therefore may be the case that Syria is subjected to external attack by a foreign state – this is one of a number of possible scenarios. The Syrian government is nonetheless confident, even smug – this could be because of perceived successes or misjudgement – or a miscalculation.[5]

US (4 July 1776, 5:10 pm, Philadelphia)

On and around the 9^th, the US chart reflects an instinct to act on high principle[6]. There’s a sense of ‘social duty’ and of public/media debate involving government.[7] And there’s a high likelihood of a decision to take military action.[8] The focus of this action is another country (or ‘abroad’).[9] From September 16, the risk of military action increases.[10] However the legality or constitutional justification appears confused.[11] If the congressional debate is not finalised before September 13 (Friday), there’s a chance the US will decide against war.[12] So, Obama is less likely to win support the later in the week a congressional decision is made.

Obama (4 August 1961, 7:24 pm, Honolulu)
On or around the 9^th, Obama is under tremendous strain and possible criticism. Actions can be thwarted or questioned – some sort of deception cannot be ruled out.[13] But by the next week, the 16^th onwards, Obama appears to be in much more energised form – the planets support a war-like identity in this time.[14] The weekend of September 14-15 also could be crucial for decisions related to military action.[15]

For Obama the challenge is to make real a principle or ‘dream’.[16] At worst, there is likely to be confusion between fact and fantasy and the challenge to make clear what is murky or concealed. At best, law and clarity can be applied to an area of chaos – the area identified as foreign by house position.[17] However, the triggering of a chaotic indicator in the chart is an unfortunate development, suggesting a debilitating period ahead for Obama, especially if he’s acting on misinformation or against government wishes.[18]

What can't be ruled out is that Obama launches a military strike against Syria without Congress' approval.

---

[1] Tr Mars conjunct natal Pluto in Leo in 10^th

[2] Above conjunction in orb

[3] 10^th house

[4] Tr Pluto conjunct natal Sun in Capricorn in 3^rd

[5] Tr Jupiter conjunct natal MC in 10^th

[6] Tr Mars in Leo on natal True Node in Leo

[7] Tr Mercury conjunct Midheaven

[8] Tr Mars sextile natal Uranus

[9] Natal Uranus on descendant

[10] Tr Mars ingresses 9^th house (Equal House)

[11] Tr Saturn inconjunct natal Uranus

[12] Tr Sun conjunct Neptune in 10^th (Sept 14-16)

[13] Tr Mars square natal Neptune

[14] Tr Mars conjunct Sun

[15] Tr Sun conjunct natal Mars

[16] Tr Saturn conjunct Neptune in 9^th

[17] 9^th

[18] Natal Neptune in 9^th

Martin Amis: His eyeballs and Yasmin's reply

Did you see Martin Amis on Jon Snow’s C4 news show last night? The voice has been smoke-cured into a wonderful, neutral rumble, decidedly unfruity in all weathers. His eyeballs said more, shooting this side and that like tennis balls in a bad-tempered knock-up at each lacerating question: if he had shot them heavenwards we might have thought him camp, but Amis is a rapid sideways glancer and is one of the uncampest men of his generation. He was in Snow’s dock over his recent remarks on Islam – see another posting here for the catch-up: he had admitted to momentary racist urges in the wake of 9/11 and other outrages by al Qaeda types: the admission was the salve, that alone would undo the damage of his foolhardy confession, he’d hoped. I suspect Amis has misjudged the broad-sweep nature of public perception. As I write it’s not possible to be a bit racist but not seriously (even though that probably sums up about 80% of us).

In any case his subtleties are lost on columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to whom he wrote the letter condemning his critic Prof. Terry Eagleton. She replies to him in today’s Standard, calling the letter “part affectionate” but “somewhat patronising”. She takes the simpler view that “racism is not an involuntary seizure”. And even if there is the odd urge to racism, “you can train yourself out of it.” She then foolishly cites Boris Johnson as an example – she bets he won’t be using the word “piccaninny” during the London mayoral campaign. “He will become a better man for that restraint.” The difference here is that while Johnson is a racist but is just keeping his public trap shut for PR purposes, Amis is just a bit of a racist who is uncommonly open about it. The hypocritical racist versus the slightly-racist blabbermouth: Whom to prefer? What a choice!

On another matter I learn Deborah Kerr has just died. She had a lovely speaking voice and she ruined many of my Sunday afternoons with re-runs of her fucking The King and I. Still, I blame the feet-up and tea-drinking schedulers.

Joan Collins, The Spectator and ... Dubravka Ugrešić

The Spectator makes a gift of itself to me and I'm not entirely sure why. An accompanying letter with the free copy thanks me for my generosity - apparently I funded over 400 subscriptions in its Spectator for Schools scheme last year - which is news to me but I'm always happy to take the credit. However, the magazine informs me that there are still 400 schools that wanted a sub but didn't get it - presumably that, too, is down to me. The law of karma is a relentless one, n'est-ce pas?

I open the magazine and fate takes me immediately to Joan Collins' Riviera Notebook - goodness knows what your average school child would make of this. In one entry she finds herself in a St Tropez "dive" where a jeroboam of Cristal may set you back €10,000 - think of the number of Spectator subscriptions that would bankroll. She lunches with "witty" Rupert Everett who suggests she consider whoring herself out to Coronation Street while another time she dons a Muslim-style burka to escape the attention of paparazzi. Alas, "billowing folds of black schmutter became caught between my legs," she records.

Collins has been an improbable Spectator sweet-heart since Boris Johnson edited the rag, and I'm glad successor Matthew d'Ancona has retained her. She is, as Gore Vidal says of her, funny. She also writes very well - wittily and pellucidly. Critics wonder aloud about the actual parentage of her prose - imagining some bearded scholar ventriloquist scripting her journalism - but I think not. Her use of certain words - such as "dive" for a five-star louche venue - is characteristic of her conversation; and in person she easily segues from faintly outrageous detail of her spending and social habits to highly political and eloquent attacks on her latest hate targets, as she does in the Spectator. She's as camp as camp can be. She is the very antithesis of Linda Evans.

Collins' reinvention as a quasi-literary-lite darling of the British right triggers a recollection of someone you probably won't have heard of, the Yugoslavian/Croatian writer Dubravka Ugrešić. Four years ago she brought out a marvellous book of essays on writers and writing called Thank You for Not Reading. Ugrešić has never quite got over the burgeoning impurity of British literary life - the dominance of celebrity, hype, marketing, etc, over the written word. This thought cystallised when in the mid-'90s she attended a London Book Fair that was opened by ... Joan Collins. The star appeared "dressed like a quotation: in a little pink Chanel suit, with a pink pillbox hat on her head and a coquettish veil over her eyes ... What does all this have to do with literature?" asks Ugrešić.

I should point out that Thank You For Not Reading is very funny, very sharp, in places. It's not the work of a dreary grey-pube lost in academe. Ugrešić's book registers the cultural shock of a serious eastern European aesthetic colliding with the Tesco-soul of our own bright Blighty.

Yet here we are now, with Joan Collins making a coverline on the Spectator, honoured presence in all the salons - literary, hair and beauty. I'm not sure Ugrešić would be impressed. But I may yet fund Spectator subscriptions for those other 400 schools.