Connect with us

Americas

Why can Hillary Clinton not be US president?

Published

on

Like in Israel, US ruling elites plan for the future strategies and choose presidents to suit the needs. After using a Black President Obama to attack North Africans and Arab nations for their energy resources in order to ensure energy security of the superpower, now the US leaders seem to think of using a female President in the name of Hillary to advance US interests globally.

Former US state secretary Hillary Clinton and associates are being pampered by those who are scared of any possible change in US foreign policy towards a possible thaw and neutrality in world affairs, notwithstanding what trump talks now.

So-called progressive bits like Sanders, the dummy candidate of President Obama the so-called lefty, was only promoting prospects of Hillary as the first ever “woman” president all Americans should be proud of.

Media publish very charming pictures and of Hillary Clinton while deliberately placing a terrorist cum drunkard looking Trump in order to promote the cause of democratic band of capitalist imperialism.

It seems, cutting across the bipolar political spectrum, there is some understanding to make Hillary to enter the White House to continue with the disastrous policies of Obama who has dutifully accelerated Bushdom war for resources and Muslims’ blood and flesh blood in Islamic world. Both bush and his ally Obama could reduce the Islamic population with backing from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations.

Only recently Turkey, the only Muslim nation in Europe with an Islamist ideology but promoting the joint interests of USA and Israel in Europe and Mideast, has realized its mistake of colluding with USA in killing Muslims under the banner of NATO terrorist organization.

Media not only in the West but also in third world as well try to see in Hillary Clinton all virtues of freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., as the so-called first ever woman president of the super power without comprehending the truth about this devastating woman candidate who as Secretary of State willingly dispatched Pentagon led NATO military into Arab world and is more than keen to control entire world, including the other America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to serve Israel – America’s illegally born, spoiled terror child.

Being in the company of extremist Neocons camp, not only Hillary is bent upon promoting the Zionist criminal regime in Mideast but also equip Israeli military with newer terror technologies to kill all Palestinians once for all.

Hillary Clinton must already have promised all colonialist, fascist and imperialist nations/forces the continued US support under her presidency as well and Israel would be chief beneficiary of Hillary’s reign. As such Hillary could be best candidate for the criminal Israeli regime, the Jews and Mossad agency to advance its fascist goals in Mideast.

On the contrast, the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, despite all his sick rhetoric to impress the fanatic sections of US society, appears to suggest several positive things for USA and world at large. Trump said when he assumes presidency, he would revise the US policy for Mideast and neutralize its existing Palestine-Israel policy to promote peace in the region and he’d also recognize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory in 2014.

Future Russia policy

Annexation of Crimea long appears to be on the agenda of Putin’s regime as it had earlier been a part of Russian empire and made a part of Ukraine Republic during the time of Khrushchev who belonged to Ukraine. Russia maintained close links to Crimea even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the region mostly has Russians and Russian speaking nationalities. More than half of Crimea’s 2 million people were Russian; Russia maintained a naval base in the region; and Russians retired in Crimea in large numbers. Also, Ukraine maintained the most pro-Moscow positions until 2014. But when Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted, the tensions over Crimea became apparent. USA claimed victory. In a referendum in May of that year in which an overwhelming majority of voters said they wanted to rejoin Russia. The West reacted with anger and imposed a string of sanctions on Russia—sanctions that even Putin acknowledged adversely affected Russia’s economy, which was already hurt by falling oil prices.

Last year, on the anniversary of Russia’s annexation, the U.S. State Department said: “We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.” However, Washington refuses to see Israeli occupation of Palestine territories or Indian occupation of neighboring Kashmir – both committing genocides of Muslims by regular aggressions and fake encounters. American democrats and republicans do not see any violation of human rights both by India and Israel against Kashmiris and Palestinians.

USA maintains doublespeak on occupation and double standards

As president, Trump may reverse that policy, and if he does Ukraine won’t be the only country that worries. Another is likely to be Georgia, the former Soviet Republic. A brief war with Russia—brief in that Georgia was crushed—in 2008 resulted in Russia extending support to two breakaway Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and wielding its influence with the rebels there. Russia’s recent military exercises over Ukraine have worried US backed Eastern European states such as Poland and the Baltic nations that share a border with it.

However, it is premature to conclude that Trump would lead USA towards a normal course of diplomacy and his presidency would help herald a peaceful world in real sense of w the word. By nature USA, ever seeking to dominate the world and showcase it military prowess to the world, especially to those that refuse to budge and fall in line, cannot prefer peaceful course of diplomacy.

Now, with his comments on Crimea, Trump has given the foreign-policy establishment in the USA and Europe even more to consider before November.

Donald Trump’s recent call on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails resulted in widespread criticism. But his comments on Crimea, coupled with ones he made last week on NATO, are likely to have greater significance if he is elected president in November. As President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and even might lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. He would thus give a chance for peace to thrive globally. Under trump USA could develop new relations with Russians and pave way for consolidation of globalized relations.

Interestingly, Trump the man who could become the next American president has not only questioned the utility of NATO, though the critics say he only trying to repudiate the post-World War II security consensus, he also has seemingly removed whatever fig leaf of artificial protection from Russia the USA offered the post-Soviet republics and Moscow’s former allies in the Eastern bloc.

Trump policy would allow EU and European nations to chart their own independent foreign policies for the future regional discourses and security architectures. This would allow every nation to reduce expenditures on terror goods and military equipments and spend the money for the welfare of the common masses who have suffered a great deal over decades and centuries.

Having came to power after the death of Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, belonging to Ukraine, gifted Crimea, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries, to Ukraine in 1954—though, to be fair, Khrushchev thought the Soviet system is permanent and probably didn’t foresee that the mighty USSR would be the stuff of history books less than four decades later.

Democratic disaster

The foreign policy legacy of Bill Clinton is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts. Bill Clinton embarked upon a series of military interventions, often in the absence of UN sanction, in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999). Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350. No one knows why.

In foreign policy, it was a period in which liberal hawks like Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott and Samuel Berger took the reins of the foreign policy apparatus and abandoned the mostly nuanced realism, if any, of the government of George H.W. Bush, former CIA boss. It launched a crusade to spread “democracy” to achieve regime change in West Asia and Africa, and “open markets” abroad which, in practice, amounted to isolating plus targeting Russia, relegating America’s European allies into vassals and immiserating the developing world.

Under neoconservative pressure – including from Robert Kagan’s and William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century – Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) which helped set the stage for the Bush regime’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Meanwhile, Clinton embarked on a series of policies in the former Soviet Union which have had dire consequences. The decision to expand NATO by the alliance at its 1994 summit in Brussels came only 12 months into the Clinton presidency and only 24 months after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and peacefully disbanded its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

The NATO alliance’s expansion to include its own former allies and protectorates remains a mystery. Indeed, by expanding NATO, Clinton and his team not only went against the advice offered by scores of distinguished Russian experts, savvy politicians and foreign policy thinkers, Clinton also sought to tie the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus to the USA. All this took place while Clinton studiously ignored the grotesque abuses of power by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “Good old Boris,” as Clinton liked to call him, bombed the democratically elected Russian parliament in 1993, stole the 1996 election with the help of American political advisers and pseudo-academics, and launched a barbaric war in Chechnya, while simultaneously raiding the state treasury and enriching the circle of thieves around him.

Yeltsin was looking for a hawk to take over reign from him to finish off the Chechen war in Russia’s favor and former KGB man Vladimir Putin with enormous experience working in Germany suited for the occasion. It was Yeltsin who subverted Russia’s burgeoning democracy, not his successor, Vladimir Putin. And he did it all with Clinton’s help.

USA successfully worked for the dismantling of the mighty USSR and turned to Arab world. Now it is killing Muslims in Arab world with Russian backing. Joint operations!

Surrounded by Hawks

A Hillary Clinton presidency will more likely than not to be a faithful replication of her husband’s tenure. Her record as Secretary of State speaks to the kind of foreign policy she will pursue. She continually sought to embroil the U.S. in the Syrian civil war (2011-present), and pushed President Obama to unleash NATO forces in helping to overturn the Libyan government (2011) which cleared the path for ISIS to build dangerous footholds in both countries. Whenever the option was between military action and serious diplomacy, the nation’s chief diplomat would invariably opt for the former, as when she forcefully lobbied the President to send more troops to Afghanistan (2009).

As a candidate she has surrounded herself with regime change hawks, like former State Department Policy Planning chief Jake Sullivan and former the Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. She has also smothered the neoconservative establishment in a warm embrace. Leading members of the Neocon tribe like Eliot A. Cohen and Max Boot have signaled that “they’re with her” and on July 21 in Washington, D.C.’s tony Logan Circle neighborhood, leading Neocon Robert Kagan and former Biden adviser Julianne Smith spoke on Clinton’s behalf at a fundraiser.

A source who attended the Logan Circle soiree told me that Smith cited an outgoing memo to President Obama from Secretary Clinton which warned him of the danger of unchecked “Russian aggression.” Smith claimed that as someone who saw “Hillary in action,” that “it was the Secretary who pushed President Obama the hardest on checking Russian aggression.” Smith, according to my source, credited Clinton with pushing Obama “to turn up the heat on Putin.”

This effort by then-Secretary of State Clinton to “turn up the heat” on Putin, it should be noted predates the 2014 crisis in Ukraine by well over a year and predates. Russia’s annexation of Crimea (which occurred after a referendum in which Crimea’s voters, by a 96 percent margin, called for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia). In other words, if what Smith says is true, Clinton was actively working to subvert the “re-set policy” of which she was ostensibly in charge!

Hillary Clinton Is a known Neocon cum Zionist.

Donald Trump did something extraordinary even for him: He called on a foreign power to launch an espionage operation against his chief political opponent, hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server to find 30,000 emails she allegedly deleted.

Trump has repeatedly expressed wild admiration for Putin personally; his campaign staff and businesses have extensive ties to Russian interests.

Trump’s policy instincts are objectively pro-Kremlin and the sources of information that shape his policy ideas (his advisers and business interests) serve to reinforce rather than challenge these instincts. If the Kremlin is helping Trump win the election, it would be a perfectly rational thing for them to do.

Hillary‘s hilarious task

Money plays its “democratic” role in presidential poll of USA as well.

In the Democratic National Convention, Mrs. Clinton may have made history by becoming the first woman nominee for president of the United States. Her husband and former US president Bill Clinton’s task at the Convention may have seemed deceptively simple: to add “new dimensions” to his wife’s public image – elements of her life story with which US public is well aware of. As Hillary Clinton’s husband for the past 40 years, the popular ex-president was her ultimate character witness, portraying her as hard-working, persistent, and caring. Bill Clinton was charming and steely-eyed, and owned the arena as he told his wife’s story in personal terms, from their courtship through to her time as secretary of State.

Thus far, husband Clinton, who has become “explainer in chief” for his own record, played a more low-key role in his wife’s campaign, appearing at smaller events and fundraisers, and weighing in privately with advice. Eight years ago, when Mrs. Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination against Obama, Bill Clinton stumbled at times and hurt her cause by saying that Obama had won South Carolina only because he’s black.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was a time of relative peace and prosperity, including a balanced budget and he would be an asset to her while she’s in the White House. She cannot say Bill Clinton was a “total non-factor” in one delegate’s decision to support her as a candidate.

Hillary Clinton’s nominating convention has focused on domestic issues, but her foreign policy has even many anti-war Democrats worried, as she surrounds herself with Neocons with their favorite regime change proposals, and liberal hawks The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

The mood among some of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy cognoscenti here is one of an unadulterated smugness bred of certainty mixed with a sense of global entitlement. One Democratic US senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts that the US had “lost” Ukraine.Lost? Does Crimea belong to America? But the Democratic Party’s foreign policy elites are certain that that is so. Funny! They are certain NATO is the “cornerstone” of American national security and therefore any criticism of the alliance is “dangerous”; and many are certain that the Republican nominee is the Kremlin’s very own Manchurian candidate. They are also certain Donald Trump is dead wrong about everything.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office since Republican hawk George H.W. Bush, but there the comparisons end. Clinton is not running to extend the Obama terror legacy (whatever that may be) but to extend the Clinton terror legacy, and this should worry the world deeply.

Observations: permanent war agenda of USA for resources

Divisions in Islamic world in West Asia allowed the hawkish foreign policy makers behind the doors like Neocons of USA to launch a permanent war program to control the energy resources of the region and promote the fascist interests of Israel by stretching the war tentacles across the region, killing millions of Muslims. Now the USA has enlisted almost every country, including Saudi Arabia led GCC, Russia and China to fortify its imperialist misadventures.

As per its secret plan,   the USA has been at war continuously for a quarter century, beginning with the first Persian Gulf conflict of 1990–91. While using propaganda catchphrases, such as “democracy”, “defense of human rights” “war on Terror,” to conceal the real aims of its interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, as well as its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been engaged in a struggle for global hegemony.

Today, energy and energy routes globally have been brought under US control with as many military bases of U across the globe.

However, the contradictions of American and world imperialism can be discerned by the rift between USA and Europe on the one hand, and between Arab/Islamic world and USA, on the other. The progression of military interventions and geopolitical crises as they have developed over the past quarter century as per US schedule, is not a sequence of isolated episodes, as US media want the world to know but the moments in the unfolding of an interconnected historical process to make the USA the top most military power with which every nation world be forced to make “adjustments”.

Having got nukes for retaining the annexed parts of Jammu Kashmir and killed thousands of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistan and India, for instance, fall at the US feet just to gain support for their illegal Kashmir agenda. By using the weakness of Pakistani leadership, USA has, as part of its anti-Islamic tirade, destabilized Pakistan which is supposed to be an ally of NATO. India pumps a lot of money into US economy even as China stabilizes US finances by heavy lending, even while Pentagon .keeps pumping oil into USA., thereby ensuring its energy security on permanent basis. . This has been possible for US leaders only through a permanent war agenda.

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary represent the hawkish US imperialist agenda and carry forward the US war agenda

Hillary Clinton is wife of former President Bill Clinton and now both want to promote dynastic rule in USA. Daughter Chelsea, who will introduce her mother before her big acceptance speech, says she too may run for office someday. However, the failure of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries signaled, in part, a rejection of dynastic politics in America. The idea of American politics as a family business is not endorsed by true democracy.

In fact, Hillary is a monster in woman format and as US foreign minister she has proven fascist instinct without any iota of doubt. She is just waiting for the poll results to accelerate, if she wins presidency, her and those of the “regime change” oriented Neocons terror brains. Wanting a woman president is one thing but promoting a known terror mind for presidency is totally different as Americans and world at large would have to face the terror consequences of Hillary’s term.

Hillary Clinton as the proven state terrorist minister in the Obama government is unfit to be the president of USA but her daughter Chelsea who hands are free from blood stains from genocides of Palestinians and killing of their children at Gaza strip can contest for presidency nest time and even win.

However, if Bill and Hillary feel as their daughter Chelsea also shares the shame of what they did in Gaza Strip of Palestine and Arab world, then, Chelsea should also leave the field of politics for honest and sinecure people without any imperialist and fascist ideas.

An arrogant Zionist in USA, Madam Hillary violated all rules and norms with a sense of impunity because no one can punish her or Obama, for, republicans and democratic now collaborate against Islam and Muslims. Obama could get ‘resources” to Washington on the pretext of “security threats”.

As US President Hillary Clinton can fail both America and world and cause unbearable pains to humanity, including mothers, children and women.

If by chance Hillary makes her entry into the august White House as its custodian, obviously, Israel would officially decide both the domestic and foreign policy of USA. That would make it clear as to how the US decision making apparatus operates

Americans are really fed up with war agenda of US leaders of both democratic and republican party. Though Trump has expressed his ideas and agenda, Hillary pretends to a good looking nice lady but she is a ruthless US leader who can destroy entire world for the sake of Israel.

Like other nations, US people also are eager to see a credible peace agenda of the government to defend the humanity from evil intentions of hawkish leaders who are indeed merchants of death. .

Certainly, if elected, Hillary, notwithstanding her oratory skills to fool the Americans, would prove to be a hell for USA and disaster for the world at large.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Nancy Pelosi and her dual approaches

Published

on

In her remarks, the United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asserted that Trump’s border wall campaign has nothing to do with border security. She said it’s one of the US President’s plans for energizing his conservative base, and in this way, he aims to distract the country from the various scandals dogging his administration.

