Well unless you hide during the day under a rock then you are aware of how close the US and Iran maybe to a war……personally, I do ot think it is a good idea but then I am an antiwar person and cannot see too many wars as a good thing.
But ask yourself….just who is it that wants this war?
Trump and the Secstate and NatSec adviser do not seem to be on the same page….so who wants this?
Speaking on state TV of the prospect of a war in the Gulf, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to dismiss the idea.
“There won’t be any war. …We don’t seek a war, and [the Americans] don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests.”
The ayatollah’s analysis is correct. Consider the consequences of a war with the United States for Iran.
Iran’s hundreds of swift boats and handful of submarines would be sunk. Its ports would be mined or blockaded. Oil exports and oil revenue would halt. Airfields and missile bases would be bombed. The Iranian economy would crash. Iran would need years to recover.
But not to worry….the Speaker of the House said that the Congress have not voted for war….
The Trump administration does not have congressional authorization to go to war against Iran, the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives warned on Thursday amid escalating tensions in the region.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she backed what appeared to be U.S. President Donald Trump’s aversion to actual military conflict with Tehran.
“I like what I hear from the president — that he has no appetite on this,” she said. The Washington Post, citing several unnamed U.S. officials, reported late Wednesday that Trump was frustrated that his advisers may be rushing into war and that he preferred a more diplomatic approach and direct talks with Iran.
Really? The Congress has not thought it important enough to vote on any war since the invasion of Afghanistan….so what makes me think they will have any say whatsoever in whether we go to war with Iran or not?
Besides they, the Congress, cannot stop a war any way….look at the failure with the Yemen conflict….the Congress has become a toothless tiger.
Keep in mind that the architect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq on false information was John Bolton, among others…..and now he is in a position that gives him more influence than in 2003……
All I can say is…here we go again!
An Iraq-War redux is now in full play, with leading roles played by some of the same protagonists – President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, for example, who says he still thinks attacking Iraq was a good idea. Co-starring is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The New York Times on Tuesday played its accustomed role in stoking the fires, front-paging a report that, at Bolton’s request, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has come up with an updated plan to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East, should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons. The Times headline writer, at least, thought it appropriate to point to echoes from the past: “White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War.”
John Bolton has a Haig-sized ego. (one must be an old fart to appreciate the Haig reference) He aspires to control the ebb and flow of foreign policy in the Trump administration. He is often at odds with his colleagues from the State Department and Pentagon. And he is dealing with a president who, if not asleep much of the time, is only intermittently focused on national security issues.
Recently, Bolton too seemed to have his “I’m in control here” moment. With the conflict intensifying in Venezuela, the national security advisor leaked the opposition plan for the army to defect en masse from the Maduro government in favor of challenger Juan Guiado. Bolton’s tweets reportedly angered President Trump, who felt “boxed into a corner,” particularly after the defections didn’t materialize and Nicolas Maduro did not flee the country.
Time for all parties to step back and think what they are doing. Once the “brink” has been breached then coming back becomes much more difficult.
Perhaps these actions are a prelude to negotiations: the U.S. is exerting “maximum pressure”, it says, to bring a more compliant Iran back to the table; in like manner, should Tehran conclude that it has no choice but to reach a new deal with Washington in order to relieve unsustainable economic strain, it will want to enter such talks with a stronger hand. Resuming its nuclear activities, making its presence felt in the region, and disrupting Saudi or Emirati oil exports could all be ways of enhancing its bargaining power. But if these manoeuvres are a diplomatic game, it is a dangerous one: either side could misinterpret the other’s intentions. Any Iranian move could easily lead to U.S. and/or Israeli strikes which, in turn, could lead to an Iranian counter-response. Or vice versa. Escalation comes easily; de-escalation is a much taller order, especially in the absence of direct channels of communication that can pre-empt misunderstandings or miscalculations.
This could become a major war since we have a president that sows chaos in his wake….this needs a steady hand and commonsense to prevent this from exploding.
But until then….the Neocons in Trumpland are trying to sell this as a “Just War”…….a Just War?
Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the “just war tradition,” deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. For instance, international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare which lawyers may refer to in prosecuting transgressors, but it is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed.
To me a Just War is a silly notion that only applies in a very limited reasons…..
And then we have those that a “Preventive War” is the only answer…..to that I say Bullshit!
The Neocons are working overtime to find a justification for a war……most are based on LIES and propaganda……PERIOD!
Have you been watching the antics of the US foreign policy in trying to force regime change in Venezuela?
So far three (3) attempts and three (3) failures…makes one think that it is all so much manure that the Trump Boyz are spreading.
The US has a history of attempted regime change…some successful and others were a disaster for the people to the targeted country…..
Since my typing is slow and labored these days….I will turn you over to more academic writers….for now…….
The United States (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR) did not go to war with each other between 1945 and 1991. Instead, both superpowers sought to wield global power and influence by manipulating smaller nations. They did this in many ways: through diplomacy, treaties and alliances; by providing aid or trade deals; by supporting friendly political groups or leaders; and by supplying arms, military equipment and training. The US and USSR also exerted pressure on ‘unfriendly’ foreign governments. In extreme cases, American and Soviet agents worked to change or overthrow these governments. In Europe, the Soviets installed socialist regimes loyal to Moscow, while elsewhere the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) orchestrated or supported coups that displaced socialist or left-leaning governments. These interventions often brought about disruption, conflict and significant human suffering. During the Cold War, several democratically-elected leaders were replaced with puppet governments, military juntas or dictators who were authoritarian, violent and corrupt.
Now that so many of the US attempts at regime change have gone terribly wrong…the US Special Forces has written a book on the proper way to go about regime change and/or coup……(Let is write there is now a how to book on regime change)…
The official study covers 47 distinct cases of US special forces trying to intervene in various countries from 1941-2003. It did not include some of the more famous US-backed coups, as the study said they did not involve “legitimate resistance movements.“
This meant a few pages covering each incident, attempts to sort them into various categories, and determinations if they were successful or failures. Overwhelmingly, they determined their own interventions were successful.
Apparently anticipating the problems in years to come, the study also addressed mounting unrest across the Middle East in its early portion, and waved this away by arguing that it was generally the fault of the Soviet Union, and would’ve happened no matter what the US did.
Okay right about here I need to say…WTF?
To begin with there have been a couple of “how to” books over the years and most are in my library…….maybe if “leaders” would read more they would not have to waste time and money writing a book that is already in print….several to be exact……
Form ten years ago…..”How To Stage A Military Coup’ by David Hebditch and Ken Connor….from Skyhorse Publishing….
Then from an older book…..from 1968….”Coup D’Etat–A Practical Handbook” by Edward Luttwak from Harvard University Press…
Maybe if they read more then their feeble attempts at regime change would be more successful.
It seems that the advisers to the president are determined to get into a shooting war with Iran…..personally I do not think any of these accusations are true (that means they are LIES)…..apparently I am not alone…..
The narrative of an “increased threat” posed by Iran and its proxies across the Middle East is being used to justify a US military buildup and a general escalation of tensions in the area. British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, however, has raised serious doubts about that.
Maj. Gen. Ghika said that there has been “no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces,” despite the claims from US officials, mostly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. Perhaps more damningly, Ghika says he does not believe there is any daylight between Britain’s assessment of “no increased threat” and the assessment from US intelligence.
In other words, the US officials are lying about the intelligence, presumably to justify the growing US buildup and to keep hyping the possibility of a war with Iran. US Central Command, however, angrily shot back contradicting Ghika, insisting his statement runs counter to established US position on the matter.
CENTCOM’s statement is not exactly a refutation of Ghika’s position on UK and US intelligence. Rather, it refers to “identified credible threats” but provides no indication where they came from. It clearly wasn’t intelligence agencies, because the threats were only made available to intelligence agencies after their identification.
Early reports on the “Iranian proxies” allegation suggested it came out of Israel, and that it was built around Israeli officials believing it would make sense for Iran to do that sort of thing to attack the US. This could suggest it was never verified by US or UK intelligence, and was rather just accepted as the official version because it fit with US policy at the time.
US is fanning those flames vigorously…..(do not believe all the denials)…..these neocons want war……
Other officials indicated on Monday that they consider Iran the main suspect of the attack, though they have conceded that they don’t have any real evidence of this, let alone proof. Abizaid said starting a war over it would not be in the interest of Iran, the US, or Saudi Arabia.
Which is a potentially controversial position for the ambassador to take, given the ongoing US military buildup in the Middle East, centered around the idea of a war with Iran. Even if he believes this isn’t in America’s interest, nor justified on unproven allegations of sabotage, it seems to be the general direction the US is headed anyhow.
In particular, the idea of having a thorough investigation before the reaction is not the way the US has done things in recent years. At a time when hawks are lining up to call for action against Iran on any pretext, it is vital to hear the call to let cooler heads prevail.
Filter out all the warmongering BS and think about one thing……this article was published in The American Conservative……
David French defends one of the great crimes of the 21st century:
Today is the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and Twitter is alive with condemnations of the conflict — countered by precious few defenses. Yet I believed the Iraq War was just and proper in 2003, and I still believe that today.
There is good reason that the Iraq war has “precious few defenders.” The Iraq war was a great crime and a massive blunder. Not only was it illegal under international law, but it was undeniably unjust according to any fair reading of just war theory. Our government did not have just cause to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. Preventive war can never be justified, because it can never be just to strike first against another country because you fear what their government might one day do to you. That is simply aggression committed out of irrational fear. To say that you still think 16 years later that invading Iraq is “just and proper” is to admit that you don’t know what those words mean.
In this world today, the 21st century in case there is any confusion) war does not make sense….the only people to gain are those that make the weapons of destruction.
We Americans have allowed too many wars in our name…..all the deaths are in our name…..and what does anyone gain?
News came out after I had written this draft for post today……
The US Embassy in Iraq says the State Department has ordered all non-essential, non-emergency government staff to leave the country right away amid escalating tensions with Iran. The security alert, published on the embassy’s website on Wednesday, comes after Washington last week said it had detected new and urgent threats from Iran and its proxy forces in the region targeting Americans and American interests. On Sunday, the embassy advised Americans to avoid travel to Iraq, citing “heightened tensions.”
Six African Heads of State will be among global leaders and foreign dignitaries to eye-witness the official ceremony inaugurating the newly elected Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, scheduled to take place on May 7 in Moscow.
The importance of this ceremony is that Putin will continue to keep the symbols of power – the national seal, the national flag and a specially bound copy of the Constitution after taking the oath of office as President.
I bring up the two situations with two of the biggest competitors of the US because I would like to know what the US has in store for Africa……
Africa is not likely to emerge as one of US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy priorities. But the continent is almost certain to be affected by the fallout from his hardline foreign policy views, his strong anti-Muslim pronouncements, his vow to eliminate Islamic terrorism, and his “America First” economic policies. And the prospects are probably bleak for any bold new development initiatives targeted at Africa like those rolled by his predecessors Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Over the past two decades, US Africa policy has enjoyed strong bipartisan congressional support from both Democrats and Republicans working together. But without a strong commitment to Africa in the White House or Executive Branch under Trump, the major programmes that have defined US policy in Africa for the past two decades will probably struggle to sustain the previous funding levels and state support.
Newsweek offered n small look at what the Trump Africa Agenda will look like……
The U.S. faces an ever-connected, dynamic, and often dangerous world. Nowhere are the obstacles and opportunities presented by these conditions more evident than in U.S.-Africa policy.
Despite offering little insight into this foreign policy thinking during the campaign, the president-elect will enter office facing a number of serious challenges to U.S. interests in Africa, but also an unprecedented chance to deepen a partnership with the fastest-growing continent in the world and advance American security and economic interests.
The following priorities should be of particular interest to the Trump administration:
Recently PDRK has tested a few short range missiles that have all the earmarks of being of Russian design…..
“The three new missiles North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has tested over the past week are eerily familiar to military experts: They look just like a controversial and widely copied missile the Russian military has deployed to Syria and has been actively trying to sell abroad for years.”
Could be after all Kim just met with Putin just recently and now he has “new” missiles to play with…..
Shortly after the missiles were fired the US comfiscated a NK ship on “sanctions” violations…..
Well Kim has just ordered the US to return his ship and return it NOW……..
North Korea has expressed its displeasure with the US seizure of one of its cargo ships in standard North Korean fashion, denouncing the “flagrant act of robbery” and threatening unspecified consequences. “The United States committed an unlawful and outrageous act of dispossessing our cargo ship,” a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency. The statement said the seizure had violated the “underlying spirit” of the agreement President Trump and Kim Jong Un signed after last year’s summit, the New York Times reports. The official warned that it would be the “biggest miscalculation” for the US to think it could control North Korea by force.
The ship, the Wise Honest, was violating sanctions by exporting coal, according to the Justice Department. It was detained in Indonesia in April last year and is now in American Samoa after being confiscated by US authorities. “The United States must mull over what repercussions its gangster-like act will entail, and must return our vessel without delay,” North Korea’s statement said. Kim called for North Korea to be on “full combat posture” after the seizure of the ship was announced, reports Reuters. Analysts tell the Times that recent North Korean short-range missile launches may have been Pyongyang’s way telling the US it needs to compromise on sanctions—and the country may be using the seizure of the Wise Honest to ratchet up tensions.
We now await the Tweet that should follow this event…..will his, Kim, demand be met?
Whenever the US starts down a path to war they have to make the case for the public to support a war……Iraq there was the search for yellow cake uranium (which was a lie)…..and the US seems to be thumping that chest again…this time in the Horn of Africa……
I did not wait long for that shoe to drop with the mash-up with Iran……
The United Arab Emirates said Sunday that four commercial ships off its eastern coast “were subjected to sabotage operations,” hours after Iranian and Lebanese media outlets aired false reports of explosions at a nearby Emirati port. Emirati officials declined to say who might have been responsible, the AP reports. However, the US has warned ships that “Iran or its proxies” could be targeting maritime traffic in the region; America is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Persian Gulf to counter alleged threats from Tehran. Tensions have risen since President Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, restoring American sanctions that have pushed Iran’s economy into crisis. Last week, Iran warned it would begin enriching uranium at higher levels in 60 days if world powers failed to renegotiate the deal.
The UAE statement put the ships near the country’s territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, east of the port of Fujairah. It said that it was investigating the incident “in cooperation with local and international bodies” and that there were “no injuries or fatalities on board the vessels” and “no spillage of harmful chemicals or fuel.” Earlier Sunday, Lebanon’s pro-Iran satellite channel Al-Mayadeen, quoting “Gulf sources,” falsely reported a series of explosions at Fujairah’s port. State and semi-official media in Iran picked up the reports, citing Al-Mayadeen, which later published the names of vessels it claimed were involved. The AP found the reports about an explosion to be unsubstantiated
Bam! That shoe has dropped!
With the US military buildup in the area around Iran, hawks both within the administration and elsewhere in the region suspect that it might not take much to sucker the US into starting a war. Something oil tanker related might do it.
Officials are investigating, however, and with all the talk of undermining international security, the public is meant to suspect that the Iranian government did it, whatever “it” actually was, because the US has been warning Iran that they’d better not do something.
Does appear as Trump and his Boyz are wanting the crisis to escalate……
This week, one year after President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, relations between Washington and Tehran approached a crisis, with an American carrier strike force headed for the Persian Gulf and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo making a sudden trip to Baghdad to consult with Iraqi officials. In fact, precipitating a crisis was the point of the administration’s strategy; the question now is how well they manage it.
Pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was not just an attempt to dismantle a cornerstone of President Obama’s legacy. Nor was it fundamentally a disagreement about how to constrain Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program, though prominent hard-liners in the Trump administration surely hated the agreement. Instead it was a long-shot bet that a U.S.-imposed economic embargo just short of war could bring Tehran to its knees, forcing a fundamental change in the Iranian regime’s policy, or even regime change itself.
Making the case…..it is so typical something I have seen and heard for decades……the government wanting a “WAR” and set about making the case for the conflict and to get the American people to go along with the ride.
Is America ready for the Bolton/Pompeo war with Iran?
Claiming that the decision was made in response to “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings,” Bolton declared that “the United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime.” But, he added, “we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.”