« The Newshour is not neutral at all | Main | Russia and Turkey will pacify Idlib Province »

06 October 2017


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

different clue

Well, once again . . . this is not what I was voting for when I voted for Trump. If I had wanted a war with Iran, I would have voted for Clinton.

This reminds me of a bitter saying I once read years-after-the-fact concerning the 1964 Goldwater v. Johnson election. And it went like this . . . " They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, I'd get a war in Vietnam. Well, that's what I did. And that's what I got." The facts and the situations are/were way different, but the feeling seems similar to me.


different clue

I always thought LBJ was an unfortunate being and I voted for Goldwater. I told him so many years later when he handed out diplomas at my graduation from the Army War College. He thanked me. pl

Babak Makkinejad

There will be now war, JCPOA has eliminated that possibility.



Just how many wars does Trump want to start? "Rocket Man" hasn't gone away and he actually has nuclear weapons. What does he expect to gain from our "best ally"?


Conflicts of interest/stupidity have had no bounds up to this date. I wouldn't be so sure.


That is just the art of analysis. Beautiful, thank you.



The zionists have infiltrated the inner circle.

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have been named the world's most influential Jews ahead of Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu.......The newspaper described the pair as being 'at the heart of America's sensational political drama, of shifting power dynamics in the Middle East, of battles over refugee resettlement and debate over moral leadership in a nation divided on race'. It added that they 'hold positions of extraordinary power and influence– an unfireable pair of advisers entrusted by the president more than any other.'



Isn't there an enormous amount he stands to gain? Financial and media support for the next election, to begin.

If he maintains troops in Syria and positions the US for active operations against Hizbollah and Iran then you will see the alphabet media turn very quickly to support his new position, and financial support will flow.


let's not abandon all hope quite yet.
we may depend upon Congress remaining dysfunctional... and a keen way to deny him war. I'm thinking it might've been a bad move to send him to NYMA... evidently they taught him how cool it is being warlord. also, may be time to brush up on the Monroe Doctrine.


We never really totally honored our side of the deal and the neocons have been baying for renunciation since the get go.
Our ability to get the rest of the world to go along with an embargo is fast fading. The sanctions weapon itself probably won't endure much longer; it's been so unfairly used that any morality underlying it just won't be there.
These are "interesting times" as the USA struggles with the full spectrum dominance fantasy in the face of coalescing and increasingly potent opposition.
IMO an inflection point approaches that bodes ill for us and our goal of ruling the world.
The game of "writing checks with your mouth that your arse can't cash" is great as long as the other parties remain cowed. But what happens when they're not?
But who am I but just another bozo on this bus?

Harlan Easley

Nobody should be surprise about his abandoning the Iran deal. I voted for him and believed him when he said he would withdraw from the Iran deal. I believed him because I understand the power pushing for this. Well acknowledged in this world-class geopolitical blog.

I don't agree with it. Just more insanity. I also knew Hillary was serious about Syria and was the bigger and more immediate threat to world peace. Just think if she was elected during this last false flag she declared that Tomahawks were not enough and would have wiped out Assad's Air Force possibly and probably putting us in direct conflict with Russia a nuclear armed superpower.

Well it gives me little consolation that this is playing out like a thought it would. Trump winning simply bought us more time and a war with Iran will be horrific, insane, etc. Still not a war with Russia though.

I no longer support our President. He is a loon. Even if he goes nothing will change. Maybe a miracle one day will change this course.

different clue

Colonel Lang,

I was just a grade school kid at the time. ( I think second grade). If I had been old enough to vote back then, and the basic self I now am anyway, I would have voted for Johnson for preserve-the-New-Deal reasons.

Again, I was too young to know at the time but way after the events I remember reading that Goldwater was somewhat popular in Tennessee and was getting more so. But then he came right out and said that government should not be involved in major utility ownership and that if elected, he would seek to sell the TVA. His popularity began going back down and my memory tells me that Johnson won Tennessee. ( If Johnson got a higher vote-percentage in East Tennessee than in Middle Tennessee or West Tennessee, then I think it might be fair to say that Goldwater's stated desire to sell the TVA would have been a cause for that).

different clue


Well . . . they didn't infiltrate. Their presence there is obvious and overt.

And Trump has ( or should have) Free Will and should in theory be able to think through the implications of things. If Kelly controls who-ever else gets to reach Trump, Kelly should be able to direct a steady stream of "no war" and "re-certify the agreement" analysts and case-presenters into Trump's office.

So if Trump decides to award the Kushners senior-most-powerful and final-authority advisory status, then that is on Trump. He doesn't get to plead senility or illiteracy if the Kushnerfull advice turns out badly.