“I don’t even know if the president wants the wall. I think he just wants a debate on the wall. And he’s having some difficulty with it,” Pelosi said during a press briefing at the Capitol.

“He keeps increasing the amount of money; increasing the amount of beds; increasing the obstacles to finding a solution — because I don’t think he really wants a solution,” Pelosi said. “I think he loves the distraction that this is from his other problems,” She added.

Pelosi, along with Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, noted that they disagree with Trump over building a physical border wall, which according to them, would be expensive and ineffective.

“Democrats and the president both want stronger border security. However, we sharply disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it … Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes. This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration,” said Schumer in answer to Trump’s recent remarks.

On the other hand, Pelosi is among those who are seriously standing against Trump’s impeachment. This dual approach taken by Pelosi towards the White House, and the fact that the House speaker and other Democrat leaders have argued against the serious consideration of Trump’s impeachment, may lead to conflicts inside the Democratic Party in the future.

“We have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. So we’ll just have to see how it comes,” Said Pelosi.

However, Pelosi’s remarks were not unprecedented! When Pelosi was the House Minority Leader in the years between 2016 and 2018, she opposed the idea of impeaching Trump. Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she has a conservative approach towards Trump. This is while with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, Democrats can initiate impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. The fact that some Democrat leaders have opposed Nancy Pelosi’s Minority leadership in the US House of Representatives is rooted in the same reason. In any case, it seems that Pelosi prefers scenarios such as “making a political deal with Trump” to “Confrontation with the President”. Nancy Pelosi argues that Democrats’ direct confrontation with Trump, and in particular the impeachment of the President of the United States, will lead to the anger of some American citizens, and the Democrats will be accused of posing a blow to the American political and social equations. However, it seems that some Democrats do not agree with Nancy Pelosi’s opinion! Politicians such as Bernie Sanders believe that Trump is not politically negotiable. They believe that any compromise reached between Democrats and Trump will hold a bad result for them in the US 2020 presidential election.

At any rate, there’s plenty at stake: Amid this crisis, Trump has come with the idea of declaring a national emergency at the border, a move that could free up wall funding without the Congress approval.

“If this doesn’t work out, probably I will do it. I would almost say definitely,” said Trump.

The US government shutdown, which is resulted from the disagreements over border wall funding, is still ongoing. Trump is demanding $5.7 billion for new wall construction; Pelosi and the Democrats have offered $1.3 billion for border security measures, but have opposed construction of any new physical barriers. In spite of this, Trump has previously claimed that he’s ready to hold the shutdown for months and even years! If Pelosi surrenders in the face of Trump’s demands, she would be regarded as a defeated figure inside the US political circles.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump is mocking Biden

Published

on

News sources in the United States announced that Joe Biden, the U.S. former Vice-President (from 2009 to 2017), and a prominent figure in the Democratic Party will soon announce his run for the president in 2020. Biden has previously said that he’s “the most qualified person in the country” for being president.

Biden mentioned these words in a controversial interview which has attracted the attention of many American analysts. However, Biden’s final decision for participating in the presidential campaigns wasn’t clear. Eventually, a number of Biden’s followers, including his brother Frank Biden, announced his final decision to run for the general elections. Polls conducted in the United States indicate that Biden is currently more popular than other potential candidates of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, Biden is probably to face rivals such as Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren, and even Hillary Clinton. During the 2016 presidential competitions, Biden was also scheduled to attend the in-party election competitions, but he changed his mind due to his son’s death and Hillary Clinton’s insistence on attending the presidential campaign. Biden’s remarks, however, show that he’s greatly interested in defeating Trump in the 2020 election.

However, we shouldn’t forget that Biden can’t really count on the current polls conducted among Democrat supporters! We can all remember that during the 2008 presidential elections and inside the Democratic Party, Obama had far less chance of reaching the final round of the elections than those like Hillary Clinton. But his successful speeches in states like Iowa and South Carolina led to Clinton’s final defeat and Obama’s victory.

Hence, the success of Biden’s rival candidates in states like Iowa and New Hampshire (where American in-party elections begin with them) can completely change the equations, and that won’t be to Biden’s advantage.

Accordingly, Trump’s position on Biden’s participation in the presidential competitions are noteworthy. In a phone interview with Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro, Trump called Joe Biden “weak”. He also claimed that he’s not worried about a potential challenge from the former vice president in the 2020 presidential race; “You know, a lot of people say Biden’s doing OK, but he was always a 1-percenter. He was a 1 percent guy. He ran two or three times, he never got above 1%, and then, Obama came along and took him off the trash heap, and he became the vice president. He’s weak. So, we’ll see what happens with him.”

Trump’s words came on the same day that Biden had told some top Democrats that he was definitely running for president. “If I’m walking, I’m running,” said Biden.

Trump’s literature on Biden’s presence in the U.S. presidential race, reflects the U.S. President’s dissatisfaction and anger with the country’s former Vice President and his candidacy. Obviously, Trump preferred figures such as Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren to be his potential rivals in the next general elections.

However, Trump knows well that Biden can challenge his position at the White House by maneuvering again on issues such as public medical health insurance plan. On the other hand, Trump attempts to turn the game into an emotional rivalry through using ugly words against Biden, and this is very much like Trump’s populist personality and approach. However, Biden now has his main focus on Democrats’ inner-party race, and he doesn’t consider direct competition with Trump until he has won his victory in the competition.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Americas

John Bolton’s Hawkish Flight

Published

on

The American edition of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing former and currently serving politicians who wished not to be named, reported a few days ago that the US National Security Council (NSC), led by presidential adviser John Bolton, turned to the Pentagon last autumn with a request to devise several variants of striking Iran.

The reason for such a request was a mortar attack carried out in September 2018 by a pro-Iranian group against the diplomatic quarter of Baghdad, where the US embassy is located. Two days later, a similar attack was reported to have occurred in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, where the American consulate is based. No casualties or damage were reported. However, former deputy national security adviser Mira Ricardel described the shelling as an “act of hostilities” and made it clear that the United States should have responded with a “similar act.”

As a result, the US national security team held a series of meetings to discuss how the American side should respond. After that, Mr. Bolton urged the Pentagon to provide options for attacking Iran.

Officials neither confirmed nor denied the WSJ reports. NSC press secretary Garrett Marquis did not provide a clear answer to the question of whether the Council had been considering a military strike against Iran. “We are considering a  full range of measures to ensure security and guarantee our interests,” he said.

It should be noted here that the general staffs of the armed forces of any self-respecting country plan variants of both offensive and defensive operations against a potential adversary in advance. This work is carried out with a constant analysis of the changes taking place in the camp of the enemy, and in their own country. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US General Staff) has in its secret vaults a variety of options for a war with Iran – the main potential opponent of the United States, as Washington has called it on more than one occasion.

Another matter is the case of John Bolton, when his personal request, even through the channels of the National Security Council, was carried out, according to observers, bypassing President Trump. Such a request took the Pentagon by surprise and put defense department officials who were used to everything “in a shock.” However, the request was accepted for consideration.

According to the WSJ, the Pentagon provided a complete layout proposing some general options for the operation, including a cross-border air strike on an Iranian military facility, which would be mostly symbolic. But the then Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and other senior military officials strongly opposed retaliatory actions, arguing that the damage from the shelling of the US diplomatic missions was insignificant. And this basically logical viewpoint eventually prevailed.

But how will acting Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, act?

Any blow on Iran may lead to a full-blown armed conflict. Hypothetically,  considering the possibility of an airstrike on an Iranian military facility, it will undoubtedly trigger a return missile strike by the Iranian armed forces on any US military base in the Middle East. The Iranian missile forces have every potential to do so. And this means a war.

Is the United States ready for such a scenario?

It has to be pointed out that even massive missile and air strikes against Iran will not force Tehran to surrender. As in any war, the winner must march over the conquered territory. This calls for a ground operation.

Is the United States ready for this?

As the Field Service Regulations the US Army recommends, in order to achieve the goal of an offensive in the direction of the main blow it is necessary to create at least 6-fold superiority over the defensive forces and facilities. The question arises whether the US Armed Forces are capable of building such a superiority at least in one direction of the Iranian theater of war?

