May 21, 2019
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
Latest ESSAY at THE UNZ REVIEW
On Iran and the Trump Presidency: Will John Bolton Derail the
Administration?
Friends,
The MY CORNER installment of May 17, “Will Iran Mean the End of
the Trump Presidency? Will John Bolton Succeed in Derailing the Administration?”
[https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/2019/05/may-17-2019-my-corner-by-boyd-cathey.html]
was
picked up and published as a main feature on The Unz Review. It has been slightly edited, and, on Unz it has been widely read and has received (as of last count) 135
comments (some reasonable, others way off the wall).
Given the
continued pressure by the globalists in the White House, exerted by John
Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and some of the military brass, and by the media, and the
most recent presentation by Bolton to members of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the issue of what if any action will occur is of great significance.
The latest claim, made by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is that “a missile
[small projectile] was launched against our embassy in Bagdad by them.” Notice the word “them.” We do not
know with any certainty at all who that “them” is. The assumption that globalist Graham is
making is that it was Iranian agents who were responsible. But there is no
concrete evidence, just supposition. Indeed, the “evidence” presented that Iran
is readying an attack on US assets is shot through with the same kinds of
certainty, which is no certainty at all.
Even the
Iranians know that any kind of offensive action would mean severe American
retaliation. They are not that stupid (although there may well be some ISIS
left-over groups in Iraq who would love to see an Iran vs. US conflict).
As Tucker
Carlson and his guest military intelligence author, Douglas MacGregor, made
clear on his Tucker Carlson Tonight
program, May 20, this has every characteristic of (another!) Iraq “WMDs” “false
flag” situation which got us mired in Iraq: it is a recipe for what I call “continual
war for unobtainable peace.” And it is most definitely NOT what Donald Trump
promised and ran on back in 2016.
No; it’s
time to dismiss Bolton and the other globalists. Trump has a presidency at
stake.
THE UNZ REVIEW
Will Iran
Mean the End of the Trump Presidency?
Many
moviegoers will remember the 1997 film, “Wag the Dog,” starring Robert De Niro
and Dustin Hoffman—not my favorite actors by any means, but nevertheless, the
movie made a significant and critical point in this age of corrupt FBI and
intelligence agencies working in tandem with a major political party to stage a
veritable coup d’etat—a “silent coup”—against a sitting president.
Here’s
the storyline:
Two weeks prior to his possible
re-election, the United States president lands in the middle of a sex scandal.
In need of outside help to quell the situation, presidential adviser Winifred
Ames (Anne Heche) enlists the expertise of spin doctor Conrad Brean (Robert De
Niro), who decides a distraction is the best course of action. Brean approaches
Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (Dustin Hoffman) to help him fabricate a war
in Albania — and once underway, the duo has the media entirely focused on the
war [and not on the scandal].
The
greater point here is that today our citizens are almost entirely at the mercy
of what the government tells them and what the media reports to them.
Recall
the rationale for invading Iraq: those infamous “weapons of mass destruction”
(WMDs) that we were told by George W. Bush and Paul Wolfowitz with absolute
certainty existed in large quantities? Recall Colin Powell going to the UN to
state unequivocally that we had “proof” that such weapons existed near Bagdad?
Remember that very probably some of the “documents” supposedly proving the
existence of WMD were forged? Remember that this “information” was used as a
pretext for invading Iraq, deposing Saddam Hussein (who although a dictator
was by
Middle East standards, something of a moderate, at least when it came to his country’s
large Christian population), and…then, we watched the emergence of a
pro-Iranian Shi’a government, far more hostile to “our interests”?
Well,
as we later learned there were no WMDs, despite Wolfowitz and company. Yet, by
then the severe damage was done. The “regime change” so desired by the
globalist Neoconservatives was almost directly opposite of what they promised:
instead of a “democracy like the USA,” a pro-Iranian regime emerged—after the
deaths and wounding of hundreds of American boys and many thousands of Iraqis,
and billions of dollars gone (or in the pockets of arms dealers).
At
the heart of that episode was John P. Bolton, consistently and ferociously
advocating the imposition of democracy on, let’s see, Iraq (failed), Iran (no
go), Libya (another failure), Afghanistan (don’t even ask), Syria (Assad,
another dictator who is the champion of Christians and religious tolerance, has
triumphed against the wishes of Bolton and other Neocons, including the late
and very
unlamented John McCain). And these are just a few examples.
Not
a good record, to say the least. Yet, President Trump—the champion of America
First and not getting this nation into a far-off conflicts, not into quagmires
where we have no business being—named Bolton back on April 9, 2018, as his
National Security Advisor. And ever since then the irrepressible war hawk has
been searching for another war in which to involve American boys and arms (to
the benefit of the major arms makers and dealers, whose donating coffers seem
to open up at the sound of the guns).
Under
another Neocon hawk, Mike Pompeo, as Secretary of State, the even more
saber-rattling Elliot Abrams was actually brought into the administration
as Special Envoy for Venezuela in
January. But, wait, isn’t this the same Elliot Abrams who was an unrelenting
and hardcore Never Trumper that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wanted
as his Deputy Secretary of State (February 2017), but was vetoed by President
Trump due to Abrams’ staunch opposition during the presidential campaign? [“Trump rejects veteran GOP foreign policy aide Elliot
Abrams for State Dept. job,” The
Washington Post, February 10, 2018].
What
gives here? Why does the president let those with a stated agenda directly—and
supposedly—opposite to his own into his administration?
Certainly,
it has much to do with the loudest voices and most visible talent pool inside
the Washington DC Beltway and that many of those globalists, who were former
Never Trumpers, strategically attached themselves to Donald Trump after he was
victorious, hoping—in many cases successfully—to shape his foreign policy along
their internationalist lines. And, also, the fact that during the critical days
after the 2016 election many of the Establishment Neocons were able to bend
Trump’s ear first, and that a major gap, a major lacuna, in the president’s
knowledge was his lack of familiarity with foreign policy. As president, Donald
Trump hoped to unify the Republican Party, and, thus, his desire was to bring
in various factions, including those who had opposed him (but now offered
“support”)…not realizing that such additions could—and would—undermine his
announced America First agenda. Lastly, the support of major pro-Israeli
pressure groups and personalities, and their bank accounts, certainly was not
to be ignored.
Bolton’s
entry into the administration was, to use Thomas Jefferson’s famous expression,
“a fire bell in the night.” It should have alerted us all that, like in the
Reagan years, the battles to be waged would not just be with Democrats, but
also with Establishment and Deep State globalists who claim the “conservative”
mantle, but whose goals and vision are very much at odds with a president who
has very little experience in navigating the snake pit which is Washington DC.
And a president who faced a nearly impenetrable foreign policy swamp and a
powerful internationalist establishment which has learned nothing from our
national reverses in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria….But
who would love to mire us waist-deep in another quagmire in the Persian Gulf.
Or, even, as the benighted inheritors of John McCain earnestly wish, a proxy
shooting conflict with Russia!
So,
as to be expected, Bolton has been at it again, first regarding Venezuela,
where the so-called “democratic revolution” of Juan Guaido against the
socialist Maduro government has fallen flat, despite Bolton’s attempt to infer
that the US was “prepared to send 30,000 troops” to the country. Remember his
intentionally visible note pad with that number written in large print for all
to see?
And
now, it’s Iran’s time in the barrel. Of course, that large nation is no friend
of the United States, and it has not been since the Shah (in many ways “our
man,” even our puppet) was overthrown in 1979. And, yes, Iran has definite
interests in the Middle East; it has supported (successfully) Assad in Syria
and has been successful in Lebanon. More significantly, Iran is seen by Israeli
Likudnik hawks and their staunch supporters here in the United States (e.g. the
powerful AIPAC, etc.) as a threat to Israel (mostly via Iran’s support for
Hamas), and it is no secret at all that Israel would love, so to speak, for the
US to help it “get its bacon out of the fire” by attacking Iran, or at least
roughing it up a bit—and by whatever means necessary.
Thus,
the bated breath and frenzy of most Fox News commentators (with the exception
of Tucker Carlson), who like Bolton, Pompeo, and Abrams (and the dominant
globalists of the GOP) wait anxiously for some, any, “military response” to
Iran’s latest “provocations”—although we have no information, no data yet about
what these provocations might be. Basically, we are told to “accept on faith”
that they exist, and Bolton & co. plan to brief Congress.
But
the essential question arises like thunder in a storm: Iran has always been
somewhat hostile to us in the Persian Gulf—yet, there have been no attacks, no
assaults on any American personnel, no attacks on our vessels or our interests.
Indeed, Iran, despite its fundamentalist Shi’a regime knows fully well that ANY
such attack would bring swift retaliation. So, who, then, is being provocative
here?
Interestingly,
the Wall
Street Journal and other media have reported that Bolton’s (and Pompeo’s)
headlong push for (another) war has been, apparently, stymied, at least for the
time being by Trump himself and that the present situation may be due to mutual
“misreading” by both the US and Iran. (cf. “Intelligence Suggests U.S., Iran Misread Each
Other, Stoking Tensions,” The Wall Street Journal,
May 16, 2019] In fact, in his administration Donald Trump, despite his virtual
lack of knowledge vis-à-vis foreign policy, may be, ironically, the only person
who stands in the way of what can be called “continual war for unobtainable
peace.”
For
if he lets Bolton and others of that ilk have their way and we do go to war
against Iran, that very simply will be the final nail in the coffin of the
Trump agenda, and very probably the end of the Trump presidency in 2020.
Neocons like Bolton are quite capable of using or manipulating Donald
Trump…until he is no longer useful to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment