« Who wrote Trump's de-certification speech? Part 1 | Main | Decision time in Deir Ezzor - TTG »

13 October 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

FourthAndLong

If psychosis means being out of touch with reality, then that speech of Trump's referenced by PT, is certainly indication thereof. It's Donnie's gift to Shelly and his criminal gang. Big time. I agree with Ehud Barak's estimation that if in fact the US follows through the implications for proliferation and ME peace are dire. The German foreign minister agrees, says it is potentially world changing. And in the context of the North Korean situation it is sheer, unbridled idiocy. Trump is resembling a severely autistic child to me more than anything else I can recollect lately.

This piece by Sherman Gabriel from Vanity Fair two days ago has gotten a lot of attention. People in the White House think el Hefe is losing it in a big way. Mention of speculation whether or not Mathis and Kelley have worked out a plan to tackle him if he orders a launch at NK. The photo nearly says it all:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers

Anna

Saker: http://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-shabbos-goy/
"... where would the Empire’s puppeteers meet to finalize and coordinate their plans to attack Iran? Washington? New York? London? NATO HQ in Brussels? Davos? Nope. In Herzilia. Never heard of that place? The Israeli city of Herzliya is named after Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism ... For a while, Herzilia truly became the see of the Empire’s inner core of heavy hitters. ... Richard Perle delivered the keynote: “If the Israeli government comes to the conclusion that it has no choice but to take action, the reaction of the U.S. will be the belief in the vitality that this action must succeed, even if the U.S. needs to act with Israel in the current American administration”. ... if anyone has ANY doubts left that the Empire will totally ignore the will of the American people as expressed in the last election and strike at Iran, this conference should settle the issue."

FourthAndLong

Ehud Barak and several top ranking Israeli Intelligence chiefs have gone on record very strenuously as to how seriously a mistake it would be to pull out of the JCPOA.

Apparently it is the clique around Netanyahu and the Sheldon Adelson crowd. Then of course you have the Naftali Bennett and his ilk. A man who single handedly destroys the myth of Jewish intellectual superiority. Though that list is rather long and lengthening of late.

Christian Chuba

Trump's speech was so ludicrous that you can only analyze it by looking at what was correct. I'll list them in alphabetical order .... 'the detention of Americans', the end.

Since I find his voluminous lies too depressing to review yet another time, I would like to ask any of you who care to respond on a related topic. Were the North Koreans really building a heavy water, nuclear power plant in Syria when it was bombed by the Israelis?

I read one Huffington Post article that was skeptical of this claim but just about every other entry on my google search seems to think that Israel got this one right. I have become skeptical of most claims that fit the standard good guy / bad guy narrative.

outthere


The Deep State’s Bogus ‘Iranian Threat’
by David Stockman Posted on October 14, 2017

Thursday we identified a permanent fiscal crisis as one of the quadruple witching forces arising in October 2017 which will shatter the global financial bubble. Today the Donald is on the cusp of making the crisis dramatically worse by decertifying the Iranian nuke deal, thereby reinforcing another false narrative that enables the $1 trillion Warfare State to continue bleeding the nation’s fiscal solvency.

In a word, the whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling story or the claim that the chain of events resulting from the coup d’ etat fostered by Washington on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 is evidence of Russian expansionism and aggression.

more here

http://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2017/10/13/deep-states-bogus-iranian-threat/

Babak Makkinejad

I think Trump reflects very well a segment of Fly-Over America; I have personally many such people; the same bluster, the same aggressiveness, the same exaggerated sense of power, and the same belief in their capacity to dominate and win.

Babak Makkinejad

Trump and the 2 houses of US Congress represent the true interests of people of the United States.
Trump has stated that he hates this cease-fire deal and wants to exit it as quickly as possible. He is being true also to his Fly-Over America constituency who hate Islam and specially hate Iran.

Babak Makkinejad

EU will not go to a trade wsr with US.

ToivoS

The problem with your suggestion is that it requires the EU to defy the US hegemon. This requires a major change in EU policy. I certainly think that the European nations should act in their own interests and it would be in their interests to avoid getting involved in another ME war. However, their default position is to remain subservient to the US.

If Trump's irrational acts serve to provoke a divorce between the US and EU then perhaps having Trump as president has served one good purpose. It is certainly my reason for voting for Trump -- our politics are so broken that it was time to just throw a monkey wrench into the gears and bring it to a halt. However, it does require that Europe is willing to assert its independence. It is problematic that they can do that.

NancyK

When everything comes to a halt, you have yourself to blame, but for those of us not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater why exactly do we have to suffer for your mistake.

kooshy

Babak I have no doubt or question that Trump and congress "represent" interests of United States, but representing someone and making choices and decisions in their (constituency) interests and benefits is two different things. IMO, multiple US administrations due to various reasons have not made right choices /decisions/ policies that has benefited the American' interests.

ISL

I am saddened at the poor quality of propaganda that we tax payers overpay for.

I expect Iran will rapidly move closer to Russia (building on the positive outcome of efforts in Syria as ameliorating prior bad blood). And also purchase additional S-400s. I would not rule out a Russian base in Iran in the next few years - as noted elsewhere, Trump is proving the US is not agreement capable.

Any thoughts by the SST committee on what happens if Iran was protected under advanced EW - including blanking of satellite communication, given that the US must operate from over the horizon (given the likelihood that Iraq would no to US use of its bases for an attack) given the narrowness and shallowness of the nearby water bodies, could loss of communication cripple a US airborne attack?

A very dangerous outcome as it would almost certainly lead to escalation and US land invasion to fill the vacuum, which I see no way for the US to afford - while the US played its deadly "Great Game" in Iraq, China went from a tenth the US economy to parity. When China is 10 times the size of the US economy, the lingua fraca will be Chinese, not English, the US will not be allowed to play war games in the Pacific, and I would expect efforts to destabilize the US into smaller cantons while assassin drones fly our skies. Meanwhile our (traitorous) 1% will have evacuated to New Zealand along with all the US wealth they can move to swiss banks.

For GDP trends, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980

ISL

On the guardian plot, try putting in a reasonable yuan appreciation (10%) as the economic center of gravity shifts decisively to China.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980

Peter AU

Google search brings up "most viewed, most liked" ect. Easily manipulated.
I use yandex search for anything political. Brings up closest match.

kooshy

Mike, IMO Iran and US can have a lot better relation and many common commercial, political and trade interests, if US was allowed to pursue her IMO correct interests. But your are right that this opinion does not go well with neo-conservative thinking and agenda. Nevertheless I am too ordinary/common to be worthy of their label. Like the late (johnny come lately) Christopher Hitchens, you bot well for independent Kurdistan at least on this site.

Ishmael Zechariah

SST;
I have noticed several intimations by hillary supporters that, had The Donald not been elected, peace would have ruled the planets. Would anyone care to comment on the veracity of this claim? IMO poplars might have started sprouting in various parts of the world had "hillary of Libya and Syria" been elected.
I am puzzled.
Ishmael Zechariah

Babak Makkinejad

It is your opinion against those of the duely and legally elected and seated representatives of the American people. Those also decided that there was a margin for US in sanctioning Russia. Who are we to argue with those decisions of the collective preferences of the people of the United States?

outthere

quote
Tony Blair has said for the first time that he and other world leaders were wrong to yield to Israeli pressure to impose an immediate boycott of Hamas after the Islamic faction won Palestinian elections in 2006.

As prime minister at the time, Blair offered strong support for the decision – driven by the George W Bush White House – to halt aid to, and cut off relations with, the newly elected Hamas-led Palestinian Authority unless it agreed to recognise Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements between its Fatah predecessors and Israel. The ultimatum was rejected by Hamas. The elections were judged free and fair by international monitors."
. . .
“But obviously it was very difficult, the Israelis were very opposed to it."
endquote
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/14/tony-blair-hamas-gaza-boycott-wrong

ISL

IZ, as far as I can tell, whereas there has been a lot of posturing and twittering and showing of the flag, The Donald has not (yet) caused a significant change in the amount of war going on. The Hillary was quite a (all options on the table) posturer too.

In fact, as ISIS is mopped up, one could argue that there currently is less war during The Donald's presidency to date.

One could even credit The Donald with this peace outbreak if one ignores Russia (the Hill-bots would declaim that Russia (I mean Putin personally) is too busy masterfully manipulating everything with a few facebook ads to have played any role in the collapse of ISIS in Syria - its all due to the noble efforts of the good jihadi's we have been arming - ignoring how they frequently swap with bad jihadi's to ask for new weapons to replace this just swapped to the baddies by the swap. . .)

mike

Kooshy -

What does '... you bot well...' mean???

I am no fan of Hitchens. His support of the Iraq War was ridiculous. And his criticism of religion was not to my taste either.

I agree that the USA and Iran have many common interests. Not just the commercial. Both countries are involved in fighting Daesh and al Quaeda. We should be natural allies. The reason we are not allies most probably dates to the 444 days that American diplomats and citizens spent as hostages in Iran. Or the killing of 241 U.S. Marines, 58 French peacekeepers, and six civilians in 1983. I personally knew one of those that died. But all of that was several decades ago as Publius Tacitus pointed out. There should be no reason why we should not put that behind us. We put our disputes with Stalin aside in order to defeat Hitler. The British put aside their dispute with Jan Smuts, a Boer commando leader who contributed to the death of thousands of British citizens, and they eventually made him a Field Marshall in the British Army. There are a thousand more examples in history. We should work together. Daesh and al Quaeda are not going away even after they are defeated in Iraq and Syria. There are chapters in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, the Philippines, Indonesia and many other places.

Christian Chuba

1. The Iranians have an aversion to foreign military bases, they even have a clause in their constitution forbidding it.

2. The Russians might assist w/satellite communications but interestingly enough, this is the primary purpose of Iran's space program. Of course, western Intelligence accuses them of using this to cover up 'ICBM development' which is total nonsense. They have used rockets to launch satellites into low earth orbit at 300 miles. Sigh, the problem with us always being in Information War mode is that we actually believe the garbage that we spew out.

BTW I cannot believe the shameless morons we have in our MSM who repeat stuff like this ...
'Trump isn't pulling out of the deal, he is just giving it to Congress who is strictly dealing with U.S. law to make requirements that can trigger sanctions if the Iranians don't accept them'

I'm dizzy from the spin, they are making sound like Iran is breaking the agreement. If the U.S. does not uphold its side of the pact then we are responsible for breaking the agreement. It is not 'just an issue of U.S. law'. Seriously these people are morons.

outthere

quote
After 2001, Bush included the Islamic Republic in what he called the "axis of evil", which included Iraq and North Korea. In 2003 the US was on Iran's border, having just successfully invaded a member of that "axis". It was then that Iran offered the US a comprehensive negotiation proposal, where the Islamic Republic was willing to open its nuclear programme for inspections, work as a partner to stabilise Iraq, and cooperate against fighting al-Qaeda, offering Washington then what Trump asks of Iran now.

The response to the offer from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly was, "We don't talk to evil."
endquote

What Trump's decision on Iran will mean for the world
Sajjad Safaei
by Sajjad Safaei

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-ditching-iran-deal-iraq-171014153635471.html

DianaLC

Thank you for the detailed explanation of this situation with regard to Iran.

I particularly liked the analogy of our rancorous relationship with Iran to that of a nasty divorce.

I remember bumper stickers after Reagan's election. They said, "Reagan for Shah!" It seemed at the time that the young and idealist groups were for the revolution in Iran and against the Shah.

I understand that the Shah had not necessarily ruled well. But I was also confused that we should take sides at all, especially for the religiously intolerant mullahs.

Again, I am left with only one course of action: To pray hard to God that "thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven."

I also pray for God to provide the best guidance for our leaders. It's all I can do.

daemon

Plenty of excuses being made for Donald Trump. He's been perfectly clear about his plans to get rid of the Iran deal since before the election. It has nothing to do with neocons or Nikki Haley or anyone.

The biggest reason he's against Iran is because Obama was for the deal. It doesn't get any more complicated than that. You are all wasting your words trying to analyze this.

Bandolero

Babak, ToivoS

Some years ago I would have agreed that the EU would avoid a trade war with the US over Iran at any cost. However times have changed.

The EU so far still takes the injury inflicted by the US Congress slapping secondary sanctions on Iran and Russia. The EU doesn't act on secondary non-nuclear US sanctions hitting Iranian, U.S. and EU businesses. However, I think, slapping nuclear related sanctions on Iran in violation of UN security council resultion 2231 would add too much insult to injury to bear for the EU. I think everyone in politics understands that after the JCPOA the US Congress can slap any sanctions on Iran using non-nuclear pretexts, but slapping the very same sanctions on a nuclear pretext would just be a deliberate break of international law.

The popular Obama could get all what he wanted from the EU and Germany, but with Trump I don't think that's the case. Trump is really unpopular in Europe, and especially in Germany, who just elected someone President who called Trump a hate preacher. The German government takes a hard stance against any violation of the Iran deal. and all the opposition parties hold the same line, and keeping the Iran deal is very popular in EU's economic powerhouse Germany. And Trump is really unpopular in the EU and Germany. Have a look at some pew figures from the summer:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/

Confidence in the US president "to do the right thing" dropped from Obamas 86% to 11% under Trump in Germany. With such numbers, the idea that Trump - and Bibi, and King Salman - could rally the Germans against the JCPOA and international law is just ridicolous.

Unlike Trump, the JCPOA is really popular in Germany.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad