Trump Bows to Neocons, Netanyahu

Rather than expand U.S. exports to Iran – and create more American jobs – President Trump fell in line behind Israel’s P.M. Netanyahu, decertifying the Iran-nuclear deal and risking more war, as Gareth Porter explains at The American Conservative.

By Gareth Porter

President Donald Trump’s new Iran policy clearly represents a dangerous rejection of diplomacy in favor of confrontation. But it’s more than that: It’s a major shift toward a much closer alignment of U.S. policy with that of the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at joint press conference on Feb. 15. 2017. (Screen shot from

Whether explicitly or not, Trump’s vow to work with Congress to renegotiate the Iran nuclear agreement, and his explicit threat to withdraw from the deal if no renegotiation takes place, appear to be satisfying the hardline demands Netanyahu has made of Washington’s policy toward Tehran.

Specifically, Netanyahu has continued to demand that Trump either withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or make far-reaching changes that he knows are impossible to achieve. In Netanyahu’s Sept. 19 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu declared, “Israel’s policy toward the nuclear deal with Iran is very simple: Change it or cancel it.” And he made no secret of what that meant: If Trump doesn’t “cancel” the deal, he must get rid of its “sunset clause” and demand that Iran end its advanced centrifuges and long-range missile program, among other fundamentally unattainable objectives.

Trump’s statement on Oct. 13 managed to include both of the either/or choices that Netanyahu had given him. He warned that, if Congress and America’s European allies do not agree on a plan to revise the deal, “then the agreement will be terminated.” He added that the agreement “is under continuous review,” and our participation “can be canceled by me, as president at any time.”

One provision the administration wants Congress to put into amended legislation would allow sanctions to be imposed if Iran crosses certain “trigger points,” which would include not only nuclear issues but the Israeli demand that Iran stop its long-range missile program. Ballistic missiles were never included in the JCPOA negotiations for an obvious reason: Iran has the same right to develop ballistic missiles as any other independent state, and it firmly rejected pro forma demands by the Barack Obama administration to include the issue in negotiations.

Trump went a long way towards Netanyahu’s “cancel” option by refusing last week to certify that Iran was keeping up its end of the JPCOA. That move signaled his intention to scrap the central compromise on which the entire agreement rests.

Although the Middle East is very different today than during the George W. Bush administration, some parallels can be found in comparing Trump’s policy toward the JCPOA and Bush’s policy toward Iran during the early phase of its uranium enrichment program.

The Likud Wing

The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump’s and Bush’s Iran policies held views close to those of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, a primary foreign policy advisor, and a longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner’s parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump’s Secretary of State, as he’d hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.

Bolton spoke with Trump by phone the day before the speech about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it would be “terminated” if there weren’t any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling Trump from Las Vegas, where he’d been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third major figure behind Trump’s shift towards Israeli issues.

Adelson is a Likud supporter who has long been a close friend of Netanyahu’s and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel Hayom to support Netanyahu’s campaigns. He was Trump’s main campaign contributor in 2016, donating $100 million. Adelson’s real interest has been in supporting Israel’s interests in Washington — especially with regard to Iran.

In a public appearance in Israel in 2013, when Adelson was asked about his view on negotiating with Tehran, he suggested dropping a nuclear weapon on a desert in Iran and then saying to the Iranians, “See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development….”

The Likud Party policy preferences on Iran dominated the Bush administration in large part because of the influence of David Wurmser, a Likudist who was a Middle East adviser first to Bolton and later to Vice President Dick Cheney. Wurmser was a co-author, with Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, of A Clean Break, the 1996 paper that advised Netanyahu to carry out military strikes against Syria and Iran and to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Wurmser convinced Cheney that the administration should seek a pretext for attacking Iran.

But it was Bolton who worked with Israeli officials to plan a campaign to convince the world that Iran was secretly working on nuclear weapons. His goal was to sell key European nations on a U.N. Security Council resolution accusing Iran of developing a nuclear program. Bolton explains in his memoirs that the assumption of his strategy was that either the Security Council would strip Iran of its right to have a nuclear program or the United States would take unilateral military action.

Ratcheting Tensions

In the summer of 2004, a large collection of documents allegedly from a covert Iranian nuclear weapons research program was suddenly obtained by Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. Those documents became the sole alleged evidence that such a program existed.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani celebrates the completion of an interim deal on Iran’s nuclear program on Nov. 24, 2013, by kissing the head of the daughter of an assassinated Iranian nuclear engineer. (Iranian government photo)

But this writer found more than one telltale sign of fraud in the papers, and a former senior German foreign office official told me on the record in March 2013 that the source who passed on the documents was a member of the Mujihadeen e-Khalq (MEK), the armed Iranian opposition group. The MEK has allegedly worked with Israel’s Mossad for some time.

Neither the Bush administration nor the Trump administration viewed the alleged danger of nuclear proliferation by Iran as the priority problem per se; it was rather an issue to be exploited to weaken the Islamic regime and ultimately achieve regime change.

Hilary Mann Leverett, the NSC coordinator in the Persian Gulf from 2001-03, told this writer in a 2013 interview that Wurmser and other Cheney advisers were convinced that the student protests of 1999 indicated that Iranians were ready to overthrow the Islamic Republic. In his statement last week, Trump blamed Obama for having lifted nuclear sanctions on Iran “just before what would have been the total collapse of the Iranian regime.”

After Netanyahu became Israeli prime minister in early 2009, his administration worked assiduously for four years to maneuver the Obama administration into giving Iran an ultimatum over its enrichment program. Obama rejected such a proposal, but Bolton has repeated his call for the United States to bomb Iran year after year.

