Yves here. Many readers will find this post to be unduly generous about the odds that Trump might change course from America’s full spectrum belligerence under Biden. The fact that his appointments so far are hawks and his loudest anti-war allies during his campaign, RFK, Jr., has not been offered any posts, does not bode well for the idea that Trump will do much to end or scale back the US “forever wars”. Trump did name Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), but while that gives Gabbard “a seat at the table,” DNI is not the office from which forever wars emerge or are managed.
Scott Ritter, at the top of a recent talk with Nima of Dialogue Works, is dismissive even of the claim that Trump’s foreign policy picks are loyalists and itemizes how they can be expected to oppose Trump’s intent to steer clear of war with Iran and China.
Admittedly, Vance is anti-war but the Vice President is not a post that normally has much influence on foreign policy (with Dick Cheney the big exception). As an aside, as of this writing. Rubio has not yet been announced at Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, and the delay has led to speculation about other names.
Admittedly, one area where improvement is likely is the Ukraine war. Trump has long been dismissive of NATO, which he views as providing unwarranted subsidies to wealthy states. And that’s before getting to giving the EU a dose of its own medicine, as in the openly hostile treatment EU leaders gave to Trump during his first term.
However, Trump (as indicated by Vance’s peace ideas outlined below) is almost certainly not well informed about the fact that Russia is handily winning the war and how depleted Western weapons stocks are. That translates into the US having no bargaining leverage ex nukes. Russian officials have made clear that Russia will continue to prosecute the war until all SMO objectives have been achieved. The West continues to reject Putin’s most important requirement, no NATO membership for Ukraine and a commitment to its neutrality. The insistence that Ukraine will someday join NATO means that Russia will press onward until it can impose its will on all of Ukraine.
It’s not clear when and how Trump will get that reality check. One reason they might be better able to accept it than Biden (who also had a bizarre visceral hatred of Putin) is that, as outsiders, they didn’t create this situation. When they realize that the US is badly overextended, it would also reinforce the idea that the US needs to pick its spots.
We plan to discuss this topic in more depth soon, but even negotiation/diplomacy lover Alexander Mercoursis has concluded that Russia will end the war on the battlefield and Putin has no reason to compromise.
On the Middle East front, all of Trump’s appointments are diehard Israel loyalists. That does not bode well for keeping Israel from dragging the US into a war with Iran. However, if Trump and his team work out that Iran (ex nukes) has demonstrated escalation dominance, that Gulf States have been quietly and in Saudi Arabia’s case, openly strengthening ties Iran, and that it would take a US draft to bulk up the army enough to invade Iran (which is necessary to subdue it), they might start thinking about a Plan B. But even in that optimistic scenario, one can expect flailing and brinksmanship in the meantime. And the genocide in Gaza will continue.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, with an updated edition due in February 2025. Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of< Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
Photo Credit: UNICEF
When Donald Trump takes office on January 20th, all his campaign promises to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours and almost as quickly end Israel’s war on its neighbors will be put to the test. The choices he has made for his incoming administration so far, from Marco Rubio as Secretary of State to Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor, Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador make for a rogues gallery of saber-rattlers.
The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Marco Rubio voted against a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.
Rubio recently appeared on NBC’s Today Show saying, “I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we’re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion… I think there has to be some common sense here.”
On the campaign trail, Vance made a controversial suggestion that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established, and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to U.S. security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.
Any attempt by Trump to stop U.S. military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and rescinded the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.
So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And let’s not forget the efforts by European countries, and NATO, to keep the U.S. in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.
The Middle East, however, is a more difficult situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the Abraham accords between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the U.S. embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders; and recognized the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional U.S. support for Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis.
Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut U.S. weapons to Israel, despite public opinion polls favoring such a halt and a recent UN human rights report showing that 70% of the people killed by those U.S. weapons are women and children.
Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the U.S. election, Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.
Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant, and has led a campaign to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.
Other powerful voices, national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is also a “minister in the Defense Ministry,” represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trump’s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the U.S. transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trump’s options when he takes office.
The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible, confronting President Trump with a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in which Gaza’s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area, with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant, and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people.
The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.
Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties, and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But, as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called “buffer zone.” When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater U.S. involvement to help them “finish the job.”
The big wild card is Iran. Trump’s first term in office was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew America from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy, and ordered the killing of the country’s top general. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be talked out of attacking Iran in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.
Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently described to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on U.S.military wargames he was involved in.
Wilkerson predicts that a U.S. war on Iran could last for ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer Iran. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. So, once unleashed, the war would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving U.S. ground forces, in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand mile long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink U.S. warships.
But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. And they believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the assassination of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.
By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had reportedly spoken on the phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see “eye to eye on the Iranian threat.” Trump has already hired Iran hawkBrian Hook, who helped him sabotage the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.
So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.
Trump’s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently tweeted that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities, the most certain path to a full-scale war.
Trump’s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and she led the aggressive questioning of American university presidents at an anti-semitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.
So, while Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahu’s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.
If he wanted to, President Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and work through U.S. partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.
But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite–actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking “steps in the right direction” and Biden refused to take any action.
We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the Ukraine war towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.
68 comments
Comments are closed.
Realistically speaking, ending the war in Ukraine would probably save more lives than ending the genocide in Gaza, and is light-years more important than ending America’s unsuccessful attempts to bully Iran. That does not mean that support for the Gaza genocide is unimportant or that America can’t do more damage to Iran, of course, but one can make a strong case that Code Pink’s position is legitimate.
Unfortunately it is far from clear that Trump is either willing or able to end the war in Ukraine, and if that does not happen then his administration will merely see an exaggeration of the worst foreign policy in the Biden administration.
En passant, since I’m normally a cynical drive-by commentator and we’re talking bad foreign policy, has anyone noticed the chaos in Mozambique? There was an election and the ruling party won it. Suddenly, after weeks of nothing much happening, the opposition parties (Renamo and a “new” one called Podemos, which is headed by a banker who lives in Sandton, the white capitalist suburb of Johannesburg) discovered that the election was fraudulent. They didn’t manage to organise much protest in the Mozambican cities, but they did send some thugs to destroy one of the border posts with South Africa and block the coal trucks crossing the border. The whole thing was entirely covered from the point of view of the opposition in South Africa (Mozambique’s capital Maputo is half an hour’s drive from the South African border, so there would have been no trouble in sending a journalist there). Meanwhile Amnesty International called for the Southern African Democratic Community to send in troops to change the election result, and all the NATO-based election observers announced that the election was fraudulent (providing no evidernce, naturally) just as they did in Venezuela and Georgia.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that there might have been election fraud — Frelimo are no angels of mercy and are as corrupt as they come — but this smells like a colour revolution aimed at filching Mozambique’s gas. Remember how a mysterious guerrilla movement operating out of Tanzania successfully shut down the French gas operations in Cabo Delgado? I wonder if it went off half-cocked because the local handlers panicked when Trump was elected?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, but I have to disagree with you on Gaza. There is no question the amount of deaths is massively undercounted. It is probably over 400,000 now. And more to the point, with starvation kicking in, Israel is on track to kill every one of the 2.3 million occupants of Gaza ex whatever number managed to flee (oh, and throw in UN workers and journalists).
And you can add Lebanon and the West Bank to that tally.
By contrast, the Ukraine military is buckling. The highest estimate of its deaths so far is something like 600,000. I can’t imagine there will be more than 50% more by the time the Ukraine war ends. So say a million tops. That is less than the total we are likely to see in the end between Palestinians and Lebanese.
I know of the estimates by Lancet, that were around 185,000 when published several months ago (now what 280,000+?), a group of doctors there with 120,000 in summer, and the highest I have heard, 500,000 by end of 2024 as written in THE GUARDIAN:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/05/scientists-death-disease-gaza-polio-vaccinations-israel
From that piece:
“(…)
The Lancet medical journal recently published an estimate of deaths in Gaza from several respected scientists, who outline their process of estimation (comparison with similar conflicts) and final numbers. They estimate that about 186,000 total deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza, which is roughly 7.9% of its population, by mid-June 2024. This high number is despite various ceasefire agreements over the past six months. If deaths continue at this rate – about 23,000 a month – there would be an additional 149,500 deaths by the end of the year, some six and half months from the initial mid-June estimate. Using the method, the total deaths since the conflict began would be estimated at about 335,500 in total.”
(…)
In December 2023, my estimate was about half a million deaths without a ceasefire. This roughly aligns with the Lancet estimates – they used a very conservative estimate, but allowed that the number could easily be much higher. It also shows what could have happened had the international community not acted, and taken advantage of the brief windows available to deliver aid and medical care.
(…)”
Of course for any discussion (me: Germany!) “estimates” are difficult – to say the least – in any argument. People will argue that 43,000 vs. 280,000 is a huge difference. (of course were it Israelis or Ukrainians killed the figures would be going through the roof).
p.s. just on a side note how fearsome even BSW in Germany are in terms of RU and war:
In Febr. 2023 Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer had organized the largest anti-war protest in Germany by that time, with a petition signed by 100,000 within 2 weeks.
However I noticed that the petition text claimed 50,000 killed Ukrainian civilians! UN then had calculated around 8,500.
(Imagine that in light of what happened since in Gaza with 43,000!).
So I contacted them thinking it was an error. Turns out: They used not the numbers from the UN – like in any other conflict. No, what they did instead, use numbers the US ARMED FORCES had provided. Take that in. With the argument those were more accurate! That tells you a lot about what to expect from German forein policy…and – I am sorry to say: the level of competence (since no serious scholar would have agreed with that incredible number.)
The Lancet deaths are deaths by bombing. There are pretty standard rules of thumb and even then either Larry Wilkerson or Scott Ritter said the Lancet methodology was conservative and at least 250,00 seemed more likely, even as high as 400,000.
And I do not believe they factored in starvation or loss of access to medical care and drugs for those with chronic conditions.
Regarding BSW: writing a pamphlet is different from a scholarly treatise. They want to end the war, so using the highest number of dead civilians that they can get away with is correct. What are their opponents going to do, point out that you can’t trust the US armed forces?
I was aware of the tactics behind it.
However the number 50.000 never turned up ever before and since. And the true UN figures were never in dispute. Nobody cared about that. The hate and Putin-trashtalk was too prevalent for this to matter. So the text would have worked perfectly well without that issue at all.
So why was it in the letter? It was in fact a product of political compromise with certain people who hate Russia and see zero justification for what RU does but feared WWIII.
Additionally Wagenknecht and her circle lack the competence on this subject. This was a secondary issue then. It won´t be in future dealings with RU.
People expect way too much on that front from any German party. Just look closely at what e.g. Sevim Dagdelen – who has all my respect and admiration – says about this war: It is always the illegal aggressive full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces.
Which means to say that among many opponents of the war in Germany – those who are in higher academic positions and thus with more influence in particular – there is little willingness to engage RU in a long-term and sensible form – one of empathy.
The letter gave away the true intellectual air of German intelligentsia in its entirety. Imagine such a text on e.g. Gaza. You would have the same issue but with hugely undercounted numbers.
So those incorrect 50.000 were harbringers of something much more profound.
p.s. And as a historic record – if peope will look up the letter one day they will truly believe that 50.000 were killed in Ukraine after 10 months of war! I have always been of the opinion that you better stay with truth. Otherwise it might catch up with you in very unpleasant ways one day.
I appreciate your update on the situation in Mozambique. Thank you. Of course the reporting by Western media focuses on the low credibility of the election results, which, as you say, is quite a credible claim, thought nobody is able to see what are the political differences between any of the election candidates except a struggle for power. Podemos candidates are seemingly nothing but dissidents from the ruling party. As you suggest it might possibly a be only fight to see who benefits from possible future resource extraction.
I can’t offer any particular insight into whats happening in Mozambique, but I’m usually inclined to think that this sort of undermining of the government smacks of the sort of private sector attempted coup which always seems a feature of Africa. Past coups have often featured a bizarre rogues gallery of mining interests, freelance mercs, adventurers and spooks following their own personal interests. I’m not sure if a destabilized Mozambique is really in the interest of any of the major powers.
Incidentally, the one big resource that everyone wants from Mozambique is its very large offshore LNG play. It is mostly being run by TotalEnergies, a French company, but US and Italian companies are also active in both the exploration and production. So its not westerners trying to gain control of it – they already have control. There have been disputes in the past with South Africa, as the geology extends across the maritime boundary and South Africa have a small natural gas play on their side, so its possible this could be behind some of the bad faith actors.
Mozambique also has a massive amount of coal, but its almost certainly in the wrong place for viable extraction. It has a lot of aluminium and some other minerals, but these are mature plays, with the usual big names in mining all having their fingers in that pie. I doubt if any of them have an interest in making things less stable, but you never know in that region.
“undermining of the government smacks of the sort of private sector attempted coup which always seems a feature of Africa.”
That’s what is going on everywhere. In someplaces using different means to achieve the coup. It’s a slow creep, a bit like:
Britain must treat tech giants like nation states, minister warns – The Times
There was nothing sudden about the Mozambique opposition discovering election fraud. It took more than ten days for the official results to appear. There were demonstration already before that, and a lot of complaints.
After the official count was published, there were riots, and the opposition, or Podemos, started it’s own count based on the “editais”, or tabulations, they received from 70% of the polling stations. Meanwhile the Constitutional Council rejected over 300 complaints about the elections.
After finishing the “parallel count”, Podemos reached a completely different result, and provided the Constitutional Council with over 300 kg of these “editais” as a proof of election fraud and declaring correct results.
Constitutional Council is still pondering what to do, while each party in turn is proposing a “National Unity” government and the other side rejecting the proposal. And people keep on demonstrating and rioting, and police keeps on shooting them.
It’s not going to stop at Gaza or West Bank. Already attempts to move the same destruction into Lebannon.
Once they kill all the Palestinians, apparently its onward to next in the region.
And the US is a partner in the Genocide.
Is there a set of records of the US ranting a part of Galilee land’s at the land at the end of ww2?
It’s not looking good. Saw a nickname creeping up on the internet to rival Genocide Joe: Zion Don.
> Gabbard
Here’s The Atlantic already braying that she’s a security risk and calling on the Senate to refuse her:
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/11/tulsi-gabbard-nomination-security/680649/
I was wondering how important Director of National Intelligence is given the multitude of intelligence agencies in the US. But apparently important enough for an Atlantic hatchet job so my hope of Gabbard doing something good for peace there just went up.
The Director of National Intelligence is the apex of all intelligence agencies. Theoretically the CIA is subordinate but in practice that has not been the case. However, some experts have said the best way to rein in the CIA is to put the DNI in its proper top slot.
John Bolton was furious in an interview talking about her appointment when more worthy people could have been found – like himself. He was so mad his walrus mustache was almost spinning around in a circle. He was also saying that both she and Gaetz must have full field FBI investigations before any confirmation hearings because, you know, the Biden FBI has always proven themselves impartial-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H1SEhFEOfU (1:29 mins)
Bolton has been nursing a grudge ever since Trump fired him, for what looked awfully like incompetence at the time (his press conference outing the CIA mole in the Venezuelan parliament, resulting in his immediate arrest, springs to mind).
He’s been doing the media rounds since then, offering his view to anyone that will listen (he even did an interview on national radio here). I am constantly having to remind myself that things aren’t automatically good just because John Bolton disapproves of them.
It’s hard for me to get a read on Gabbard these days. But based on her past positions she is clearly the best of Trump’s foreign policy lot so far, most of whom are pretty miserable. She seems to pass the pro-Israel test, like all of Trump’s appointees. But she was strongly critical of Trump’s moves against Iran during his first term. The best part is, as its rag The Atlantic demonstrates, the neocon/neolib Establishment will go nuts over her appointment. She did the unthinkable (to them) by calling out our bulls**t in Syria and challenging our other regime change operations, turning her back on a promising political career. I think it will take some effort by Trump to get her confirmed. Reactions like that in The Atlantic might provide him extra motivation.
While I am open to the idea that she might be good on foreign policy, the people making this claim would have more credibility if they addressed how her recent military service since leaving Congress fits into this. For those who don’t know, she is a Lt. Col in the army’s civil affairs division. In this role she deployed to the Horn of Africa in 2020 alongside a special operations unit. Seems like her background is related to psychological warfare. I’ve linked her instagram post where she references her deployment. Anyways, to me seems like more Obama-style “smart wars”, rather than “no war”.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/11/22/after-pushing-conspiracies-tulsi-gabbard-lectures-special-ops-students-avoiding-disinformation.html?amp
https://www.instagram.com/p/CU1_AOwrZaF/?igsh=MTFjZXFzdHFhMHdreA==
Interesting. Thanks. As I say, I’m not sure what to make of Gabbard these days. It is worth noting, though, that the “conspiracies,” “disinformation,” and “Russian talking points” Gabbard is accused of in the military.com article were all true, while the article itself is an obvious smear piece. On the other hand, why, and how, is she giving such a lecture on this subject to this audience? Who knows. Maybe she’s really a Deep State plant. Hell, maybe Trump is a Deep State Plant too – a *really* deep one – or maybe a Mossad agent! Or maybe he really is going to drain the swamp this time!
Sorry, got carried away for a minute. If “sowing confusion” is psyops 101, then it’s apparently working. But *whose* psyops?
On the subject of “wild cards”, perhaps one to add is the intervention by the Houthis. E.g,, there are posts on Twitter of Houthi hypersonic missiles against Israel (can Iron Dome really stop them?) and now salvos against the USS Abraham Lincoln:
https://x.com/AsgardIntel/status/1856597696259162305
https://x.com/AsgardIntel/status/1856593159435768080
Looks like an aircraft carrier on fire to me, but how to verify this? I would not expect any honest statements from Western media about the current condition of the Lincoln. And given the nature of asymmetrical warfare and current tech, it’s difficult see what the US could actually do to stop the Houthis.
It rather looks like the most badass military in the world is out there in the ocean playing chicken with missiles and drones — what could go wrong? If a destroyer or even a big nuclear aircraft carrier were disabled, the military could quietly tow it somewhere for repair, but not if it were sunk. And if aircraft carriers aren’t safe, good luck getting any warplanes into the area to escalate against Iran.
It’s above my pay grade to game this out, but I can’t help but see it as a potential game changer.
Okay, other commenters have pointed out this is old video.
Trying to find credible reportage is very difficult :/
Trump’s neocon picks clarify why his campaign had such a soft ride this year compared to past elections. He was the Iran War candidate, and the man deemed more likely by the Israel state lobby to bring the US more forcefully into the campaign. The Democrats as a whole were not seen as reliable in this regard; passive-aggressive supporters of genocide yes, US boots in the sandbox no. Trump is probably seen as “Nixon in China” by Washington when it comes to troop deployment, his prior isolationism lending “credence” to the necessity for their long sought war.
Performative opposition only. Washington as a collective has chosen Trump, and an Israel first, Iran war second policy.
Putin on the other hand.
Trump and Washington both don’t ‘do’ relative checks. But on this point all Washington plots will come undone very quickly because the Russians have no intention of ending the Ukraine war in 24 hours. They have Nato in a vice and are taking their time turning the crank.
This means that the US can’t easily extricate itself from the Ukraine war, but the pressure from the Israeli state to transfer all resources towards Iran is irresistible. Trump therefore, after his “deals” fail, will simply pull the plug. That’s what he is there for.
The West Bank is the real prize. And the IDF does not have the manpower to carry out a similar ethnic cleansing campaign. Enter Ben Gvir’s 100,000 man armed settler militias, who will take the opportunity of Trump sign offs on the occupied territories and the cover of an Iran war to kick off a Rwanda scale genocide in the West Bank. One that will forever stain the US President who approved it. That, again, is what Trump is there for.
After 4 years of this, do not be surprised to see AfD or UKIP style political radicalism take genuine root in the US, as the population becomes utterly disillusioned with the staged-managed electoral charade that is getting their children killed in the sandbox again.
I don’t see the time when Israel can ever be secure in the Middle East.
While they can kill all of the Palestinians (because they harbor Hamas) and grab Gaza and the West Bank, Israel will be surrounded by nations who Israel should view as hostile.
Border walls and demilitarized zones won’t prevent drone and missile attacks on Israel in the future.
Kicking the can down the road can work for a while, but maybe the road ends at a dead end.
It may be that the Great God of Logistics will have the final say here in what can be done. In missiles alone, I seriously doubt that the US has the missiles to send to the Ukraine to defend them from Russia, send missiles to Israel to protect them from Iranian, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. missiles, send missiles to the US Navy to fend off attack in the Red Sea, and finally accumulate the missiles necessary to have a credible defence against China. Each of these missiles takes I believe a coupla days to build and are now probably going straight from manufacturing plants to the front lines. So in one briefing that would mention the amount of missile stocks alone and their burn rate would underline the fact that there is going to have to be some prioritization.
So probably the Ukraine gets dropped as Trump is not a fan of a losing operation. And it may be that he will have to tell the Israelis that they have a choice. Continue to supply Israel with missiles for their defence or accumulate missiles for an attack on Iran somewhere down the track. Choose one. For the China hawks, he would tell them to talk all the other theaters of war into giving up their missile allocations to be sent to the Pacific instead. Good luck with that one. The Great God of Logistics is an unforgiving one and the US military’s supply depots are not in the same shape that they were in when Trump took power the first time round back in 2016.
Given US unwillingness to authorize long range missile strikes in Russia and the so far poor results of what has been provided to Ukraine the logistic problem wouldn’t have noticeable consequences in the Ukrainian front. Possibly the one thing that the West has still to spare is fighting armoured vehicles thought given the increase in Russian drone usage that has 0 chances to change anything in Ukraine. Otherwise, these can useful to keep the massacring alive around Israel. All this suggests a shift to the Middle East not because Trump nominations but because realities on the ground.
I believe with you that “the Great God of Logistics will have the final say”. The u.s. MIC has demonstrated remarkable [considering the money dumped on the MIC] inability to supply the war materiel required to sustain the many proxy wars the u.s. has engineered. I am not aware of any initiatives or technological force multipliers that alter my perception that there are neither men nor materiel adequate to sustain the war in Ukraine, and insufficient supplies of war materials to continue sustaining Israel’s horrific genocides. Trump could accomplish his promises to end the war in the Ukraine and Israel based on the difficult, dare I suggest irrefutable, limits on u.s. logistics support for either war.
I do not understand what rationale motivates Trump’s desire to engage with Iran. When the u.s. made war in Iraq, that was a case of smacking a tar-baby better left alone. Trump striking Iran would be like striking a hot tar-baby and following up that mistake with kicking the tar-baby with both feet. Iran is a large, powerful nation, with powerful allies, strong diplomatic ties with past enemies, a large area and population, and a long and illustrious history as a hegemon of the Middle East.
I hope Trump might leverage the purely economic and practical reasons for putting a halt to u.s. support — financial and weapons related — for u.s. support to the Ukraine, and that Trump might simply cut off all financial and weapons based support for Israel, using the economic deficits as cover for what I view as purely rational measures to shore up the edges of u.s Empire. [I do not favor u.s. Empire, though I do favor u.s. involvement in assuring that future Empires pass over the u.s. as they spread their influence.].
A short, crisp piece of gargabe from THE NATION
The View from Moscow
It’s complicated.
by Fred Weir
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-putin-russia-cold-war/
Some impressive insinuations:
“Vladimir Putin’s alleged ability to manipulate US elections in favor of his secret soul brother Donald Trump has been an enduring meme in American media discourse for almost a decade.”
or
“Instead, the US media’s obsession with Trump’s apparent acceptance of Putin’s word that Russia hadn’t interfered in the US election, instead of his believing US intelligence agencies, became the only takeaway the summit is remembered for.”
This is the very same paper where a Stephen Cohen had condemned Russiagate as the biggest scandal in the history of the US already some 5 years ago:
“It cannot be emphasized too often: Russiagate—allegations that the American president has been compromised by the Kremlin, which may even have helped to put him in the White House—is the worst and (considering the lack of actual evidence) most fraudulent political scandal in American history.”
https://archive.is/5aXob
But being one of “(…)the few (…) US newspaper(s) still based in Moscow(…)” not everything could be flatout lies.
How Weir achieves to do that is – to quote him – “complicated” – see final paragraph:
I recently asked Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the international committee of Russia’s upper house of parliament, if he thought Trump’s victory would make any difference for Russia’s foreign policy calculations. He said it certainly would, because where Joe Biden was a “pro-Western” leader, Trump is a “pro-American” one. He left me to decipher that, but it didn’t sound like he believes anything will get easier.
Wow. What a douchebag. Imagine they would put such lies about Harris or Clinton.
You should read this article again. It is posted in today’s Links. I think you’ve misread it. The author is actually *criticizing* the ideas in each of the passages you highlight (except Cohen’s). In fact, given the poor history of The Nation on Russiagate since Cohen, I thought that it was a positive sign that it published a piece that provided a somewhat more realistic view on Trump and Russia.
Elijiah Magnier is claiming this morning that Israel is preparing for a major armored push into Lebanon with five divisions now that they seem to have secured (i.e. flattened) the southern border area. The objective is anyones guess (if its true), but it could be that their aim is to either annex or create a dead zone south of the Litani, along with making Lebanon even more of an economic cripple by destroying key infrastructure. There is a significant Christian population south of the Litani (most of whom don’t like Hezbollah) – I’ve often wondered if one Israeli strategy would be to create a small Christian buffer state between the current border and the Litani. I would imagine this would appeal to many of Trumps backers.
A couple of weeks ago the YTer History Legends, a generally very good military historian, claimed that Israel is generally succeeding in its initial strike into Lebanon. He got a lot of kickback from a variety of commentators on that, but in raw terms, I think he is correct. Israels casualties (so far) have been far lighter than in 2006 and they seem to have created the initial border safe zone they want. Whether this is the overall aim, or whether this is just stage 1, only time will tell, but I would guess they want more. With Trump in power, they are certain to feel more confident that the US has its back, although I wonder whether he would be willing to bankroll a collapsed Israeli economy, something that looks increasingly likely.
Incidentally, I think some care needs to be taken in interpreting neocon calls for war on Iran. A lot of commentators seem to assume this would constitute an invasion, but that would clearly be barking mad, even for that lot. I’ve yet to see a detailed Israeli/neocon blueprint for an attack on Iran, but I suspect that its only in their wildest dreams that it would involve boots on the ground. A more ‘realistic’ option for the Israeli’s/neocons would be to cripple Irans economy by destroying its energy infrastructure, along with fomenting a civil war with its minorities. And Iran has a lot of unhappy minorities. Ethnic Persians are (depending on source) only around 55-65% of the population. The rest consist of Kurds, Baluchs, and a variety of Turkmen, Armenian, Azerbaijani and other groups, not to mention Christians and Sunni’s of various ethnicities, none of whom seem to have any great love of the government. I would guess the ‘real’ Israeli/neocon plan would be to smash Iran and walk away, while peeling off any group that looks like it may succeed in creating its own little State. Nearby States such as Azerbaijan (an ally of Israel and no friend of Iran) and Pakistan (which has its own issues with Iran) could well cooperate. Smashing Iran economically would be well within the US’s capability – its electrical infrastructure is very underinvested and rickety, and heavily dependent on a small number of large oil and gas generating plants. Its oil and gas network is also very vulnerable. While Iran has dramatically improved its air defences in the past few years, I doubt it has yet reached anywhere close to the stage that it can defend the entire landmass from determined strikes.
The problem with that plan, as far as I can see, is that, if Iran were staring at major economic disruption, they would have no incentive to not flatten Israel with their conventional missile arsenal.
Finally, we can barely see, over the horizon, a combined Sunni Shia Jihad to eradicate the State of Israel. If the West were to devastate the Iranian oil infrastructure, the Kingdom might end up being similarly devastated by the rump Iranian military missile force. As I mentioned elsewhere, the main “victim” of that would be Asia. Imagine that, China and Japan coming together over the issue of oil supplies.
Too many possible unexpected outcomes to count.
I’m sorry, I’m really interested in what you have to say and this is great analysis here along the commenters, but who is the kingdom, Saudi Arabia?
That could happen. But then Iran could totally block the Strait of Hormuz and if the US Navy has been defeated by Yemen in trying to open up the Red Sea, then there is zero chance of the opening up the Strait of Hormuz. With that shut, what would be the effect on the world economy? Not good I suspect. Is the world ready for a general recession and a slowdown of the world economy? And as ambrit has said, Iran may go for their own Sampson Option and flatten Israel into the ground and return most of it to the desert. Do they really want to go there?
China takes a lot of oil from Iran, Russia has just signed a defense pact. Saudi’s are starting joint naval activities. Iran is no longer alone.
The US bases in west Asia are just as vulnerable as Iranian infrastructure, as would be large ships.
Neocons are barking.
I don’t know what Magnier is talking about. Israel already has five divisions there and that was considered a big deployment.
As to losses, that is not at all what Larry Wilkerson says and he has multiple sources. He says that Israel has >4,000 wounded, as in “lost a limb” level wounded and that what matters for a military is wounded in action (KIA+ wounded) not KIA, and he deems 4,000 at what was then the 40 day mark to be horrific for Israel. Plus Israel is short of tanks too, while Hezbollah continues to make strikes well into Israel.
Iran has yet to retaliate against Israel. Mohammed Marandi has been the most accurate in forecasts on this front and he maintains Iran will hit hard.
If Israel or the US+ Israel were to make a meaningful new attack on Iran, Iran can easily take out all sorts of critical Israel infrastructure, starting with its desalination plants and power. Iran warned that the next time it would hit civilian infrastructure.
It was link I read this morning, I didn’t have time to follow up the details of what he is suggesting will happen, but he implied that the advance would be of armoured divisions brought in from behind (i.e. current reserves). The operational units are quite ‘fluid’ so any divisions may not necessarily be at full strength.
From open sources, it seems that four divisions have been used so far – the 36th, 98th, 91st and 146th, along with a variety of specialist brigades and reserve units. But these have not all been used in full force at the same time – they are clearly anticipating a long operation and have already done a full rotation.
Its always very difficult to assess injuries figures. But in terms of mortality, Israel admitted to a loss of 141 soldiers in around a month in 2006 (other sources claim substantially more). So far they seem to have lost around 50, after 6 weeks of combat, and they’ve achieved far more in terms of ‘real’ ground controlled compared to 2006.
Iran can do a lot of damage to Israels infrastructure (I’m sceptical that they have sufficient firepower to deliver a genuine knock out blow), but I believe they are very reluctant to do so precisely because they are aware of how vulnerable their own power infrastructure is. Israel probably can’t do too much damage to infrastructure on the northern side of Iran (i.e. around Tehran), but with US support it certainly could. It would be an exchange nobody would win, which is why I think so far both sides have refrained from anything but military targets.
The problem is that Washington based Neocons probably don’t really care if Israel is seriously damaged, so long as they get their war. Which is why the only deterrent against Washington neocons would be Iranian missiles that can hit the DC suburbs. They aren’t far away from that goal.
Huh? Israel has barely gotten into Lebanon at all and we are I believe 45 days in. They have yet to control a single village.
In 2006, the entire war was only 34 days.
Deaths are not the issue (and the deaths are much higher than those figures). It’s wounded. Wilkerson stressed that the wounded in modern wars, particularly when the line of combat is SO close to not just field hospitals but top medical hospitals, will mainly survive. But it means you also have many many survivors with horrific injuries. He was quite confident of the 4,000 wounded; I will recheck if that was just Lebanon or was for Gaza too, but he said it was unsustainable, and he was talking about Lebanon at that time. A new talk by Scott Ritter similarly stressed that Israel is having a terrible time in Lebanon, that Hezbollah has had 18 years to set up a great big ambush on its terrain. He discussed that after Israel announced the expansion of its ground operation, Hezbollah has pushed back hard in the last 24 hours with intensified drone strikes and building explosion that by itself killed 10 IDF soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deTn2iM2fRg
Also of note is that the troops taking the casualties in Lebanon are/were Israel’s best and will be replaced by warm, poorly-trained bodies. For example, Electronic Intifada keeps showing Israel troops killed for standing in front of windows, after a year, which says a lot about training standards.
There are no allies in Western Asia that the US could rely on, if trying to go against Iran, or further prosecuting the genocide, ethnic cleansing, and territorial expansion. If anything, spines seem to be streangthening:
https://www.indianpunchline.com/west-asia-reacts-to-trumps-dalliance-with-zionism/
Good update, I was getting confused on the official status of Rubio nomination. What is depressing is that your ending comment, and the genocide in Gaza will continue is abhorrent to most informed, civilized, Americans who have a conscience.
If I were a betting man, I’d bet on business as usual, only with more bluster and vulgarity. There’s an outside chance Trump might wind down Ukraine or initiate a war with Iran. Maybe one or the other, maybe both, but mostly it’ll be the same old thing. His cabinet picks should make it clear that all the “anti-war” rhetoric at best was a posture, a grift to get a few votes from people who should know better.
I do wonder how there is a bridge between the Russians prime goal to cut Ukraine off from NATO arms supplies and any US president.
Scott Ritter recently pointed out that RU and UKR still fight hard. And that won´t change over night.
Besides the arms deals which have been signed by the EU in recent years and months – that machinery is destined for the Eastern Front. Or what is Poland going to do with 500+ SK state of the art tanks? Attack Germany as a change?
Trump is anti-war but pro-hegemony—this is the best (or rather least bad) outcome possible in 2024 DC.
Just as the Democrats have no bench of potential presidential nominees, the anti-war camp has no bench of players who can thread the needle of being (begrudgingly) acceptable to the existing bureaucracy and RINOs (DINOs), and having relevant experience in DC that can check-mate DC journalists.
Tulsi Gabbard is the bench. On the good news, if she is confirmed, getting good intelligence is anti-war, as much of intel involves inferring the intent of the parties involved. And inferring intent can be/likely is driven by the worldview of the middle management who edit the work of the analysts.
Hopefully Tulsi will answer the question: is much of western “intelligence” of Ukraine and Gaza-Lebanon just lazily laundered intelligence from Ukrainian and Israeli security agencies (Ukraine tells South Korea, SK tells MI6, MI6 tells CIA…CIA “independently” restates Ukraine’s original flawed intel, see lack of evidence of NK soldiers fighting in Kursk)
I tend to agree. Rand Paul has run an opinion piece by Larry C. Johnson that points in the same direction. Larry is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/what-is-donald-trump-doing/
A good sequence from the venerable film “Hunt for Red October” mentions a “Crazy Ivan” gambit meant to mislead an opponent. That sort of strategy could be in play. Trump seems to be choosing loyalists over seasoned Blob apparatchiks.
“Crazy Ivan”? But we do not have Wash at the helm or Kaylee to execute the mechanics of the maneuver.
The light is fading earlier every day here in the south-west corner of New York State, so my mood is correspondingly gloomy. I am reading, not in great depth because I find it massively depressing, the news trickling out from COP29 being held in Azerbaijan. There continues to be a widening disparity between the stated goals and the actuality of carbon reduction. Things are getting worse, rather than improving.
It seems that we have collectively thrown up our hands and the corporations-in-charge are simply plowing ahead, building up their massive profits from carbon-emitting extraction and bomb manufacture and everywhere war, climate disruption be damned because we’re gonna have enough cash and power to ride out the inevitable storm.
The inmates are running the asylum. The psychopaths that rise to the top, because our western belief system rewards individual success rather than promotion of the common good, have taken over: the Bezos, the Gates, the Murdochs, the Buffets, the Zuckerberg’s, with Elon Musk, the word’s ‘richest’ man, as ’eminence grise’ to the US President-Elect. Or, maybe it’s the reverse.
“climate disruption be damned because we’re gonna have enough cash and power to ride out the inevitable storm”
Yeah. If that’s what they think, they may have a very large shock coming, but by then it will be too late for all of us.
There are now perhaps two major question marks about the efficacy of the likely approach of the new Adelson/Musk Administration towards West Asia.
The first is that relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia appear to have been warming (MBS was recently referring to the ‘sisterly’ relationship between the former adversaries), which may pose a problem for the revival of the Abraham Accord policy which Trump and Netanyahu had hoped would place Israel at the apex of a new West Asian economic community. If there is a strike on Iran, then might KSA and other Gulf states finally rebel against US tutelage? After all, China is now a very significant investor in the region, and in KSA in particular.
The second is that the extent of Russia’s commitment to Iran, which was supposed to have been confirmed by means of a treaty at Kazan, remains obscure. Perhaps it is remaining deliberately obscure so that Russia can play off Iran and Ukraine in order to get a better settlement over Ukraine and/or because Russia thinks that maintaining a degree of ambiguity will give the US pause about whether it ought to attack Iran. However, I suspect that any form of strategic ambiguity or subtlety will be of little interest to Adelson/Netanyahu (who are really controlling US policy from behind the arras) or their proxies/agents whom Trump (or Hook/Lutnick acting on behalf of Adelson) is now elevating to high office.
“The insistence that Ukraine will someday join NATO means that Russia will press onward until it can impose its will on all of Ukraine.”
Basically, Z/Ukraine can’t make peace with Russia, only NATO can.
NATO can’t make peace with Russia, but it can make Cold War 2.0.
In the sense that Russia as an enemy is its reason for being.
If the day ever comes that most of Europe stops seeing ghosts from the past, it’s out of the USA’s control.
To be more accurate: ghosts from wars past.
Anecdata point on the ongoing impact of Israel’s wars on the insulated Tel Aviv dwellers: over the past 2 weeks or so since the end of the Israeli/Jewish high holiday season, the rate of ‘shelter warning’ alerts requiring colleagues to drop from video calls and run to the shelters during work due to incoming ordnance has increased significantly. I think I saw it happen maybe once a month prior to holidays, now its impacting someone on the calls (either in TLV or in the ring suburbs) daily. Many more comments from those not having to run to the shelters of nearby interception explosions. The company we are working with in TLV is less than a hundred people and we spend most of the first half of the North American day on video calls at the end of their day and start of ours. The pressure is being dialed up even though they mostly shrug it off (to us).
Well, maybe I missed something but, the dems let the repubs claim the gauntlet of the peace party and the guy who could be the bravado man to protect everybody and have a love fest ( I wonder if Don is still in his closet – talking about palmer’s thing in the locker room and other braggadocios over play) but – maybe the american public who voted for or against the duopoly and, or just for, or, against the repubs or dems…..maybe just keep the heat on the President and Congress for those things promised regarding peace…ending wars, making america great again… just keep pushing on the issues that matter and mocking the red herrings appearances every time it floats belly up to the surface. Just be relentless and push past the kabuki theater and relentless mud-slinging, fellow citizens are enemy, everybody else is to blame except us BS etc.– Maybe Trump can actually do something about Stock Buy-backs like he promised last time he held office. Maybe he should still be pissed enough about how the banks treated him in the past that he might want Glass-Steagal restored. Or how the big speculative money will continue to show him what an arse he be. – He wants to get into the annals of history (given how obsessed he is with anal) so maybe hold him to a high standard and call his BS every time.
Clearly, all the purposeful political theatrics by both parties is done to obfuscate the the actual work for the rentier class and special interests by congress, and to me, the whole thing has been perverted to the point of being a crime against, not only humanity but, the entirety of life on this little globe.
I Apologize for my bit of rant.
Your comment seems a little askew of the current discussion around this post. Trump did campaign around issues related to the many ongoing wars, but please remind me of Trump’s concerns about reigning in the rentier class and special interests … beyond his vague notions of “draining the swamp”. I perceived both candidates, Trump and Kamala as candidates of, for, and promoted by the “rentier class and special interests”. Though subsidiary issues, our manifold wars drain the u.s. economy, help some interests — like the MIC and its many profiteers — but generally make a dent in u.s. prestige [if there is any left to ‘dent’] and weigh heavily on non-Defense sectors of the u.s. economy … and weigh extremely heavily on non-Defense Federal expenditures. Maybe Trump might “do something about Stock Buy-backs” and bring back Glass-Steagal … I would be happy and extremely surprised if Trump did so much as retain Lina Khan in her position at the FTC. For extra points, I would be ecstatic if Trump were to effect replacing Postmaster DeJoy with someone who would undo DeJoy’s destruction of the US Postal Service.
In a weird way, all this focus on Trump or who he picks draws us into the same short-sighted, election-cycle thinking the government is guilty of. It assumes we drive the dialectic.
I don’t want to say it’s likely because I think most countries truly want reason to prevail and don’t want to escalate their conflicts. But honestly, if I were advising Putin, Khamanei, Xi, or anybody else staring down the “rules-based order”, I’d be suggesting no diplomacy and one step up (just one) on the escalator, and ask every allied power to do the same in coordination. Even though it can’t do much, maybe even Cuba can thumb its nose at Marco Rubio somehow.
And the key is to time it to within the first couple weeks of Trump taking office. The goal is not to influence Trump himself though; the goal is to finally make it clear to the American people that their obsolete political process changes nothing, and let the contradictions collide. We are already in WWIII, and the key in war is to break the enemy’s political will to fight.
The “Trump is a peace-maker” people will keep rationalizing as long as others talk to him; the “Trump is a tough guy” people will keep rationalizing as long as others don’t attack. And that rationalization is a big part of what keeps the zombie policies going. Trump and his supporters may even start screaming about a draft to protect his ego, but the great irony is most of the people that would fight a war at this point aren’t Trump fans (and I know he got a lot of young voters, but they are no soldiers, which would be its own long post).
Your comment is … … odd. You believe “most countries truly want reason to prevail”. I do most truly wish that were true, but I rather greatly, greatly doubt that that is the case. Could you provide some evidence for your claim. I am most readily disposed to desire and clasp evidence for the ascendance of reason in politics, … … alas, for six decades and some years I have seen little evidence to polish my long darkening hopes. Please, please help me from my pessimism about reason prevailing … please reference some evidence for the ascendance of reason in any discipline, doctrine, teachings, learning, or human understanding of the world as it ‘is’. You would give water to a man dying of thirst.
Sorry for the late reply, but although I normally don’t consider myself an optimist, I look at it in the same sense as Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: “life finds a way.” Also, maybe I have a lower standard for calling something rational than most. I don’t expect people to walk in continual enlightenment, but just show a little coherence, self-awareness, and willingness to change one’s mind when the world intervenes. This is one of the few things I’ve realized I’m inescapably American on: shameless, capital “P” Pragmatism.
And I think most people are capable of that most of the time. The rest of the world is obviously a messed-up place too with lots of broken people. A little personal disclosure on my religious-ish beliefs (and it is heretical so mums the word): I really believe this world is a subtle kind of hell. A beautiful hell, eine Schöne Hölle, but a hell nonetheless. But there are muuuuch worse hells than this one, and I don’t think it’s so bad that most of earth is walking around with more pennies than brain-cells to rub together.
In a weird way, my cynicism about the state of affairs in America is just the opposite side of that same coin. This country has developed some next-level pathologies at this point in time, to a degree I don’t think most of the world has. And even if you or I remain relatively healthy-minded, that still puts our whole country and culture in a weird sort of bubble.
I think that’s why America feels so weird right now, especially to sensitive types (remember the opening to Hesse’s Steppenwolf?). Even if a lot of things will materially carry on for a while yet (“there is much ruin in a nation”), there is a miasma hanging over everything. I don’t think it has blanketed the earth though.
I would love to see Trump issue an arrest warrant for Kier Starmer for interfering in US elections. There’s certainly enough evidence to bring a case for the Labour Party spending money on “volunteers” supporting Harris.
As Assange can attest, the US/UK have a water-tight Extradition Treaty.
Starmer is, after all, merely a government functionary, none of this Head of State nonsense…
Best suggestion I’ve come across for, oh, years and years. How I would laugh. Please God, make it happen!
Meanwhile Isreal meddles away.
@NotThePilot at 8:54 am
“maybe even Cuba can thumb its nose at Marco Rubio somehow” : With having help like this and more?: “Russia to aid hurricane-hit Cuba with diesel fuel, minister says”: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/russia-aid-hurricane-hit-cuba-with-diesel-fuel-minister-says-2024-11-08/
Greenwald had a good take last night here.
While he was skeptical that many of the recent appointments were really committed to ending the wars, he did point out that some of them have recently modified their more hawkish positions, and also reminded that while Trump appointed quite a few warmongers in his first administration, they were not able to convince him to start any new wars. They had to wait for Biden for that.
“But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel.”
Indeed….With the state of industry being what it is in the US and other Western countries.
Pretty soon it will be a trillion dollars for one bullet (that’s probably going to have features like software updates).
:)
A very ordinary story about a country’s ordinary folk:
Joseph Kennedy had ambitions to succeed FDR and he had considerable power in the Democratic Party. FDR made him Ambassador to the Court of St James, the most important and prestigious of all Ambassadorial appointments knowing full well that the job would result in Kennedy self-destructing.
Once he discredited himself, Kennedy realised that he would now never have a chance to be President or stand for any major public office so he trained his sons to be President, not necessarily to their personal benefit.
I think Trump has spent time thinking about the Kennedys and FDR (whom his father knew and who had supported his campaigns financially), and he has learned from this.
Trump’s Cabinet and other appointments are composed predominantly of weak people beholden to him or people who are likely to use their existing positions to try to prevent him from doing what he deems necessary so he gifts them offices which means he can sack them without a second thought.
There is already talk about the first cabinet re-shuffle when Don Jnr will enter the cabinet after Trump sacks those who continue to be his potential enemies. For instance, either Rubio makes his reputation by making nice to Russia and China (which means making nice to Cuba and Iran) or he will be sacked as a failure.
When you are in this government which is being created you will do as Trump says. That’s why the delay in appointing RFK Jnr was such a problem and why Tulsi Gabbard has got a co-ordination role rather than being placed in charge of the CIA or Defence.
Americans have a deplorable tendency to see politics as good versus evil; I suspect President-elect Trump sees it in terms of the next move, the one after that, and the one after that, fully aware that he may have to improvise plans to deal with contingencies… That’s how highly competent negotiators work.
For President Trump, politics is dynamic, not static, and it is about negotiation; when Trump served his first term as President, the media, the old guard of the Republican Party and well as the Democrats, and the Deep State were against him and held him in stasis for 4 years so he was unable to do the thing he does best.
Rather than predict the future, wait and see how it works out. I doubt if he is impressed by the Khazar Mansonites who invaded Amsterdam and Southern Lebananon.
Maybe the most effective form of hegemony lies with a new Westphalian Peace, avoiding foreign entanglements, and offering and accepting alternative examples of thinking and living and just rubbing along with different customs and cultures can become the dominant ideology and that Trump’s appeal, as opposed to his invective, is based on his ability to override differences by accepting and adapting to them when he wants to make America great again.
Predicting the future is always best done retrospectively, and even then there will be many thing to disagree about.
I think a lot of investors who are well connected seem to be going to cash. Do they see this train wreck of American leadership and sense that something is imminent? We fought Iran already using Iraq as a proxy and we were unable to do much and could not turn the situation to a stalemate even until poison gas was used.
Out with the old ghouls, in with the new.