The Iranians have "signaled" an interest to talking about ballistic missiles.
Either Trump is making them nervous OR this is just another tactic to quiet things down OR both.



You think we should fight Iran? pl


different clue

Kelly DOES NOT control Trump. DJT talks to the seducers all day long. pl

Ishmael Zechariah

Col. Lang, SST;
Two non-rhetorical questions:
1-Would it be prudent for Putin and China to sit out a war of USA w/ Syria, Hizbullah and Iran?
2-Nasrallah's latest speech contained a direct warning to the izzies. Do you think the izzies will come out unscathed from such a conflict?
Ishmael Zechariah


" Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are."

{when Firesign Theater becomes current rather than predictive it's past-time to get out the old vinyl. to your specific point, I concur that Old Folks Boogie may best describe our late-stage Imperial urge.}

Off our rockers, actin' crazy
With the right medication we won't be lazy
Doin' the old folks boogie
Down on the farm

And you know that you're over the hill
When your mind makes a promise that your body can't fill

Clueless Joe

I hope that there are a few half-sane people close to Trump - Mattis and Tillerson for instance - that can make him understand that there won't and can't be a mere "War on Iran"; when we're considering the US going to war against Iran, the only options are no war and World War. There's no way Russia, or even China, would stay quiet if Iran is actually assaulted.

Outrage Beyond

I have thought for a while now that Israel's days as Jewish supremacist state are numbered. The question has been: how will it end? I think the best they can realistically hope for is a South African-style transition to equality and democracy. Obviously, the results in South Africa are imperfect, but certainly better than continuing as a pariah state.

Zionists characterize this possibility of transition into a normal country as the "destruction" of Israel and are opposed to such a prospect. What they really mean is that it would be the destruction of Jewish supremacism in occupied Palestine. Witness the recent comments of "justice" minister Ayelet Shaked, who stated that Zionism meant a rejection of the idea of equal rights.

Since the South African solution is unacceptable to Zionism, the next alternative is the Algerian model. Hassan Nasrallah's recent speech was characterized by some observers as a warning in this direction. He urged Israeli citizens to leave while they could.

A Trump attack on Iran, whether "diplomatic" or direct makes another Israeli war against Lebanon more likely. The Israelis will see the feint against Iran as a green light for attacking Lebanon. They can't defeat Iran; they failed in Syria; so now they'll go for the easiest target, at least in their minds. Israeli media has been predicting another Lebanon war for months; and Netanyahu's personal scandals are another factor contributing towards the likelihood of an Israeli attack.

This time around, I suspect some Israeli jets will go down and the civilian population may take enough of a hit to accelerate the exodus. Some media reports suggest up to one million Israelis live abroad already. A million Russians could easily go back; and probably another million Europeans and Americans.

Interesting times indeed.


Why would voting for a former Secretary of State (diplomacy!) necessarily mean you were voting for war?

It was clearly not her preferred modus operandi.



In all due respect, but I think the outcome of this upcoming battle will not be that "AIPAC/Israel will continue to drag" the USA "toward war with Syria, Hizbullah and Iran." I think it will be quite the opposite: AIPAC will get a bloody nose.

And I think POTUS is on the right side. You said:

The dinner has the hallmarks of a typical hustler's deal closing event. The nice dinner with everyone dressed up, the chamber music quartet, the presence of the ladies who are likely to hope for more such attention. And, the implied threat is present. "I can always get someone else."

POTUS is an experienced salesman. I think he bets on the failure of AIPAC and congress and calculates that this is quite the opposite of a promising sales pitch to war on Iran. If he wouldn't bet on AIPAC failure why would he chose such a curious sales pitch for war on Iran?

different clue

Harlan Easley,

Now that you write about this, I retro-remember something about Trump calling Iran a terrible deal and so forth before the election. I guess I felt so threatened and menaced by a President Clinton that I set that aside in my mind.

And on reflection, I would agree that Trump was still the less immediately dangerous choice. Perhaps Trump's anti-Iran policy will play out slowly enough that all the other parties to the deal will announce that the deal remains in force so far as they are concerned, and they will no longer honor any sanctions on Iran. EUrope will have enough time to think about whether it wants to be Independent or not.

Pacifica Advocate

If Trump is suffering from early onset dementia, then waht we have is anotger Wilson/Reagan administration, with Zionists in the place of Madam Wilson/the Brits/G. Bush Sr.

The Beaver

Iran says missile program non-negotiable, denies Reuters report: agency


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
Blog powered by Typepad