Now the Trump administration is playing out a new chapter in the drama of the Likudists and their patrons in Washington. Their objective is nothing less than using U.S. power to weaken Iran through military means if possible and economic sanctions if necessary. The remarkable thing is that Trump is cooperating even more eagerly than did Bush.

Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter

57 comments for “Trump Bows to Neocons, Netanyahu

  1. LJ
    October 24, 2017 at 16:18

    It is all crap

  2. Zachary Smith
    October 24, 2017 at 13:07

    On the subject of Israel….

    “Eight EU countries tell Israel to pay up after destroying solar panels donated to Bedouin village”

    The inhabitants of Holy Israel are the new barbarians. Regarding the link, a person couldn’t help noticing Germany wasn’t on the list of protesting nations.


  3. michael duffy
    October 23, 2017 at 15:30

    Likudnik Zionist Jews called for the destruction of Syria and Iraq for decades.

    This is a compendium of their own words/efforts:

    This is a discussion of the origins of the neoconservative movement at the U of Chicago u der Strauss and Irving Kristol, both Jewish and Zionist and the latter an absolute icon of Israel Firsterism and anti-Arab racism:

    Finally, please consider that in the run up to the Iraq war, Jewish Zionists with close ties to Likud were allowed to set up their own intelligence office within the Pentagon to “find” evidence CIA had not:

    Now we have Likud (and Chabad) linked far right Jewish Zionists like adelson and bolton and kristol, and many others with Trump’s ear, and saturating the media and talk shows.

    And despite the deaths and anguish of hundreds of thousands of human beings, people of good conscience will NOT say and say plainly that *Zionist Jewry* (at very least a wealthy subgroup thereof which has persistently and consequentially argued for the destruction of Syria, Iraq and Iran for decades, and whose allegiance to a foreign state is inarguable – is a major, even predominant driver of US regime change efforts and belligerence.

    Surely, oil/gas, the petrodollar, and war profiteering play a role and surely it is not Jews as a whole (or most Jewish Americans) who have sole or even ultimate responsibility.

    But the thing is, we can freely discuss these other motives.

    But somehow AIPAC and JINSA and the ADL’s naked loyalty to a foreign warmongerer goes undiscussed solely because they are Jewish and, you see, ‘dual loyalty’ is ‘a canard’… even for JINSA and AIPAC and Sheldon Adeldon?

    It is so nauseating, the inane cowardice (and media power) that will engender another bloody war for Greater Israel and the Oded Yinon Plan.

    My conscience, at least, is clean.

    Zionists, largely but not solely, Jewish, are trying their best to lie us into a war to benefit an expansionist, apartheid, nuclear rogue state – but they enjoy insulation from criticism they do not at all deserve.

    It’s anguishing.


  4. Ian
    October 23, 2017 at 11:28

    The Nazi party in Germany specifically targeted the extremely disproportionate dominance of jewish influence in Germany affairs. We see an almost similar parallel today in the jewish dominance of the US affairs. From the little I’ve read, it appears this also occurred in Russia (e.g. the Bolshevik revolution). In each case, the influence of a small jewish population has adversely impacted the majority population. Today, the jewish influence is so powerful that it is a taboo in western societies to be critical of the huge and negative impact jews have on world events. For example, Amazon has censured/banned books that provide compelling and irrefutable evidence that the alleged jewish holocaust of WWII did not happen. In many countries, it is illegal for a person to openly refute the jewish holocaust.

    I’m just starting to research the topic of the extent to which Rothschild and jewish wealth is used to dominate western countries and impose harsh conditions on the larger population. I am looking for references to books, articles and any other material on this topic. I would appreciate if any of you can offer suggestions, comments and references on this topic.



    • Abe
      October 23, 2017 at 12:56

      “Ian” is the latest Hasbara troll attempt to smear Consortium News with the illusion of online “hate”

      In service to Israeli interests, Hasbara internet trolls try to stir up diversions and smear independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News.

      The Hasbara troll army online tries desperately to deceive, distract, divert and disrupt online discussion of the workings of the Israel Lobby and Israeli influence on American foreign policy.

      Hasbara troll “comments” manifest in two forms:

      – Conventional Hasbara (overtly “pro-Zionist / “pro-Israel”) propaganda

      – Inverted Hasbara (false flag “anti-Zionist” / “anti-Israel” / “anti-Jewish” or “anti-Semitic”) propaganda

      In the face of a sustained refutation of Conventional Hasbara false facts and fake news claims of a “new anti-Semitism”, the Inverted Hasbara propaganda activity was created to perpetuate the illusion of online “hate”.

      Inverted Hasbara operates based on false arguments advanced by individuals who masquerade as “harsh” critics of Israel and Zionism, or pretend to be “Jew hater” racists.

      Conventional Hasbara trolls loudly accuse legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism of being “anti-Semitic”, racist or “anti-Jewish”

      Inverted Hasbara trolls (like Ian”) masquerade as “anti-Jewish”, post overtly racist or “anti-Semitic” remarks, appeal to “anti-Jewish” conspiracy theories, and link to “Holocaust denial” material and “hate” literature

      Readers of Consortium News are alert to these deceptive Hasbara propaganda tactics.

      Hasbara smear tactics have intensified online due to reporting on:
      – Israel’s collusion with the United States in “regime change” projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe
      – segregation and outright racism against the non-Jewish population in Israel
      – illegal Israeli military occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory
      – Israeli support for terrorist forces operating in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq
      – efforts by the pro-Israel Lobby to persuade the U.S. to attack Iran.

      Fact-based criticism of specific Israeli actions or policies – even harsh and strident criticism or advocacy – in and of itself does not constitute “anti-Semitism”.

      • Abe
        October 23, 2017 at 19:36

        Inverted Hasbara (false flag “anti-Israel” / “anti-Zionist” / “anti-Jewish” or “anti-Semitic”) propagandists make use of “Holocaust denial” literature that denies the Nazi genocide of European Jews during World War II.

        The term holocaust comes from the Greek holokaustos: holos, “whole” and kaustos, “burnt offering”, “a sacrifice or offering entirely consumed by fire”. Later it came to denote large-scale destruction or slaughter.

        The biblical term shoah, meaning “destruction”, became the standard Hebrew term, first used in a pamphlet in 1940, for the genocidal murder of the European Jews.

        The Holocaust or Shoah refers to to the persecution and murder of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945.

        While various historical controversies exist concerning Jewish persecution during the Nazi era, and Jewish suffering unquestionably has been exploited for financial and political gain by Jewish organizations and the state of Israel, the fundamental fact of the Nazi era genocide of European Jews is not a matter of historical debate.

        “Holocaust denial” literature typically involves claims that Nazi Germany’s Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, but that it did not include the extermination of Jews;

        “Holocaust deniers” usually hold that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figures, typically around a tenth of the figure.

        “Holocaust denial” often focuses on aspects of the Nazi system of concentration camps (Konzentrationslager), particularly Auschwitz and the Aktion Reinhard camps

        Scholars use the term “denial” to describe the views and methodology of “Holocaust deniers” in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.

        “Holocaust deniers” generally do not accept the term “denial” as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the euphemism “revisionism” instead. However, the narratives of “Holocaust deniers” are typically based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores contrary historical evidence and established methodologies.

        Most “Holocaust denial” claims imply, or openly state, that the Nazi genocide of European Jews is an “exaggeration” or a “hoax” arising out of a deliberate “Jewish conspiracy” to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.

        For this reason, “Holocaust denial” is generally considered to be an “anti-Semitic” form of “conspiracy theory”, and is illegal in several countries.

        An October 2013 report in the British online magazine The Kernel had revealed that Amazon was selling books that defend Holocaust denial, and shipped them even to customers in countries where Holocaust denial is prohibited by the law.

        That month, the World Jewish Congress called on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos to remove from its offer books that deny the Holocaust and promote anti-Semitism or white supremacy. “No one should profit from the sale of such vile and offensive hate literature. Many Holocaust survivors are deeply offended by the fact that the world’s largest online retailer is making money from selling such material,” WJC Executive Vice President Robert Singer wrote in a letter to Bezos.

        On March 9, 2017, the World Jewish Congress announced Amazon’s compliance with the requests it and other Jewish organizations had submitted by removing from sale the Holocaust denial works complained of in the requests. The WJC offered ongoing assistance in identifying Holocaust denial works among Amazon’s offerings in the future. Hundreds of titles were delisted in this action.

        Now what does all this have to do with Trump, Neocons and Netanyahu?


        Like Conventional Hasbara, Inverted Hasbara is designed to create a distraction, to divert attention from the pro-Israel Lobby and Israeli government meddling in American politics and foreign policy.

      • Abe
        October 23, 2017 at 20:23

        Inverted Hasbara (false flag “anti-Jewish”) propaganda troll “Ian” masquerades as a “Holocaust denial” conspiracy theorist.

        The Hasbara propaganda effort here is to “defend Israel” by smearing independent investigative journalism sources like Consortium News, and other alternative news sources like CounterPunch.

        False flag “Holocaust denial” is yet another crude Hasbara deception tactic.

    • Florin
      October 23, 2017 at 14:18

      your top portion is reasonable actually even though you think it isnt.

      The bottom portion, fishing for anything about Jewish influence outside the ambit of foreign policy re Iran, is where you look like a troll.

    • Abe
      October 23, 2017 at 17:13

      The Hasbara troll army utilizes both individual and team tactics online.

      Here we see “Ian” receiving support.

      “Florin” mutters something about “top portion” and “bottom portion” of the Hasbara propaganda post by “Ian”.

      The “top portion” includes the statement “the alleged jewish holocaust of WWII did not happen”.

      Researchers on the subject of what happened during the Nazi era are first referred to the three-volume, 1,273-page The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution by Austrian-born Jewish-American political scientist and historian Raul Hilberg.

      “Florin” then mentions the “bottom portion” and implies that “influence” by pro-Israel interests is somehow limited to “the ambit of foreign policy re Iran”.

      In fact, the political influence of pro-Israel Lobby and Israeli government is extensive, directly impacting U.S. federal and state elections, state and local government policies, and foreign policy toward numerous countries including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Russia.

      “LJ” follows up by recommending the “anti-Semitic” books Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

      Immediately “LJ” juxtaposes the two most notorious examples of “Jew hatred” literature with two of the most important fact-based criticisms of the Israel Lobby (by American political scientists Mearsheimer and Walt) and the 2008-2009 “Cast Lead” brutal Israeli military attack on Gaza (by the United Nations fact-finding mission).

      Hasbara propaganda efforts to identify fact-based criticism of Israel with racist “Jew hatred” and irrational “Holocaust denial” demonstrate how low these propagandists are willing to slither.

      Hasbara trolls “pool their resources and coordinate their actions” to “defend Israel” online.

      The Hasbara troll army certainly is “dogged and determined”.

      • Ian
        October 23, 2017 at 18:47

        Abe, the more you post the more you come across as the very thing you are accusing me of being.

      • Abe
        October 24, 2017 at 16:23

        Several of the offensive comments by “Ian” and “LJ” referenced above have been removed by the CN moderator.

    • Zachary Smith
      October 24, 2017 at 13:10

      This person used the term “jewish” seven times. And he/she claims he needs help in finding references. The first part looks suspicious, and the second is flat-out unbelievable.

  5. Mild-ly Facetious
    October 22, 2017 at 14:44

    A history of progress, and it’s pace/as compared to

    this Trump America and it’s TakeOver

    > > > please compare and contrast

  6. Yahweh
    October 21, 2017 at 21:18

    My people will stop at nothing to achieve the grand agenda….Just ask JFK

    • Seer
      October 21, 2017 at 21:27

      Remember: Nature bats last. Have a nice day!

    • MA
      October 22, 2017 at 15:33

      And after that? And for how long?

  7. Martin - Swedish citizen
    October 21, 2017 at 15:57

    Iran is forced to agree not to develop nuclear arms. Israel already has nuclear arms but has not been required to give them up, is not under sanctions for that or a host of other good reasons, eg apartheid.
    To treat all with the same comb: impose sanctions on Israel and force them, too, to give up their nuclear weapons. Such a policy would be in the interest of all, including Israel.

    • David G
      October 21, 2017 at 16:25

      A comprehensive agreement for a nuke-free Middle East would also permanently bind Iran, obviating the time limit in the JCPOA, which is *ostensibly* a matter of dire concern to NetanyahuTrumpAdelson.

    • Seer
      October 21, 2017 at 16:45

      Problem is, Israel’s aim is to occupy the entire region. That plan requires the elimination of Iran. Oh yeah, and Israel has to exist in order for the Christians, which wield the power in the US, to come along and toss out the Jews in order to win the big end-of-days prize!

      Humans are predestined for their own extinction.

  8. David G
    October 21, 2017 at 15:18

    It’s so desolating to have spent eight years of Bush Jr. worrying about whether the U.S. will start a war with Iran, and now after Obama (who had other problems), to be right back there.

    Fwiw, my opinion now, just as during the Bush years, is that such a war isn’t as likely as its proponents want it to be. Iran doesn’t have as fearsome a deterrent as North Korea’s, but it can do a lot in the Persian Gulf, such as interrupt oil shipping, and turn a bunch of U.S. Navy ships into fish castles.

    Of course, when the idee fixe from 1991 to 2003 was to invade Iraq, it eventually prevailed, but I just don’t think the bulk of the top military and “national security” establishment want the Iran war. They didn’t when the moron in the Oval Office was from Texas, and if that hasn’t changed, I don’t see the Tanning Bed Oddity being more successful in overcoming that obstacle.

    • Seer
      October 21, 2017 at 16:41

      “Iran doesn’t have as fearsome a deterrent as North Korea’s”

      Double check that: Russia + China.

      • David G
        October 21, 2017 at 17:02

        Of course that’s part of the picture, but there too the DPRK is in a stronger position: China showed once that it will go to war to prevent full U.S. occupation of Korea, and that hasn’t changed.

        While the U.S. is in historic decline, as Russia and China ascend, their willingness to stop the U.S. aggression in Iran *now* with open military intervention is uncertain to say the least.

        • Seer
          October 21, 2017 at 17:24

          I’m not convinced that the DPRK is in a stronger position.

          Russia has, in recent times, shown it’ll go up against the US military. That happened/is occurring in Syria. Syria is a much more important piece of the puzzle than NK: NK is a sideshow, a distraction. While the US supports SK there there is no way that the SK lobby can possibly compete with the Israeli one. NK is being used to as a justification to restock US military supplies, little else: of course, conquering NK would set the US on the border of China; yes, China won’t tolerate this, but unless Russia jumps in China likely won’t be able to pull off any push-back. Syria, on the other hand, represents a threat to Israel’s and the neocons’ BIG PICTURE plan. Russia knows quite well that Syria is a key; it also knows that Iran is the target (knocking off Iran means Syria get’s knocked down). The ONLY question is whether Putin can rally the Russian people to support pushing back against any US aggression aimed at Iran. If he can, then figure the end of US imperial wars: the emperor will be shown to be wearing no clothes.

          • David G
            October 21, 2017 at 17:33

            The DPRK is in a *vastly* stronger position. But my initial point was that I don’t think the U.S. is currently planning to act militarily against either of them. We seem to agree on that much.

          • Seer
            October 21, 2017 at 18:02

            I’m actually replying to David G’s response to me…

            “The DPRK is in a *vastly* stronger position. But my initial point was that I don’t think the U.S. is currently planning to act militarily against either of them.”

            The US IS acting militarily. That is what Syria is all about! Read the article provided by Abe above (again, Abe’s contributions are near priceless).

            DPRK is a sideshow, it’s a side trip, it’s not a key destination. China is a big buffer between Russia and NK. With Iran taken out Russia has no buffer (from the Arabian Sea to the Caspian Sea, then to Russia’s doorstep).

      • David G
        October 21, 2017 at 17:30

        But my basic point was that I doubt the U.S. is deliberately heading toward full-scale aggression against Iraq.

        I’m more concerned about how a minor incident could escalate. Suppose something like the 2016 Farsi Island trespass-capture happened now? We’ve seen this year that there’s no shortage of incompetence in the U.S. Navy and the Gulf is very crowded.

        • David G
          October 21, 2017 at 17:35

          I meant Iran.

        • Seer
          October 21, 2017 at 18:15

          Israel isn’t going to be patient. Israel’s ability to create instability is far more credible than that of NK’s ability: we only think that NK can be loose because US/Western propaganda tells us so.

          Time is slipping away. Israel has seen a huge defeat in Syria and knows that only by taking out Iran can Syria then be wiped out. No one figured that Russia was going to kill the plans for a direct attack on Syria. And, once again, it seems like no one is taking seriously Russia’s interest in combating any aggression toward Iran. Israel, and the neocons, figured that it was all in the bag with the toppling of Saddam et al, that having the Saudis also in support of these actions that it would be a cake walk. So much for intelligent, strategic thinking. Saudis’ powers are now starting to wear out due to the blatantly obvious human rights abuses it’s undertaking in Yemen: if it loses US refueling support then it’s game over there and, thus, the start of the end of Saudi military actions across the region. W/o Saudi support Israel and the US are assured of failure. But, again, underestimating the true forces of confrontation seems a common weakness of the US and Israel (perhaps it’s because they’re the aggressors- those no in the “right”).

          had it all in the bag

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 21, 2017 at 23:54

            Seer & David G. I enjoyed reading you guys with your back and forth debate. You both serve as a good example to the way we should debate each other, on this sites comment board, so bravo to the both of you.

            Now let me tell you of how I think this will play out. If the U.S. should decide to tangle with either Russia, or China directly, then all geographical points of tension will be up for grabs. China already said it will help defend N Korea if the U.S. should strike first. I’m going to say, that if the attack on Iran is done by the U.S., and if it’s big enough, then Russia will have to come to Iran’s aid. Don’t forget Ukraine either, there’s always something going on there, and a lot of it doesn’t always get reported.

            If wars are to be fronted by proxies, then the fight is disguised we’ll enough not to create a world wide explosion. On the other hand, if the U.S. should go head to head with either Russia or China then it will soon escalate to something I don’t wish to go into now. Joe

  9. Abe
    October 21, 2017 at 14:54

    “President Trump’s announcement fulfilled nearly a decade-long ploy to draw Iran into what US policymakers as early as 2009 called a ‘superb offer’ designed solely to portray the US as having tried diplomacy before changing tack toward more direct economic, political, and military aggression.

    “In a 2009 report titled, ‘Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran”, corporate-financier funded US policy think tank the Brookings Institution would explicitly call for a deal to be offered by the US to Iran only to be intentionally broken and used as a pretext for direct military confrontation.

    “The report would propose (emphasis added):

    “‘…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians ‘brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal.’

    “The exactitude by which this 2009 policy has been executed – transcending two US presidencies – and leading precisely to the edge of an impending US-Iranian confrontation in the Middle East already being fought out in proxy across Syria, Iraq, and some may argue, Yemen – should leave no doubts as to what happens next.”

    America’s Predictable Betrayal of the Iran Deal
    By Tony Cartalucci

    • Seer
      October 21, 2017 at 16:22

      ““‘…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. ”

      The f*ckers never learn. Yeah, we’ll be welcomed as liberators…

      Why do they ignore Russia? If Russia was able to completely thwart US/Israel in Syria then just wait to see it happen on a much larger scale in Iran (and this time it’ll be the death of MANY people, US military personnel will have to be employed and it’ll be their blood).

      You know, many prominent people in the US have gotten away calling for the murder of the leaders of other countries. When is it OK to call for the murder of folks like Bolton? Military folks need to step up and put an end to this, they need to realize that it’s time to stop the insanity, time to execute a long over due coup (sad that it has to come to this).

      • Zachary Smith
        October 21, 2017 at 20:27

        An argument is being advanced that the coup has already happened, and is now gradually and subtly tightening its grip.

        “Above All” – The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

        On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and concluded:

        The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments.

        * Those who criticize the President don’t know what they’re talking about because they haven’t served in the military. …
        * The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his general told him to do. …
        * Communication between the President and a military widow is no one’s business but theirs. …
        * Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. …

        Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.

        All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months’ fight over Raqqa was similar – with the same outcome.)

        It’s an interesting theory, and one to watch. IMO even if this is so, the pretense of Trump being in charge will be maintained.


        • Joe Tedesky
          October 21, 2017 at 23:39

          Zachary, Trump is the perfect frontman. Is he? I don’t know, but Trump in his own screwy blustering way causes more distractions than enough. In fact, I’m pretty well convinced he let’s the military operate under its own strength. I picture Trump conceded a lot of power as well, since in took office. Although, not knowing him, is it possible that after the toppling of much of his staff, and threats made to investigate Jared and Don Jr., that Trump rolled over and said, I’ll just play President just leave my family alone? Besides Trump having some very thin skin, and a ever fragile ego, what else should we Americans worry about? Joe

        • Seer
          October 22, 2017 at 00:02

          Zach, I think that Trump will actually be forced out. All that’s keeping this from happening right now is Pence: I don’t think that even the Pentagon wants Pence around. Yes, I fully understand how things LOOK. But, in the end all these guys work for the bankers, and all this loose cannon stuff makes things very unstable (might be OK for a handful of defense contractors, but it’s the bankers that run things). I really don’t think that TPTB can even tolerate a cardboard cut-out.

    • jaycee
      October 21, 2017 at 17:12

      The Brookings plan is effectively dead in the water, at least for now, because the JCPOA was actually signed and then further endorsed by the UN Security Council. The next opportunity to create a “ploy”, or pretext, won’t be until the sunset clauses come into effect, but at which point Iran will conceivably be an active international economic partner with many other countries – therefore not the isolated state necessary for the planned chaos and destruction program to ensue. This is probably what is motivating the move to reinstate excessive sanctions, but the U.S. may discover that even its allies won’t be eager to go along this time.

      In retrospect, the Obama administration believed its hegemonic position unassailable and so did not ultimately think out the implications of signing the JCPOA if it was in truth not wavering from a future regime-change policy for Iran (i.e. just punting the ball down the field). Its use of sanctions and excessive fines to hold and enforce US law and foreign policy on its own allies let alone strategic rivals was arrogant and foolish. And now Israel’s arrogance and foolishness in making demands of the international community and, after such demands are met, effectively moving the goalposts and making a new set of demands, will weaken its own position. After all, Israel is an undeclared nuclear weapons state and has also acted as a nuclear proliferator in the past. At some point it will be called on the contradiction. At least Trump’s clumsiness makes the actual factors at stake – arrogant hegemony vs international law and diplomacy – clear and apparent.

      • Seer
        October 21, 2017 at 17:40

        Yeah, at some point FACTS have to win out. Russia and China (signatories) are going to effectively block any attempt to kill the JCPOA.

        US over-reach is going to be unbearably too hard to ignore. I just cannot believe that Trump’s apparent ignorance is in fact borne out of ignorance and stupidity (that is, HE may be ignorant and stupid, but the powers surrounding him aren’t going to readily allow him to make a mockery out of US power- here, then, I can only guess that there’s really a plan and that maybe it’s all about the eventuality of the US stepping back from its role as the world’s lone, controlling super power status; perhaps the steps necessary for a NWO?).

    • Abe
      October 21, 2017 at 19:29

      In 2002, media mogul Haim Saban pledged $13 million to start a “research” organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

      To put this Policy Center into perspective one should note that Saban says “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”. Saban has close ties with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and is one of their biggest campaign donors

      The annual Saban Forum hosted by Brookings since 2004 includes Israeli government officials.

      In a March 2006 update on activities of the Israel Lobby, American political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted that Saban is an “ardent Zionist” and observed that “Saban Center publications never question US support for Israel and rarely, if ever, offer significant criticism of key Israeli policies.”

      Saban ended his funding partnership with the center, which no longer carries his name. Its letterhead changed back to the Center for Middle East Policy and a note from the director explained that the partnership was “entering a new stage.” In a press release, Saban made clear he would “sustain and expand” the annual Saban Forum. “Haim is still a strong supporter for the Brookings Center, financial and otherwise, and he is still on the Brookings Board of Trustees,” the statement added.

      Which Path to Persia?
      Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

      The June 2009 document was authored by leading pro-Israel war hawks:

      Kenneth M. Pollack, the “director of research” at the Saban Center, is a former CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer under Bill Clinton. A prominent “liberal hawk” cheerleader for the Iraq War, Pollack is credited with persuading liberals to endorse the invasion of Iraq. His 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, was influential in selling the “WMD” case. His 2005 book, The Persian Puzzle, recycled many of the same arguments, this time directed at Iran.

      Michael E. O’Hanlon, the “director of foreign policy research” at Brookings, is a war hawk and frequent op-ed writer for major news outlets like the Washington Post. In recent years, O’Hanlon has pushed for U.S. intervention in Syria. In April 2007, O’Hanlon and Fred Kagan urged the United States to invade and occupy Iran.

      In March 2003, shortly after the United States invaded Iraq, O’Hanlon contributed his name to an open letter published by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative advocacy outfit closely associated with American Enterprise Institute that played a major role generating public support for the invasion of Iraq and pushing an expansive “war on terror.” Among those contributing their names to the document were hardline neocons like Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Joshua Muravchik, and William Kristol, as well as liberal interventionists like O’Hanlon and Ivo Daalder, also a scholar based at Brookings.

      Martin Indyk, the “director” of the Saban Center, is a former AIPAC staffer. Indyk cofounded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in 1985 with the wife of AIPAC Chairman Lawrence Weinberg and former president of the Jewish Federation, Barbi Weinberg. Despite his well known affiliation with the Israel Lobby and his Australian nationality, Bill Clinton appointed Indyk as the first foreign-born US Ambassador to Israel in 1995. The issuance of his US nationality had been expedited for his previous appointment by Clinton in 1993 as Middle East adviser on the National Security Council.

      In their landmark book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (2007), Mearsheimer and Walt discussed the undeniable pro-Israel biases of the Saban Center: “It is hard to imagine that a research institute funded by Saban and directed by Indyk is going to be anything but pro-Israel […] individuals who stray from the Center’s line do not remain for long” (pg 157)

      Moreover, the Brookings Institution’s work on the Middle East has degraded since it was transferred to the Saban Center. Mearsheimer and Walt observed: “What was once a non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.” (pg 156)

      Removing Saban’s name from the Center has not altered the distinctly pro-Israel work product at Brookings.

  10. Kalen
    October 21, 2017 at 14:52

    Well, he not only bent over but was politically sodomized. What Trump and Netanyahu are doing in many ways was some years ago a crime in Texas punishable by jail.

    There is no one to torment the political wanton , no one to sear flesh of hypocrisy from those who dwell in iniquity of greed and murder.

    Lawlessness is their method, chaos s their weapon.

  11. Joe Tedesky
    October 21, 2017 at 14:21

    So when will our patriotic president have us all start standing at attention for the ‘Tikvateinu by Naftali Herz Imber’ the Israeli national anthem eliminating the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ to the list of oldies but goodies. You laugh, but at the current rate the U.S. is going, it should not be of any surprise for when this does occur. This is not only very regretful for we Americans, but it will wash the Jewish people with but the sins of only a few deranged Zionist who were able to pull this off. This didn’t happen over night, but none the less it happened due to our free press becoming but just another tool to be used to fool we the people into becoming a subservient mass of mindless zombies who follows the leader with no questions asked.

    • WC
      October 21, 2017 at 23:49

      Joe. I am somewhat uncertain what you meant by part of your comment, and hope you don’t mind if I ask for a clarification. :)

      You said “. . . it will wash the Jewish people with but the sins of only a few deranged Zionist . . .” Is this the same as saying guilt by association? If so, you have brought up a very good point on how this double-edged sword cuts both ways.

      And chin up on the “subservient mass of mindless zombies”. Even Billy-Bob and Ray, sucking beer behind the single-wide are beginning to smell a rat. ;)

      • Joe Tedesky
        October 22, 2017 at 01:22

        Yes WC that’s exactly what I meant. Only you said it much better, ‘guilt by association’. I still want to believe there is more good than bad. What I said, and what I meant, could have been said to any society on the verge of blowback at anytime, anywhere, in history. It’s just sad I had to say it. Joe

        • WC
          October 22, 2017 at 19:36

          “Blowback”. Now there is an interesting topic that has been curiously missing from the discussion everyone on this site appears to want.

          I am I to believe Joe Tedesky is the only one here with the insight to recognize this? Or is he the only one with guts enough to approach the subject?

    • Abe
      October 24, 2017 at 19:44

      Thanks for your comment, Joe.

      The “no questions asked” following of “Israel First” leaders and the propaganda army of pro-Israel war shills has generated enormous blowback to American society in the form of:

      – Radical erosion of civil liberties
      – Vast depletion of the Federal treasury
      – Multiple wars
      – American military casualties
      – Huge numbers of foreign casualties in countries that have never threatened the United States

      Blowback happens when depraved pro-Israel propagandists like Thomas “suck on this” Friedman are granted media platforms

    • Abe
      October 24, 2017 at 22:46

      Hasbara propagandists “defend Israel” by diverting discussion from the pro-Israel Lobby, Israeli influence on American politics and foreign policy, and Israel’s connections to global terrorism.

      Conventional Hasbara (overtly or covertly pro-Israel / pro-Zionist / purportedly “pro-Jewish”) propaganda points at Inverted Hasbara (false flag “anti-Israel” / “anti-Zionist” / “anti-Jewish”) propaganda and shrieks about a “new anti-Semitism”.

      It’s a diversion from the reality that a “deranged” minority of Jewish and non-Jewish “Israel Firsters” in the United States – many of them Jewish and Christian Zionists – have inflicted enormous damage on American society, the American economy, and the international stature of the United States.

      The “blowback” from blind “Israel First” allegiance threatens peace and prosperity in the United States, stability in the Middle East, and global security.

      It is time for the American people to demand sanctions to compel Israel to surrender its destabilizing arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, stop its illegal population transfers, end its illegal military occupation of Palestinian territory, and cease its constant military threats against Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

      America must stop fighting these insane wars for Israel.

      No matter how loudly the Israeli government and its pro-Israel Lobby minions scream, Iran is not “Hitler”. Syria is not “the Nazis”.

      And that corrupt thug in Tel Aviv is not the bogeyman.

      The Netanyahu regime is simply the revolting dead end of the Revisionist Zionism, now dangerously armed with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

  12. Tom Welsh
    October 21, 2017 at 14:16

    ‘He warned that, if Congress and America’s European allies do not agree on a plan to revise the deal, “then the agreement will be terminated.” He added that the agreement “is under continuous review,” and our participation “can be canceled by me, as president at any time.”’

    The sheer impudence of this is exceeded only by its dishonesty. In the first place, everyone who matters – the IAEA, the US intelligence community, China, Russia, even European and Australian political leaders – agree that Iran is scrupulously observing all the terms of the agreement. So if Trump announces that he will not “certify” Iran’s compliance, the only possible interpretations of such a statement would be that he is mad or lying.

    Secondly, Trump is wrong to say that he can cancel the agreement. The USA is just one of many parties to the agreement, and if the USA unilaterally ceases to observe its terms it will be perfectly clear to all the world who is acting maliciously and in bad faith. Not that such an act would surprise anyone, coming from the US government.

    • Kalen
      October 21, 2017 at 15:13

      True but that does no apply to global imperial US. They simply impose banking sanctions on anyone who trades, transacts with Iran, that means almost all, since vast majority clear in dollars legally one time or another.

      It already happens to Chinese,Russian banks cut of from dollar trades, assets seized supposedly because they doing business with NK even if this business is in gold or Bitcoin.

      This is true aim and power of globalists enforced by political intimidation and murder.

      EU will fold on that, effectively agreement will be shelved, look what going on with anti Russian hysteria that cost EU massive and totally unnecessary spending of $billions for nothing but propaganda rants in support of genocidal Kiev Regime since it is vital to dismantle contenders to global imperial power.

      The threat is real, only because EU are US vassals to bend over and be politically sodomized.

      Israel theocratic state wants war Iranian theocratic state to be fought for them by somebody else.

      • Seer
        October 21, 2017 at 16:50

        The REAL money and resources of Russia and China will win out. The EU has no real choice other than to create better ties with their neighbor (Russia), which can only require a separate from US dictates. Collapse of the petro-dolllar WILL happen, and with it will mark the end of the imperial reach of the US.

        • Kalen
          October 22, 2017 at 09:56

          True but why it did not happen already?

          Because there are too many members of Chinese politburo who have vested dollar interests, the same is in Russia.

          There a high up factions in Russia and China that support US dominated globalization and hence such a uncalled for gentleness in response to US belligerent rants and threat, even nuclear threats, responses unbelievable in PR of China in the past with exception of when under boot of British colonial rule.

          What is shocking that powerful China no longer asserts its political dominance in propaganda realm over Washington warmongering and succumbs to following sanctions [also calls for Crimea to be put under Ukrainian administration again) and US threats against NK and others trying to destabilize NK regime, against her own rock solid policies of last 60 year at least.

          • Seer
            October 22, 2017 at 20:34

            The Chinese operate on a timescale that’s a fair bit longer the the US’s. Further, the US will, as do ALL empires, collapse. Patience is key. It is, therefore, a battle of waiting it out, of survival (like it always is). But, neither Russia or China will allow any direct attacks. The US would like to do this in order to provoke (because the time frame to do so is running out).

            What value is it for China to ignore the US’s BS? Why should they, or anyone else for that matter, spend a lot of energy on it? Really, that’s the problem in the world today, we need to stop paying attention to all this crap and start doing what needs to be done (folks are free to figure out what that is). Much of this is intentional distraction.

        • Thomas
          October 23, 2017 at 10:57

          “Collapse of the petro-dolllar WILL happen, and with it will mark the end of the imperial reach of the US.”

          That will trigger the neo cons to start WWIII. If the US MIC can’t be rulers of the earth then no one else will be. Amerikka will be the last empire or else.

      • Zachary Smith
        October 21, 2017 at 20:30

        Israel theocratic state wants war Iranian theocratic state to be fought for them by somebody else.

        What a neat capsule summary!

      • Dave P.
        October 21, 2017 at 23:22

        Kalen –

        Yes. I agree with you. The EU Vassal States will fall in line. They will find some kind if big legal words or other such deceptive arguments to justify to renegotiate JCPOA. One must remember that these are Imperial Powers, and have been in this business of Exploitation and Control over the rest of the World for many centuries now. They are all together in it.

        In U.S. we have been living off the World by printing/issuing dollars for four decades – close to twenty trillions dollars now. U.K. does it too with their Pound Sterling. IMF and World Bank are a kind of modern Usury System they have invented for the Third World and other developing countries beyond The West. Russia, China’s OBOR are the threat to this system. The West is going to fight against it with all the means in their arsenal, including War.

        Here is a link to M.K. Bhadrakumar blog about OBOR and U.S.’s nightmare. Bhadrakumar, the retired Indian Diplomat has good insight into that part of the World including Middle East.

        And from this Gareth Porter’s article, it is pretty clear – it had been clear for a long time now – that who runs this country. The Country is run by the Israel/Zionists, and they control EU vassal States as well, though to a lesser degree. One has to just look at how they are throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars in these elections – for President and the Congress. And if one looks at what they are doing; they are all in Finance, in Wall Street Casino Business.

        America, the Manufacturing Power House it was half a century ago is finished. Along with it is gone what you call the Main Street America. And it’s people do not have a clue what is happening to them. And I feel for them. Though I did not agree with the Foreign policy in many areas of the U.S. government at that time, it was a well organized society of decent and good people when I saw it first time fifty two years ago in the Great Lakes State.

    • Zachary Smith
      October 21, 2017 at 20:44

      Secondly, Trump is wrong to say that he can cancel the agreement. The USA is just one of many parties to the agreement, and if the USA unilaterally ceases to observe its terms it will be perfectly clear to all the world who is acting maliciously and in bad faith. Not that such an act would surprise anyone, coming from the US government.

      Here in backwoods Indiana I’m not very well informed about the Big Picture, but I’ve picked up “vibes” that Europe is getting fed up with the US in general, and Trump in particular. Using him as an excuse to break away from the US (when it wants to) would be a perfect excuse. Consider this headline:

      US allies in Europe vow to stand by Iran nuclear deal


      By “standing up” to Trump, European companies will take business from Iran which would have formerly gone to the US. Ditto for other inconveniences:

      Washington’s economic war against Russian gas supplies to Europe unacceptable – Gerhard Schroeder


      Still another headline which may or may not be wishful thinking:

      New German govt to remove ‘double-edged sword’ of Russia sanctions – ex-Latvian FM


      • Ian
        October 23, 2017 at 11:36

        I now make a point of looking for your comments and references in all CS articles. Keep’em coming! Would have enjoyed having you as a neighbor. Up here in Quebec, I have a hard time getting any family, friends and neighbors look beyond their nose and see what is happening in the world.

  13. Tannenhouser
    October 21, 2017 at 14:14

    “The remarkable thing is that Trump is cooperating even more eagerly than did Bush.”, really now? Hardly remarkable. More like par for the course isn’t it?

    • Peter Loeb
      October 25, 2017 at 06:10


      (NO SURPRISE!)

      What follows is an excerpt from a story in The Middle East Eye:


      Iran Iran scrambles to contain Trump


      “As the US begins implementing its latest aggressive Iran strategy,
      the Islamic Republic is set to blunt US plans


      Friday 20 October 2017 06:16 UTC
      Friday 20 October 2017 11:16 UTC

      “On Wednesday, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a
      combative response to Donald Trump’s decertification of the
      Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear accord.

      Deriding Trump for his “rants” and “whoppers,” and refusing to address them directly,
      Khamenei nevertheless made clear that should the US tear up the nuclear deal, then
      Iran would “shred it to bits”.

      Addressing a group of “young elites” and “superior talents,” Khamenei hinted at one
      important aspect of Iran’s counter-strategy, namely creating a rift between the
      Europeans and the Americans. Appearing to praise the Europeans for defending
      the JCPOA in the face of Trump’s onslaught, the Iranian leader, nevertheless, made
      clear that he expects Europe not (to) stake out an oppositional stance on Iran’s ballistic
      missile programme as well as the Islamic Republic’s regional policies.

      This “divide and rule” strategy on the global stage is likely to be complemented by a
      bolder regional posture as Iran tries to stand its ground in the face of US pressure.
      Iran’s more forceful posture in Iraq, including allegedly encouraging Baghdad to push
      back against Kurdish expansionism by retaking Kirkuk, is one clear indicator of this

      It should be noted that Israel has long been trying to maneuver the US and others
      to fight Israel’s wars for it. The credit of course to be taken entirely by
      Israel. In former Administrations, the US was reluctant to go along with this
      (except in secret). At last Israel has hit paydirt! Bull’s eye!

      Detailed scrutiny (including the detailed notes) of Thomas Suarez’s
      STATE OF TERROR is both frightening and revealing. Could it ever
      have been another way? Other sources detail the basis of
      such views, con quests (See Francis Jennings, THE INVASION OF
      AMERICA, Chapter l)

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston. MA, USA

Comments are closed.