The number of regular armed forces of Iran ranges, according to various sources, between 540 and 900 thousand. The defense doctrine of the IRI puts a major emphasis on the Basij Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps resistance forces, a paramilitary, irregular militia and a reserve force of the regular armed forces whose main task is to participate in the defense of the country’s territory. The main combat units of “Basij” are “Ashura” battalions, which consist of men, and “Al-Zohra” female battalions, numbering an average of 400 each. Currently, 2500 such battalions are formed in Iran, consisting of 1 million volunteers, well trained both militarily and ideologically. In total, Iran’s “Basij” system embraces more than 12 million Iranians.

Is it possible for the United States and their allies to outnumber, if not 6-fold, then at least by 2-fold, the regular and irregular forces of Iran in the Iranian theater of military operations on the ground (without using nuclear weapons)? The answer is clear – no. And the Pentagon is fully aware of this.

For this reason, the likelihood that the United States will venture into an armed conflict with Iran is small.

John Bolton’s actions can be described as dangerous amid the current situation in the top echelons of power in the United States, which is controversial, to put it mildly. The opposition Democrats are exerting a serious and effective pressure on President Trump, while the State Department (and other as significant structures) is trying, as journalists say, to prevent the president’s “reckless” decisions from being put into effect.

In turn, US National Security Advisor John Bolton is making the most of the current state of affairs putting an end to internal strategic debates and discussions that could reveal the controversies within the Donald Trump administration. Mr. Bolton does not want to hear conflicting points of view, hates leaks, and wants to control the entire flow of information that is sent to the US President. This is a sure way towards excessive consolidation of power in the hands of one individual. Moreover, sometimes he acts without notifying President Trump, like in the recent case in which he appeals to the Pentagon.

John Bolton is one of the irreconcilable hardliners on the issue of Iran. Having assumed  his current position, Bolton stepped up the administration’s policy of isolating and exerting pressure on Iran, thereby demonstrating his hostile attitude toward Iranian leaders, which dates back to the days when he served as an official for the administration of George W. Bush. As a private individual, he called for military strikes on Iran, as well as a change of regime. In March 2015 – three and a half months before the signing of a nuclear deal, when it became clear to everyone that the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) was ready and its authors were busy putting the final touches to it, – Mr. Bolton published an article in The New York Times under a provocative headline “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”. From the very beginning, John Bolton was against the JCPOA and fully backed President Trump in his efforts to pull out of the nuclear deal.

Bolton summed up his political credo in one phrase: “There is no such thing as the UN. There is the international community that can be headed by the world’s only superpower, which is the United States of America. ”  This he says despite the fact that in 2005-2006, he was the US representative to the UN.

Defense department officials, The New York Times writes, express growing concerns that John Bolton may indeed provoke a serious conflict with Tehran at a time when President Trump is losing influence in the Middle East.

Concern is being voiced not only by US military and politicians but throughout the world. After all, the main danger lies in the unpredictability of actions of President Trump and his hawkish employees, like John Bolton.

first published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Economy2 hours ago

Russian-Nigerian Business Council Reviews Performance

The Russian-Nigerian Business Council, with participation of a delegation from Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Nigerians in...

Reports4 hours ago

The global public overwhelmingly favours multilateral cooperation

A global opinion poll published today by the World Economic Forum finds that a clear majority of people in all...

Human Rights8 hours ago

Another 170 migrants disappear in shipwrecks: UN call for an end to Mediterranean tragedy

The United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, stated on Saturday that “no effort should be spared” in saving lives at sea, following...

Arts & Culture10 hours ago

Rio de Janeiro named as World Capital of Architecture for 2020

UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Culture Ernesto Ottone R, Thomas Vonier, President of the International Union of Architects (UIA), and Verena...

Europe12 hours ago

How the issues of migration and asylum are reshaping the politics of Belgium

It was a big surprise for many people seeing the Belgian government break up after intensive negotiations between all parties...

Science & Technology14 hours ago

Tech Trends 2019: Beyond the digital frontier

Deloitte released its milestone 10th annual report on technology trends, “Tech Trends 2019: Beyond the digital frontier.” The report explores...

Americas22 hours ago

Nancy Pelosi and her dual approaches

In her remarks, the United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asserted that Trump’s border wall campaign has nothing to do...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy