In just two weeks as president of the United States, Donald Trump has left traces of how he intends to tackle various international political situations. The previous article dealt with a series of possible sabotage efforts suffered by the Trump administration. In this second and concluding article, I intend to analyze the situations in Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and Syria as well as the stance towards NATO, the EU and China. The goal is to decipher how Trump has used admissions, silences and bluffs in order to advance his intentions and obviate the deep state's sabotage efforts.
Quote:Deep-state sabotage is in full swing and is increasingly influencing the Trump administration. The latest example can be seen in the resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. He was forced to resign either for inappropriate contacts with the Russian ambassador in the US prior to his appointment, or for not telling the truth about his phone call to the Vice President and President.
As with the whole Trump presidency, it is very difficult to understand whether we are facing an act of sabotage from the deep state or whether this is yet another semi-improvised strategy to muffle the drums of war. We all know of Flynn's closeness to his Russian counterparts, a rapprochement that cannot be placed in danger with the dismissal of the new National Security Adviser. Trump needs Russia more than Russia needs Washington; improving ties is something that Trump needs in order to avoid major conflicts and de-escalate the international situation. One could even imagine that Flynn was wisely removed given his harsh and trenchant positions on Iran that would send Washington on a terrible path of war with Tehran.
There are several international situations in which the intentions of the new administration are very difficult to understand and sometimes even provoke amazement. Let us first examine the administration's attitude towards the Iran and Yemen. As noted a few weeks ago, very harsh words from the US administration were directed towards Tehran following a legitimate missile test, and especially with the defensive actions of the Houthis in Yemen. With Yemen and Iran not looking like diminishing their legitimate actions, the affair regarding Flynn could fall into a de-escalation strategy to contain excesses in Islamophobia expressed by the former National Security Advisor.
Trump has always preferred to counter deep-state sabotage attempts with substantial bluffing, as seen with the strong rhetoric used against Tehran regarding its recent actions, exactly as in Yemen for the actions of Ansarullah defense forces. The Trump strategy seems to want to please the factions closest to the neoconservative wing, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies. Targeting Yemen and Iran with words has at least temporarily quietened the drums of war of an important part of the establishment in Washington. Trump has to carry out a careful balancing act involving his words and actions in order not to not draw too harsh a response from the Washington establishment.
Flynn's dismissal could also be seen as an easy attempt to sabotage and prevent a rapprochement with Russia; indeed this is likely to be so.
But meanwhile, we can consider one positive aspect: Flynn has always been highly Islamophobic, tending to find it difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi terrorist goons and legitimate Islamic fighters like the Houthis or Hezbollah. Flynn has usually maintained pro-Saudi positions and even pro-Qatar Muslim Brotherhood positions. It may even be that Trump has torpedoed his own personally chosen pick dampening the excessive saber-rattling against the Islamic Republic of Iran that was possibly laying the groundwork for an escalation that Trump had to reign in. This is pure speculation, but everything is possible with this unpredictable presidency.
Much talk, little action
Trump still gives the strong impression that he intends to avoid any further conflict. Bluffing on Iran and Yemen seems to be the ideal choice for the Trump administration: harsh tones and words to placate the most hawkish factions without actually taking any action appears to be the new normal. The first strategy of Trump's foreign policy therefore seems to be to employ a tactic of inaction. Not acting could well represent a new turning point in American foreign policy, avoiding further involvement in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. This would represent the first confirmation of Trump's intention not to squander American resources by going to war and betraying his election promises, thereby further impoverishing the United States. Observing the very intense words on Iran, let us try and analyze the intentions of the Trump administration. Certainly having people like General Mattis within the administration is a big test for how Trump will manage to contain the most anti-Iranian wing of his inner council. Could Flynn's departure be the first step of this internal cleansing, a warning signal to other pro-war figures? Or maybe it is none of the above and in actual fact the first successful sabotage from the deep state.
Silence as a strategy of inaction
Another important approach in Trump's presidency is a frequent silence or lack of comment on international events. Two most recent cases concern Syria and China. With regard to the «One China» policy, Trump confirmed assumptions made in the past, namely that his intentions are anything but malicious. The tone was initially hard, only to be replaced by a long silence, and then finally words one would not expect, averting an international crisis on this front. It is a modus operandi that should be taken as an example for understanding the psychology of Trump. At first he was critical in a decisive way, calling into question China and Taiwan, then he no longer mentioned the topic, and finally he gave his blessing to the «One China» policy, initiating a likely mutually fruitful cooperation.
Another important part of Trump's policy of silence involves Syria. Since becoming president, Trump has rendered events in Syria irrelevant, making the issue disappear from the media radar. Thanks to Trump's guerrilla tactics, lobbing smoke grenades hither and tither and signing two executive orders a day, the media simply does not have the time and perseverance to keep up with everything. One of the sacrificial victims has been the reality in Syria; but a lack of attention from the mainstream media is currently the best hope that we can desire for the Syrian people. Trump's attitude seems to be deliberately cautious and silent about developments in that nation. The situation in Syria is firmly in Russian hands, and what seems to be occurring is an indirect coordination between Washington and Moscow against Daesh in the country. The silence from Trump certainly irritated the most radical and extreme wing of the deep state, but any attempt to sabotage this progress in Syria now seems to be wrecked thanks to the inaction of the Trump administration and the actions of Moscow. The final coup de grace would be to openly cooperate or act in joint US-Russia actions to defeat terrorism in the region.
Admissions to confirm the election promises
Finally, Trump has never hidden and indeed has often touted his vision of the approach that should be taken with the Russian Federation. A rapprochement with Putin to combat terrorism is one of the pivotal points around which the Trump presidency rotates. During the election campaign he has never hidden his positive intentions, even though this increased the criticism directed towards him. This part of his tactic is based on the admission from the beginning of his campaign of his intention to reach a deal with Moscow. The first confirmation of this intention can be seen in Syria, with Washington apparently ceasing the flow of money and weapons to the so-called moderate rebels, pleasing Moscow and looking for a de-escalation of the conflict. Another important aspect regarding Trump's statements in terms of foreign policy concerns the role of NATO and his European allies.
During the election campaign he repeatedly attacked the role of NATO, but then was forced to reach an agreement given the importance of the international framework guaranteed by NATO in Europe. This provided a very clear indicator of how Trump's strategy works out if he has to defer to other considerations. He changed his initial positions by placing a strong emphasis on the need for US allies to pay their share of military spending, namely 2% of GDP. Currently all NATO countries, excluding the United States and Greece, fall below this commitment. Sharp focus is brought on the EU members on the cost of keeping NATO alive, forcing them to come to terms with the harsh economic reality that this implies. In the long term this could lead to a strong treaty revision of NATO. EU countries are increasingly facing difficulty in increasing defense spending, especially when considering existing austerity measures as well as the lack of importance placed on NATO by the European public, with the exception of the EU elite.
This tactic will further weaken the integrity of the European Union. In a sense, the Trump strategy in this case is crystal clear and will probably achieve its objectives.
This situation will provide the perfect opportunity for the European populist and nationalist parties to further attack the foundations of the European Union and its security framework guaranteed by NATO. If Trump wanted to undermine the EU's foundations, pointing to the futility of NATO and at the same demonstrating to his base that he will act on his election promises, then this strategy seems perfectly calibrated.
Ultimately, we can already say that the relations between Trump and the deep state are essentially based on sabotage efforts against Trump, and the asymmetrical responses of his administration, ranging from bluffing, to silences, and admissions.
To correctly assess Trump's foreign policy, one should divide into three categories the vicissitudes of the United States. In a first column we can include words and rhetoric; in the second, inaction; and in the third, actions taken.
While it is clear and obvious that the first column includes Iran, Yemen and the EU/NATO, it is worthwhile noting that the second column certainly includes inaction like shown towards China, Syria, and the events in Ukraine. The third column, for the moment, essentially concerns the first steps towards Russia and the rapprochement with Moscow. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the resignation of Flynn may just be a deep-state move to sabotage Trump before he takes decisive action to settle a deal with Russia. The tactic of not acting, or of inaction, is difficult to sabotage, as the deep state came to realize when Obama decided not to act in Syria in 2013. Criticizing actions taken is much more effective and easy for the media, as seen with the attacks on Trump's team for ties with Putin that are deemed too close. In this sense, the hypothesis that Flynn has been sacrificed should not be discarded in this context as a way of promoting a rapprochement with Russia, eliminating one of the most contentious issues between the administration and the deep state.
On this aspect we will need to await the developments between Moscow and Washington, and how this will possibly change the rhetoric against countries such as Yemen and Iran, two countries long criticized by Flynn and his colleagues.
Conclusions
The only possible conclusion relates to the previous point, namely the clear division between words, actions, or inaction. At the moment, the Trump team's strategy seems to use these three options to further advance their own interests and strategic objectives. Given the uncertainty surrounding the intentions of Trump's administration, the only sensible attitude seems to wait and see whether the aggressive rhetoric remain just that. Another consideration relates to actions taken by the administration to approach and mend troubled relations with the Russian Federation. Finally is the inaction in foreign policy that amounts to a precise tactic. If words remain words and inaction will continue to remain a key part of the current presidency, perhaps for the first time in decades we will see in practice a positive change in direction from the new US administration.
In all this it remains to be seen whether Trump will really change the direction set by liberal hegemony with its global ambitions for a more realistic one as repeatedly suggested by the school of political realism represented by Mearsheimer. Only time, and actions, will tell.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Quote:Does Flynn Exit Aid World Peace?
By F. William Engdahl
21 February 2017
When we human beings become too self-destructive for our own well-bring and that of our Earth, sometimes nature takes control and does what we in our greed and stupidity refuse to do. The refusal of Governments around the worldwith notable exceptions such as the GMO-free Russian Federationto order an immediate global ban on planting of Genetically Manipulated Organisms, GMO, including for corn, for soybeans, for cotton to name just a few, along with an immediate ban on paired weed-killers such as Monsanto's Roundup, is stupidity pure. The response of nature, however, may sound the death knell for American farmers' use of GMO seeds more effectively than any labelling or WHO carcinogen warning. Superweeds are literally choking GMO plants to death across the US Midwest farm belt and that should send a very real signal that nature abhors GMOs and their toxic weed-killing chemicals.
It's essential to look beyond the headlines to get a sense of what's really afoot. From the onset, as I've stated many times, the Trump Presidency is about deception and about replacing Obama's failed "Plan A" for global dominion with what we might call Henry Kissinger's "Plan B."
What did the abrupt firing of Flynn do to possibly aid world peace? Was he not the dear friend of normalizing relations with Putin's Russia? Was he not the ardent foe of the war-mongering neo-cons that dominated the foreign policies of George W. Bush and B. Obama? In a word, No. He wasn't.
The issue is not Flynn as though he single-handedly was about cleaning the filth out of the Augean Stables of the Washington intelligence community. The issue is the declared priority foreign policy of the Trump Project.
Since the election campaign, certain themes have been clearly sounded: The nuclear deal with Iran was "bad" and new hostile sanctions are in order. Relations with Bibi Netanyahu's right-wing Likud government must again become special Washington priority. Relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest financier of terrorism, must also be elevated. What has taken place in the four weeks since the inauguration?
Not a new policy, post-Flynn. What is taking place is a strategic pivot, as planned, to build a war coalition for US control of the oil and gas of the Middle East. It is not about "peace" in cooperation with Russia in Syria. Never was.
Breaking the Eurasian Development Triangle
From the outset, if we take utterings of Trump, of Flynn, of Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis, the aim of the American Patriarchs and their messengers such as Henry Kissinger, has been to try to break the Eurasian economic triangle that offers our war-torn world a new hope of economic growth, not war, through construction of a network of deep water ports and high-speed rail infrastructure linking the nations of Eurasia, largely independent of the domination of the dollar system or NATO.
As I outlined in an earlier article, published just before the Trump inauguration, it was clear then that, "With Kissinger now in a unique relationship with President-elect Trump as shadow foreign policy adviser, with Kissinger allies Tillerson as Secretary of State and Mattis as Secretary of Defense, it is beginning to appear that the heavy hand of Kissinger and his version of British Balance of Power political manipulations is about to target China, as well as Iran, and to try to use Putin and Russia to destroy the genuine possibility of a counterweight to Western One World delusions, by fostering mistrust and bad blood between China and Russia and Iran."
Kissinger, in his recent criticisms of Obama foreign policy argued that Obama gave Iran a lifting of some sanctions while not demanding in return that Iran leave Syria and cease support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. He argues that a deal with Russia over Syria should Balkanize or "cantonize" Syria as Washington did in Yugoslavia in the wars of the 1990s, with an agreed exit of Bashar al Assad. Kissinger argues, "Iran must be contained, much as the Soviet Union was in the Cold War, because it poses a similar threat, acting as both an imperial state and a revolutionary cause."
For Kissinger, Trump's de facto foreign policy strategist, the greatest threat to his (and David Rockefeller's) version of a World Order, is emergence of regional blocs asserting their self-interest and not acting as de facto vassals of a US-led order. Kissinger stated back in 2014, "A struggle between regions could be even more destructive than the struggle between nations has been."
Flynn Fired for Iran, not for Russia
The official reason for firing Flynn so early on was allegedly his refusal to disclose all details to Vice President Pence and others of his pre-inauguration phone call to the Russian Ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak, in the days before Trump became President.
Far more plausible as reason is the shoot-from-the-hip remarks of Flynn aimed at Iran in early February. Then Flynn held an unusual press conference in the White House to declare, "As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice." His remarks were aimed at Iran's testing of a ballistic missile and a recent attack on a Saudi naval vessel by Yemeni militants, which Washington said were backed by Teheran. Sounds tough, or? Real Rambo macho, a la USA again asserting its power in the region. Grrrrrrrowl!
There were many things wrong with that inane declaration of Flynn. One, it had no content, much like Obama's August 2012 "red line" statement on chemical weapons in Syria that almost got the US in a boots-on-the-ground war in Syria and resulted in a disastrous loss of US credibility in the Middle East. As Kissinger noted, the Obama "red line" disaster, "created the impressionand the realityof an American strategic withdrawal from the region."
Moreover, there is no international ban on Iran's testing ballistic missiles. As former White House Middle East specialist Philip Gordon pointed out, "By issuing a warning so imprecise in such a dramatic, public fashion he has set himself and the United States up for either an embarrassing retreat or a risky confrontation." Ballistic missile tests are not a part of the Iran nuclear agreement or any UN Resolution.
As it sunk in within the neophyte Trump Administration what a stupid thing Flynn had done, even before the Administration even had picked all its ducks let alone set them all in a neat row on Iran policy it became clear Flynn had to fall on his sword. The Russian Ambassador was useful deflection.
Notable was that the stupid and imprecise threat from Flynn led both Russia and China to publicly declare their firm support of Iran, the opposite of what Plan B is supposed to bring. Three days before Flynn fell on his sword, the Kremlin Presidential spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, stated, "Russia disagrees with a remark recently made by US President Donald Trump's that branded Iran as the number one terrorist state.' All of you know that Russia enjoys warm relations with Iran, we do cooperate on a range of issues, and we do appreciate our economic ties which, we hope, will go further."
Anti-Iran Military Bloc?
If we look closely at what the new Trump initiatives have been, certain features become clear. Take the obscene, fawning performance of new CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, kissing the posterior of the ultra-reactionary Saudi Royal Prince. On February 12 in his first foreign trip as CIA head, Pompeo presented Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, heir to the throne, with the "George Tenet Medal" for his efforts to combat terrorism. Pompeo has echoed the Trump Administration mantra that Iran is the primary source of conflict in the Middle East. It echoes what Trump has declared, what Kissinger has written and what Defense Secretary James Mattis declared when accusing Iran of being, "the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world."
Over the past decades Saudi Arabia has spent an estimated $100 billion fostering the radical Wahhabite brand of fanatic Islam, including sending Osama bin Laden to Pakistan in the early 1980's to create what became Al Qaeda to wage a CIA decade-long war against the Soviet Red Army. Saudi money is a prime reason war still rages after almost six years in Syria today as well as in Yemen.
The mending of Washington ties with the Saudi monarchy is part of a larger strategy to rebuild Washington ties to Netanyahu's Israel and to a coalition of ultra-reactionary Sunni Gulf states including Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt. The Obama Iran nuclear deal had chilled Washington ties deeply with Israel and the Gulf Arab states.
On February 15, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration plans to build an anti-Tehran military bloc with Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Sunni states and Israel, states that would cooperate with the United States and Israel on sharing intelligence to oppose the growing regional influence of Iran. The report stated that Washington seeks to create, "a new NATO' agreement between four Arab nations, where intelligence would be shared openly with Israel. The new agreement has been proposed to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt and Jordan and is seen as a formal military alliance against a growing geopolitical threat from Iran."
Netanyahu, in Washington to meet Trump, immediately embraced the Trump proposal of creating an "Arab NATO," of course, with Israel shrewdly in the background, providing "targets." The Israeli Prime Minister declared it was a "great opportunity for peace." (sic).
The Deeper Geopolitics
Creating a new Sunni war against Iran by the Trump Administration is, however, not the end game. It's a step in a far larger, vastly more strategic gambit: To break the emerging Eurasian triangle of growing cooperation between Russia, China and Iran. Washington and Israel's Netanyahu see Iran as the best way to do that, the weak link.
A seminal paper recently by Washington neo-conservative guru, Michael Ledeen, the same Ledeen who co-authored a book in 2016 with Mike Flynn, is worth close reading. Ledeen, an architect of the Iran-Contra scandals in the 1980s as well as of the fraudulent Niger uranium yellowcake affair that the Bush-Cheney Administration used to justify the mad war against Iraq in 2003, is at the center of Trump efforts to demonize Iran. Today Ledeen is a so-called Freedom Scholar at the Netanyahu-linked Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
On February 13 in an OpEd in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, submitted just before Flynn's resignation from the NSC, Ledeen wrote, "Want a deal with Vladimir Putin in the Middle East? Then start with the real questions: Are the Russians prepared to abandon Iran and Bashar Assad's Syria? If so, what would it take to pull it off? "
Ledeen continues, "An American deal with Russia that pulls the plug on Mr. Putin's alliance with Mr. Assad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatens the Iranians. Without Russian bombers and special forces, Iran would face defeat, as would Mr. Assad. Without Syria, Hezbollahan integral part of the Tehran regimewould at least be seriously threatened, and could function no longer, along with the military pipeline from Tehran to the Mediterranean. "
Ledeen then proposes that Trump back a new CIA Color Revolution to topple Khamenei's Iran: "With US support, these millions of Iranians could topple the Islamic Republic and establish a secular government resembling those in the West. With the Islamic Republic gone, the Trump administration would be in a much stronger position to strike a deal with Mr. Putin. The road to Moscow runs through Tehran." xv
Michael Ledeen is a nasty piece of work. He is on record in 2002 as part of his push for an Iraqi invasion stating, "If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror."
Russia steps back
How does this all tie into the resignation of Flynn and the shift in Moscow perceptions of the true motives of the Trump Administration towards Moscow? Trump's Administration was well on the way, by all signs coming out of Moscow and Washington, to offer Moscow a very poor deal over Syria that would rupture Russia-Iran relations and destroy the new-found Russian influence as a major Middle East actor or a reliable ally to other nations. Vague promises of possible sanctions relief and maybe some "understanding" of Russian Crimea policies were reported to be some of the "carrots" Trump and Co. dangled before Moscow.
On February 14, the day following the Flynn resignation, putatively over his contacts with Russian officials, the Pentagon accused the Russian military of flying "too close" to the USS Porter, a guided-missile destroyer, in international waters in the Black Sea, the strategic home of Russia's Black Sea naval fleet in Crimea. The Pentagon claimed the Russian jets were flying without transponders turned on. The very presence of the US ships so close to Russia is part of Washington provocations begun under Obama and obviously not altered by Trump.
Then a week before that, US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley told the United Nations that, "the United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea…Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine." Trump himself then tweeted, "Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?
During his campaign Trump had suggested reviewing the Crimea sanctions on Russia as part of repairing relations.
At this point Russia has clearly stepped back from making major deals with Washington over Syria since the firing of Mike Flynn. Russia sees the recent visit of CIA head Pompeo to Turkey to try to woo Erdogan back into the NATO camp and enlist Turkish support for a new offensive in Syria as yet another sign of basic dishonesty in the Trump Administration as to their true intentions for a joint peace effort in Syria. Whether embedded networks within the Washington intelligence communitycommitted along with the US military industrial complex to a permanent war economywere behind the firing of Flynn, Moscow is clearly in a strategic reassessment in the aftermath.
A rupture of Iran-Russia ties owing to a foul Russian deal in Syria would also facilitate the breaking of the strategic other leg of the Eurasian Golden Triangle, namely the strategic ties between Xi Jinping's China and Iran, where China has invited Teheran to join its One Belt, One Road port and high-speed rail infrastructure project, described as the most significant infrastructure project in the world today. Washington must break that Eurasian triangle or face superpower twilight. That is what the entire Kissinger-Trump project is about.
If we put the efforts of Washington to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran over Syria into the global context of Washington targeting China over the South China Sea and with coming currency wars, the true purpose of the Trump Project architected by Henry Kissinger becomes clearer. The aim is to destroy the one regional alliance in the world today capable of seriously displacing American hegemony as sole superpower, namely the Russia-Iran-China Eurasian triangle with its gold, its technology, its rail links and its formidable military deterrence. Fortunately for the world, they are off to a disastrous start.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Quote:H.R. MCMASTER ISN'T A BIGOT, MAKING HIM AN OUTLIER ON TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM
Zaid Jilani, Murtaza Hussain
February 21 2017, 11:44 p.m.
UNLIKE HIS SHORT-LIVED PREDECESSOR, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President Trump's new national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, has no history of openly associating with bigotry. In fact, McMaster has throughout his career emphasized the need to work constructively with foreign Muslim populations.
But his presence only calls even more attention to the dramatic divide among Trump's top foreign policy advisers. One one side are career military personnel who understand that antagonizing Muslims is both offensive to American values and damaging to the country's security. On the other side are inexperienced radical ethno-nationalists who shrug off international norms and believe that peaceful coexistence with the world's Muslims is unlikely and undesirable.
The two views appear incompatible. But which group will emerge victorious is not at all clear. In fact, which group speaks for Trump at any given moment is not entirely clear either.
Here are the key players:
US Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster looks on as US President Donald Trump announces him as his national security adviser at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, on February 20, 2017. / AFP / NICHOLAS KAMM (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images) U.S. Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster looks on as US President Donald Trump announces him as his national security adviser at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Feb. 20, 2017. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
The Rationalists
H.R. McMaster, Trump's new national security advisor, is a three-star general, a PhD in history and the author of a book on the high-level deceptions and errors that triggered the U.S. war in Vietnam.
A seemingly incongruous partner for Trump, who has repeatedly advocated for torture and other harsh measures to fight terrorism, McMaster has been a vocal proponent of protecting civilians in warzones and avoiding the "clash of civilizations" approach favored by Trump and his top advisers.
He presents a dramatic contrast to Flynn, who once tweeted that "fear of Muslims is RATIONAL" and during his brief tenure put Iran "on notice" in a threatening press conference that signaled the possibility of armed conflict with that country.
In a speech at the Carnegie Council in 2014, McMaster said that the United States must partner with people in Muslim-majority countries to defeat groups like Islamic State, describing them as "the people who are suffering the most" from terrorism. McMaster added that to win such conflicts,U.S. forces must understand the history and social dynamics of the countries it is fighting in, as well as have "empathy for the people among whom these wars are fought."
McMaster has also criticized agenda-driven D.C. think tanks and foreign policy seemingly driven by the weapons industry. In a 2015 speech at the University of South Florida, McMaster said that "the military-industrial complex may represent a greater threat to us than at any time in history."
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has been the anchor of the non-radical wing of the Trump administration. Mattis assured reporters during his recent meeting with Iraqi political and military leaders that, Trump's frequent comments to the contrary, the United States would not try to seize Iraq's oil. "I think all of us here in this room, all of us in America have generally paid for our gas and oil all along, and I'm sure that we will continue to do that in the future," he said. "We're not in Iraq to seize anybody's oil."
As the commander of the 1st Marine Division in Iraq, Mattis believed that treating Iraqis with respect was essential to American security. He investigated abuses of prisoners in Iraq and helped stop the use of torture at one prison where an Iraqi in U.S. detention had died after being beaten.
On the campaign trail, Trump advocated for the return of waterboarding. A short meeting with Mattis during the transition period in November had Trump reconsidering his stance. The president-elect told reporters that he asked Mattis about waterboarding, and Mattis replied that he "never found it to be useful." Instead, Mattis told Trump: "I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture." Trump told reporters in January that he would defer to Mattis on the issue from now on.
Unlike some in Trump's inner circle, Mattis believes that Israel's continued military occupation of the Palestinians threatens American security and could lead to an apartheid style situation. Asked about conflict with Iran during a 2016 interview, he replied, "It would be bloody awful, it would be a catastrophe if we have to have another war in the Middle East like that."
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 2: (AFP OUT) White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon looks on as President Donald Trump meets with Senate and House legislators, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, February 2, 2017 in Washington, DC. Lawmakers included in the meeting were Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA). (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon attends a meeting of Senate and House legislators, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Feb. 2, 2017 in Washington. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The Radical Ethno-Nationalists
White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon the former Breitbart News executive who helmed the latter half of Trump's campaign is an outsized figure in the president's kitchen cabinet. He's also a true believer in the idea that the United States cannot coexist with Islam.
"Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission," Bannon proclaimed during a 2010 interview. It is a view he sought to establish in a documentary he once pitched titled "Islamic States of America." In that film, he imagined a future United States where all the major institutions of society were ominously controlled by Muslims.
Sebastian Gorka reports to Bannon and has emerged as one of the chief White House ideologues pushing for the United States to take a more forceful stance on Islam. A former instructor at the U.S. military's Joint Special Operations University and editor at Breitbart News, Gorka has come under criticism from national security experts for his claims about Islam and terrorism.
His 2016 book, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, called for the United States to confront the "global jihadi movement, a modern totalitarian ideology rooted in the doctrines and martial history of Islam." He is also an associate of notorious anti-Muslim conspiracist Frank Gaffney, frequently appearing as a guest at Gaffney's events and on his radio show. In a recent NPR appearance, Gorka refused to confirm whether Trump even considered Islam to be a religion, but did say that terrorists groups have "a religious verbiage, their justification for violence is always religious."
Senior Adviser Stephen Miller belongs to a new generation of far-right activists who argue that Western civilization is under attack by uncontrolled immigration and the spread of radical Islam. As a college activist at Duke University, he put together events to promote a "Terrorism Awareness Project" aimed at exposing the threat of "Islamofascism" a term created by far-right activist David Horowitz, who is notorious for, among other things, associating Arab American students engaged in pro-Palestine activism with terrorism.
"Gripped by complacency and the omnipresent force of political correctness, our nation has failed to educate our youth about the holy war being waged against us and what needs to be done to defeat the Jihadists that are waging this war," Miller wrote in a blog post at the time. "American kids attend school in an educational system corrupted by the hard left. In this upside-down world, America is the villain and Jihadists the victims of our foreign policy. Instead of opening eyes, we are fastening blindfolds."
As a Trump surrogate, he often made hysterical and baseless claims about Muslim immigration, at one point saying that "half a million U.S. girls in this country are at risk of female genital mutilation" as a result of Muslim immigration to the United States.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo was until recently a Republican congressman from Kansas partial to defending CIA officials who engaged in torture, calling them "patriots." He also left the door open to the CIA's return to torture by acknowledging in his written responses to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he would be open to altering a 2015 law prohibiting the government from using techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual.
As a lawmaker, he repeatedly appeared on the radio program hosted by anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney, where he portrayed the war on terror as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. He has also claimed that "Islamic leaders across America [are] potentially complicit" in terrorism because they supposedly don't speak out against it, which is not true.
Pompeo tapped as his deputy director at the agency CIA staffer Gina Haspel, who ran a secret prison in Thailand as part of the agency's "black sites" that enabled it to torture detainees.
Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, has no formal military or diplomatic experience. Yet the 36 year-old senior adviser is "running point on the Israel stuff," as one senior Trump administration staffer told Politico.
Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen as critical to reducing antipathy between the United States and Muslim-majority societies. As even the Bush-era Pentagon admitted, our "one sided support in favor of Israel," helps fuel radicalism that terrorists use to recruit against the United States.
The global consensus which, until the Trump administration, included the United States is that the peace cannot be achieved without establishing a sovereign Palestinian state. Trump recently put an end to the longstanding U.S. insistence on a two-state solution, reportedly keeping his own State Department in the dark on the decision until it was made. It was Kushner's counsel not that of senior U.S. diplomats or military staff that was guiding him.
Trump has told the media on numerous occasions that he will task Kushner with brokering a peace deal. But Kushner is hardly impartial in the conflict.
While U.S. policy has held for decades that settlements built deep into Palestinian territories are illegal, Kushner's family has helped finance them. And he fired a staffer at the New York Observer, which he owned at the time, after he began to write critically about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Quote:As a part of the increasingly obvious set-up of conservative movements by international banking interests and globalist think-tanks, I have noticed an expanding disinformation campaign which appears to be designed to wash the Federal Reserve of culpability for the crash of 2008 that has continued to fester to this day despite the many claims of economic "recovery." I believe this program is meant to set the stage for a coming conflict between the Trump Administration and the Fed, but what would be the ultimate consequences of such an event?
In my article 'The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017', I outlined the propaganda trap being established by globalist owned and operated media outlets like Bloomberg, in which they consistently claim that Donald Trump has "inherited" an economy in recovery and ascendancy from the Obama administration. I thoroughly debunked their positions and "evidence" by showing how each of their fundamental indicators has actually been in steady decline since 2008, even in the face of massive monetary intervention and fiat printing by the Fed.
My greatest concern leading up to the 2016 election was that Trump would be allowed to win because he represents the perfect scapegoat for an economic crisis that central banks have been brewing for years. Whether or not Trump is aware of this plan cannot yet be proven, but as I have mentioned in the past, his cabinet of Goldman Sachs alumni and neo-con veterans hardly gives me confidence. In the best case scenario, Trump is surrounded by enemies; in the worst case scenario, he is surrounded by friends.
Trump's loyalties, though, are a secondary issue for now. The primary focus of this article is to discern whether or not a battle between Trump and the Fed will result in a net positive or a net negative for the public. My position is that any action against the Fed should have happened years ago, and that today, the Fed is nothing more than a sacrificial appendage of a greater globalist agenda. Meaning, conservative groups should be aware that a victory over the Fed is not actually a victory over the globalists. In fact, the globalists may very well WANT a war between the Fed and the White House at this time.
First, some facts need to be established to counter the propaganda claims that the Fed is some kind of innocent victim of a rampaging President Trump or "misguided" conservative rhetoric.
The Scapegoat Setup Continues
The latest extension of the Fed's propaganda has been initiated, of course, by the mainstream media and liberals in general; you know, the same people that were applauding the (in some cases misguided) efforts of the Occupy Wall Street movement. With Trump's negation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the media has been looking for any opportunity to assert that Trump is either acting to enrich his corporate friends or that he is an idiot man-child when it comes to matters of business and economics.
This led to some sniping by Elizabeth Warren and Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellens testimony before congress last week. The argument? That Trump was wrong or "lying" when he said that Dodd-Frank had frozen loans from major banks. You can see the glee in media outlets over the stab; a recent article by Vanity Fair, which seemed to focus more on snide ankle biting of Trump than concrete evidence, is a perfect example.
Now, in Trump's defense (or at least, in defense of his position), Yellen is actually the one lying, here. While it is true that commercial lending has expanded, her claim that small business loans have improved is simply false. Even Bloomberg begrudgingly acknowledges that small business loans have fallen by at least 6% since the passage of Dodd-Frank. In Obama's favorite liberal home-base, Chicago, loans to small neighborhood businesses declined by 49% between 2008 and 2014.
In 2015, Yellen herself argued that small business loans were in decline because small business owners "don't want loans anymore." This is a bit like the Bureau of Labor Statistics arguing that over 95 million unemployed working age Americans should not be counted as unemployed in their stats because they really "don't want a job." It is an attempt to muddy the waters on the greater issue, which is that the U.S. economy is in considerable danger.
You see, I don't think Trump was debating that major corporations and banks were not receiving ample loans, I think he was primarily pointing out the disparity in small business loans and personal loans. Yellen and the mainstream media attempted to use one data point commercial loans, to dismiss the entire debate over loan stagnation.
The Fed Is Culpable For Our Bubble Economy And Trying To Shift Blame Before A Collapse
The fact is, we all KNOW that major corporations and banks have been flooded with ample loans, and much of this capital was conjured out of thin air by the Fed itself through fiat creation and near zero interest rates. We know this because of the $16 trillion in loans made to companies around the world exposed by the revealing (but limited) TARP audit. We also know this because much of these loans have been used to inflate the stock market bubble for the past few years through endless stock buybacks that most companies never would have been able to afford otherwise. We also know that the mainstream investment world is aware of the importance of these loans because they started to panic as the Fed announced its ongoing program of interest rate hikes.
Beyond that, we know that the Fed's low interest loans and culture of circular inbred lending between corporations and banks have been instrumental in keeping stocks hyperinflated, because Fed officials have OPENLY ADMITTED that this is the case. As Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed stated in an interview with CNBC:
"What the Fed did and I was part of that group is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.It's sort of what I call the "reverse Whimpy factor" give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow. I'm not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly." [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December 2015.]
"…I was warning my colleagues, "Don't go wobbly if we have a 10-20 percent correction at some point. … Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced."
So, again, the issue is not whether or not banks are lending, we know they are lending, they just aren't lending to the people that need it most.
I think Fisher was dishonest in his evaluation of the extent of the consequences of the Fed bubble and that a 10% to 20% drop in equities is an absurd underestimation. But setting aside the "little white lies", it is at least widely available knowledge that the Federal Reserve initiated a corporate loan free-for-all, knowing that the supposed benefits were limited in scope as well as in duration. They know that a crash is coming, and they have been stalling until they can find the right scapegoat to divert blame. That scapegoat is Trump, and by association, all conservatives.
As far as Dodd-Frank is concerned, the act was supposed to be a primer for stopping destructive behavior in the financial sector, more specifically in derivatives. Yet, in spite of Dodd-Frank, banks like Citigroup are STILL bloated with derivatives after receiving at least $476 billion in taxpayer funds to stop them from going bankrupt for the very same irresponsibility.
Dodd-Frank accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of what it was mandated to do. I believe the only true purpose of Dodd-Frank was to distract everyone from Ron Paul's Fed audit bill, which was gaining major traction at the time.
Liberals And The Fed Become Bedfellows?
So, why does Trump's undercutting of Dodd-Frank even matter? As outlined above, it is a propaganda point for the establishment to perpetuate the narrative that Trump is incompetent, that the people who support him are incompetent, and that when the economy does shift into greater crisis it will be his fault and the fault of conservatives. It is also a springboard for the Federal Reserve to "attack" Trump, as shown in Yellen's congressional testimony.
I also find it interesting that through the Dodd-Frank issue as well as others, leftists are being galvanized in support around the Federal Reserve, something that they probably would not have done a couple of years ago. This is all culminating in what I believe will become a titanic battle not only between Trump and Leftists, but also between Donald Trump and the Fed. But why would the establishment want to incite a conflict between the president and the central bank?
This is something conservatives and liberty activists have wanted for decades a president that would be willing to take on the Federal Reserve and expose its innards. The problem is, the time for the effectiveness of such an action is long gone. Auditing the Fed under Obama (an openly pro-globalist president) would have been a disaster for the powers that be. It would have thrown their entire agenda into disarray and killed any chance that they could complete what they call the "great global economic reset." Auditing or shutting down the Fed under Trump is another matter.
As I examined in detail with evidence in my article 'The Economic End Game Explained', the Federal Reserve has a shelf life. It has already served its purpose, which was to undermine the American economy and our currency system. The Fed will now begin deflating the bubbles it has engineered in stocks, Treasuries and the dollar through continued interest rate hikes and rolling out the over $4 trillion (official amount) on its balance sheet. The goal? Sinking America and reducing it to third world status over the course of the next several years to make way for total global centralization of economic administration, eventually leading to global fiscal management under the IMF and perhaps the BIS, and a global currency system; all while making conservative movements look like the monster behind the crisis.
To summarize, the U.S. economy and the dollar are slated for a controlled demolition. The Fed will do everything in its power to prod Trump and conservatives into war with the central bank, because the Fed is now ready to sacrifice itself and the dollar's world reserve status in order to clear a path for a new global system and ideology. The Federal Reserve is a suicide bomber.
If this takes place as I predict then the international banks and the establishment elites will be able to lay the blame for the death of king dollar squarely at the feet of Trump and conservatives, and at least a third of the country (leftists) will buy into the narrative lock, stock and barrel because they desperately WANT to believe it. Remember, the tale being scripted here is that Trump is a rampaging maniac that does not know what he is doing.
To be clear, I am not supporting the continuing dominance of the Fed, or the existence of the fiat dollar. What I am saying is that conservatives may just get what we have been wishing for all these years but not in the manner we had hoped.
To counter this threat our list of targets must expand to meet reality. The delusion that the core problem is the Federal Reserve must stop. The Fed is a box store, a franchise in a chain of franchises, nothing more. If we do not also turn our scrutiny and aggression towards root globalist institutions like the IMF and the BIS as well as international banks, then our efforts will only serve to bolster the enemy we are trying to fight.
In a battle limited to Trump versus the Fed, only the bankers will win.
Quote:Opponents of the Trump administration have generally accepted as fact the common theme across mainstream media that aides to Donald Trump were involved in some kind of illicit communications with the Russian government that has compromised the independence of the administration from Russian influence.
But close analysis of the entire series of leaks reveals something else that is equally sinister in its implications: an unprecedented campaign by Obama administration intelligence officials, relying on innuendo rather than evidence, to exert pressure on Trump to abandon any idea of ending the New Cold War and to boost the campaign to impeach Trump.
A brazen and unprecedented intervention in domestic U.S. politics by the intelligence community established the basic premise of the cascade of leaks about alleged Trump aides' shady dealing with Russia. Led by CIA Director John Brennan, the CIA, FBI and NSA issued a 25-page assessment on Jan. 6 asserting for the first time that Russia had sought to help Trump win the election.
Brennan had circulated a CIA memo concluding that Russia had favored Trump and had told CIA staff that he had met separately with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey and that they had agreed on the "scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."
In the end, however, Clapper refused to associate himself with the document and the NSA, which agreed to do so, was only willing to express "moderate confidence" in the judgment that the Kremlin had sought to help Trump in the election. In intelligence community parlance, that meant that the NSA considered the idea the Kremlin was working to elect Trump was merely plausible, not actually supported by reliable evidence.
In fact, the intelligence community had not even obtained evidence that Russia was behind the publication by Wikileaks of the e-mails Democratic National Committee, much less that it had done so with the intention of electing Trump. Clapper had testified before Congress in mid-November and again in December that the intelligence community did not know who had provided the e-mails to WikiLeaks and when they were provided.
The claim by Brennan with the support of Comey that Russia had "aspired" to help Trump's election prospects was not a normal intelligence community assessment but an extraordinary exercise of power by Brennan, Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers.
Brennan and his allies were not merely providing a professional assessment of the election, as was revealed by their embrace of the the dubious dossier compiled by a private intelligence firm hired by one of Trump's Republican opponents and later by the Clinton campaign for the specific purpose of finding evidence of illicit links between Trump and the Putin regime.
Salacious Gossip
When the three intelligence agencies gave the classified version of their report to senior administration officials in January they appended a two-page summary of the juiciest bits from that dossier including claims that Russian intelligence had compromising information about Trump's personal behavior while visiting Russia. The dossier was sent, along with the assessment that Russia was seeking to help Trump get elected, to senior administration officials as well as selected Congressional leaders.
Among the claims in the private intelligence dossier that was summarized for policymakers was the allegation of a deal between the Trump campaign and the Putin government involving full Trump knowledge of the Russian election help and a Trump pledge months before the election to sideline the Ukraine issue once in office. The allegation devoid of any verifiable information came entirely from an unidentified "Russian emigre" claiming to be a Trump insider, without any evidence provided of the source's actual relationship to the Trump camp or of his credibility as a source.
After the story of the two-page summary leaked to the press, Clapper publicly expressed "profound dismay" about the leak and said the intelligence community "has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable," nor did it rely on it any way for our conclusions."
One would expect that acknowledgment to be followed by an admission that he should not have circulated it outside the intelligence community at all. But instead Clapper then justified having passed on the summary as providing policymakers with "the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security."
By that time, U.S. intelligence agencies had been in possession of the material in the dossier for several months. It was their job to verify the information before bringing it to the attention of policymakers.
A former U.S. intelligence official with decades of experience dealing with the CIA as well other intelligence agencies, who insisted on anonymity because he still has dealings with U.S. government agencies, told this writer that he had never heard of the intelligence agencies making public unverified information on a U.S. citizen.
"The CIA has never played such a open political role," he said.
The CIA has often tilted its intelligence assessment related to a potential adversary in the direction desired by the White House or the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but this is the first time that such a slanted report impinges not only on domestic politics but is directed at the President himself.
The egregious triple abuse of the power in publishing a highly partisan opinion on Russia and Trump's election, appending raw and unverified private allegations impugning Trump's loyalty and then leaking that fact to the media begs the question of motive. Brennan, who initiated the whole effort, was clearly determined to warn Trump not to reverse the policy toward Russia to which the CIA and other national security organizations were firmly committed.
A few days after the leak of the two-page summary, Brennan publicly warned Trump about his policy toward Russia. In an interview on Fox News, he said, "I think Mr. Trump has to understand that absolving Russia of various actions that it's taken in the past number of years is a road that he, I think, needs to be very, very careful about moving down."
Graham Fuller, who was a CIA operations officer for 20 years and was also National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East for four years in the Reagan administration, observed in an e-mail, that Brennan, Clapper and Comey "might legitimately fear Trump as a loose cannon on the national scene," but they are also "dismayed at any prospect that the official narrative against Russia could start falling apart under Trump, and want to maintain the image of constant and dangerous Russian intervention into affairs of state."
Flynn in the Bull's Eye
As Trump's National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn presented an easy target for a campaign to portray the Trump team as being in Putin's pocket. He had already drawn heavy criticism not only by attending a Moscow event celebrating the Russian television RT in 2016 but sitting next to Putin and accepting a fee for speaking at the event. More importantly, however, Flynn had argued that the United States and Russia could and should cooperate in their common interest of defeating Islamic State militants.
That idea was anathema to the Pentagon and the CIA. Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had attacked Secretary of State John Kerry's negotiating a Syrian ceasefire that included a provision for coordination of efforts against Islamic State. The official investigation of the U.S. attack on Syrian forces on Sept. 17 turned up evidence that CENTCOM had deliberately targeted the Syrian military sites with the intention of sabotaging the ceasefire agreement.
The campaign to bring down Flynn began with a leak from a "senior U.S. government official" to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius about the now-famous phone conversation between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on Dec. 29. In his column on the leak, Ignatius avoided making any explicit claim about the conversation. Instead, he asked "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?"
And referring to the Logan Act, the 1799 law forbidding a private citizen from communicating with a foreign government to influence a "dispute" with the United States, Ignatius asked, "Was its spirit violated?"
The implications of the coy revelation of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak were far-reaching. Any interception of a communication by the NSA or the FBI has always been considered one of the most highly classified secrets in the U.S. intelligence universe of secrets. And officers have long been under orders to protect the name of any American involved in any such intercepted communication at all costs.
But the senior official who leaked the story of Flynn-Kislyak conversation to Ignatius obviously for a domestic political purpose did not feel bound by any such rule. That leak was the first move in a concerted campaign of using such leaks to suggest that Flynn had discussed the Obama administration's sanctions with Kislyak in an effort to undermine Obama administration policy.
The revelation brought a series of articles about denials by the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect Mike Pence, that Flynn had, in fact, discussed sanctions with Kislyak and continued suspicions that Trump's aides were covering up the truth. But the day after Trump was inaugurated, the Post itself reported that the FBI had begun in late December go back over all communications between Flynn and Russian officials and "had not found evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government…."
Two weeks later, however, the Post reversed its coverage of the issue, publishing a story citing "nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls," as saying that Flynn had "discussed sanctions" with Kislyak.
The story said Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was "interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election."
The Post did not refer to its own previous reporting of the FBI's unambiguous view contradicting that claim, which suggested strongly that the FBI was trying to head off a plan by Brennan and Clapper to target Flynn. But it did include a crucial caveat on the phrase "discussed sanctions" that few readers would have noticed. It revealed that the phrase was actually an "interpretation" of the language that Flynn had used. In other words, what Flynn actually said was not necessarily a literal reference to sanctions at all.
Only a few days later, the Post reported a new development: Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI on Jan. 24 four days after Trump's inauguration and had denied that he discussed sanctions in the conversation. But prosecutors were not planning to charge Flynn with lying, according to several officials, in part because they believed he would be able to "parse the definition of the word sanctions'." That implied that the exchange was actually focused not on sanctions per se but on the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
Just hours before his resignation on Feb. 13, Flynn claimed in an interview with the Daily Caller that he had indeed referred only to the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.
"It wasn't about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out," Flynn said. "It was basically, Look, I know this happened. We'll review everything.' I never said anything such as, We're going to review sanctions,' or anything like that."
The Russian Blackmail Ploy
Even as the story of the Flynn's alleged transgression in the conversation with the Russian Ambassador was becoming a political crisis for Donald Trump, yet another leaked story surfaced that appeared to reveal a shocking new level of the Trump administration's weakness toward Russia.
The Post reported on Feb. 13 that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, had decided in late January after discussions with Brennan, Clapper and FBI Director James Comey in the last days of the Obama administration to inform the White House Counsel Donald McGahn in late January that Flynn had lied to other Trump administration officials including Vice President Mike Pence in denying that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. The Post cited "current and former officials" as the sources.
That story, repeated and amplified by many other news media, led to Flynn's downfall later that same day. But like all of the other related leaks, the story revealed more about the aims of the leakers than about links between Trump's team and Russia.
The centerpiece of the new leak was that the former Obama administration officials named in the story had feared that "Flynn put himself in a compromising position" in regard to his account of the conversation with Kislyak to Trump members of the Trump transition.
Yates had told the White House that Flynn might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of the discrepancies between his conversation with the Ambassador and his story to Pence, according to the Post story.
But once again the impression created by the leak was very different from the reality behind it. The idea that Flynn had exposed himself to a potential Russian blackmail threat by failing to tell Pence exactly what had transpired in the conversation was fanciful in the extreme.
Even assuming that Flynn had flatly lied to Pence about what he had said in the meeting which was evidently not the case it would not have given the Russians something to hold over Flynn, first because it was already revealed publicly and second, because the Russian interest was to cooperate with the new administration.
The ex-Obama administration leakers were obviously citing that clumsy (and preposterous) argument as an excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of the new administration. The Post's sources also claimed that "Pence had a right to know that he had been misled…." True or not, it was, of course, none of their business.
Pity for Pence
The professed concern of the Intelligence Community and Justice Department officials that Pence deserved the full story from Flynn was obviously based on political considerations, not some legal principle. Pence was a known supporter of the New Cold War with Russia, so the tender concern for Pence not being treated nicely coincided with a strategy of dividing the new administration along the lines of policy toward Russia.
All indications are that Trump and other insiders knew from the beginning exactly what Flynn had actually said in the conversation, but that Flynn had given Pence a flat denial about discussing sanctions without further details.
On Feb. 13, when Trump was still trying to save Flynn, the National Security Adviser apologized to Pence for "inadvertently" having failed to give him a complete account, including his reference to the expulsion of the Russian diplomats. But that was not enough to save Flynn's job.
The divide-and-conquer strategy, which led to Flynn's ouster, was made effective because the leakers had already created a political atmosphere of great suspicion about Flynn and the Trump White House as having had illicit dealings with the Russians. The normally pugnacious Trump chose not to respond to the campaign of leaks with a detailed, concerted defense. Instead, he sacrificed Flynn before the end of the very day the Flynn "blackmail" story was published.
But Trump's appears to have underestimated the ambitions of the leakers. The campaign against Flynn had been calculated in part to weaken the Trump administration and ensure that the new administration would not dare to reverse the hardline policy of constant pressure on Putin's Russia.
Many in Washington's political elite celebrated the fall of Flynn as a turning point in the struggle to maintain the existing policy orientation toward Russia. The day after Flynn was fired the Post's national political correspondent, James Hohmann, wrote that the Flynn "imbroglio" would now make it "politically untenable for Trump to scale back sanctions to Moscow" because the "political blowback from hawkish Republicans in Congress would be too intense…."
But the ultimate target of the campaign was Trump himself. As neoconservative journalist Eli Lake put it, "Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree."
Susan Hennessey, a well-connected former lawyer in the National Security Agency's Office of General Counsel who writes the "Lawfare" blog at the Brookings Institution, agreed. "Trump may think Flynn is the sacrificial lamb," she told The Guardian, "but the reality is that he is the first domino. To the extent the administration believes Flynn's resignation will make the Russia story go away, they are mistaken."
The Phony "Constant Contacts" Story
No sooner had Flynn's firing been announced than the next phase of the campaign of leaks over Trump and Russia began. On Feb. 14, CNN and the New York Times published slight variants of the same apparently scandalous story of numerous contacts between multiple members of the Trump camp with the Russian at the very time the Russians were allegedly acting to influence the election.
There was little subtlety in how mainstream media outlets made their point. CNN's headline was, "Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign." The Times headline was even more sensational: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence."
But the attentive reader would soon discover that the stories did not reflect those headlines. In the very first paragraph of the CNN story, those "senior Russian officials" became "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," meaning that it included a wide range Russians who are not officials at all but known or suspected intelligence operatives in business and other sectors of society monitored by U.S. intelligence. A Trump associate dealing with such individuals would have no idea, of course, that they are working for Russian intelligence.
The Times story, on the other hand, referred to the Russians with whom Trump aides were said to be in contact last year as "senior Russian intelligence officials," apparently glossing over a crucial distinction that sources had had made to CNN between intelligence officials and Russians being monitored by U.S. intelligence.
But the Times story acknowledged that the Russian contacts also included government officials who were not intelligence officials and that the contacts had been made not only by Trump campaign officials but also associates of Trump who had done business in Russia. It further acknowledged it was "not unusual" for American business to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly in Russia and Ukraine, where "spy services are deeply embedded in society."
Even more important, however, the Times story made it clear that the intelligence community was seeking evidence that Trump's aides or associates were colluding with the Russians on the alleged Russian effort to influence the election, but that it had found no evidence of any such collusion. CNN failed to report that crucial element of the story.
The headlines and lead paragraphs of both stories, therefore, should have conveyed the real story: that the intelligence community had sought evidence of collusion by Trump aides with Russia but had not found it several months after reviewing the intercepted conversations and other intelligence.
Unwitting Allies of the War Complex?
Former CIA Director Brennan and other former Obama administration intelligence officials have used their power to lead a large part of the public to believe that Trump had conducted suspicious contacts with Russian officials without having the slightest evidence to support the contention that such contacts represent a serious threat to the integrity of the U.S. political process.
Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power. But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.
Those war bureaucracies view the conflict with Russia as key to the continuation of higher levels of military spending and the more aggressive NATO policy in Europe that has already generated a gusher of arms sales that benefits the Pentagon and its self-dealing officials.
Progressives in the anti-Trump movement are in danger of becoming an unwitting ally of those military and intelligence bureaucracies despite the fundamental conflict between their economic and political interests and the desires of people who care about peace, social justice and the environment.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power. But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.
The precedent for a U.S intelligence/law-enforcement agency intervention in US politics occurred during the 2016 campaign with James Comey's malicious handling of the Clinton e-mail flap.
Authoritarian regimes don't let their opponents vote -- Republican operatives have disenfranchised millions of minority voters.
Unless Porter wants to recognize "deep state" voter suppression I can't see his crocodile tears over poor Strongman Trump -- or, for that matter, President Steve Bannon.
Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power. But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.
The precedent for a U.S intelligence/law-enforcement agency intervention in US politics occurred during the 2016 campaign with James Comey's malicious handling of the Clinton e-mail flap.
Really? Are you asserting that JFK, Nixon, MLK, 9/11 (and numerous others besides) etc did not have elements of US intelligence/Law Enforcement intervention?
Quote:Authoritarian regimes don't let their opponents vote -- Republican operatives have disenfranchised millions of minority voters.
Well, that statement is untrue also.
Singapore is listed as an authoritarian regime (HERE) which has both parliamentary and presidential elections. Likewise Azerbaijan which votes for a legislature and a head of state. I imagine there are others too that likewise defy this contortion of fact.
Interestingly, almost all of those nations listed as authoritarian regimes today (see above) were regarded by the Obama administration (and the Clinton administration before that) as allies and friends, for example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Brunei etc - featured by state visits and military agreements.
Quote:Unless Porter wants to recognize "deep state" voter suppression I can't see his crocodile tears over poor Strongman Trump -- or, for that matter, President Steve Bannon.
I bet it didn't even it occur to you in your lush, self-satisfying and perspective-less partisan myopia that Porter is simply doing what he's been doing for over forty years - which is to send the public an important message pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards that is rife in the American body politic? He has been writing about these things dating back to the Vietnam war and is a recognized for exposing state propaganda (HERE).
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
In the meantime, Trump has been busy doing speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides which span from mediocre, to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".
Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.
The Neocons and the US deep state' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.
I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.
There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me does Congress really have the means to impose it's will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?
Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory" controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.
This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, were the USA will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beat Trump he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors…
I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.
Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
No, not the one between the US and Russia. That's old news.
We're talking about the NEW cold war: the one for the soul of the West.
On one corner we have the globalists, basically political and financial elites who after the disasters of World War II decided that eliminating borders was the way to ensure a peaceful future. Increasingly diverse (multicultural) societies would now be governed by supranational institutions, the only way to confront problems that are global in nature: environmentalism, terrorism, epidemics, consumerism and so forth. And much of this has become mainstream, with the powerful backing of the liberal media, the entertainment industry, much of academia and influential think tanks.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8983[/ATTACH]
While people from all political persuasions support this ideology, it appears to be more closely associated with the political left, sometimes from the hard left even, as shown by the picture above taken in a very progressive US neighborhood.
On the other corner we have the nationalists (also known as patriots, populists, and deplorables). They took a good look at the downsides of that brave new (open) world and said to heck with its ongoing destruction of national identities, borders, traditional cultures and religion, and constant foreign military interventions especially when they are incapable of protecting their own borders from mass immigration.
There is no question that 2016 was a pivotal year in this struggle, which is now playing out in the open.
First the British voted to pull out of the European Union, against all odds. Then the Americans elected a brash Republican outsider for President, also against ‎all odds.
After ceding cultural and political terrain for decades, the nationalists seem to be making a comeback. And now the cracks within Western countries are visible for anyone to see.
Take the United States, the leader of the Free World. Here is a recent survey of the approval ratings of that outsider, President Donald Trump:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8982[/ATTACH]
Source: The Washington Post, ZeroHedge
Notice the huge disparity between Republicans and Democrats. It could not be any more striking than this and just a few weeks after Trump's inauguration.
This reflects of what is going on across much of the US, down to family and friends. It is clearly not confined to just "millennial snowflakes", although these tend to be the loudest. Try walking in that very progressive US neighborhood wearing a 'Make America Great Again' cap and see how that cold war can turn ‎hot very quickly.
The two sides no longer seem to agree on what a country is: if it should have borders, who has the rights and obligations in their societies and what it should stand for. Those are pretty basic and fundamental differences that look more and more irreconcilable by the day. Heck, there isn't even an agreement on who is a woman and who is a man.
So what can be done about this?
Well, since everyone seems so keen in implementing a two-state ‎solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, why not do the same across the West?
With one key difference: these two "states" would remain formally linked through a very limited federal/national government. Mainland Chinese public officials even have a name for it: one country, two systems.
If people in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon and California want to become openly multicultural and consistently vote accordingly, why stop them? Let them welcome anybody they want and implement whatever education system, gender identifications and values they desire. Good for them. Provided of course that all this should be funded strictly by their own state and local taxes, which is only fair (no doubt very rich globalists like George Soros, Bill Gates and Richard Branson will gladly pitch in).
On the other hand, if Texas and all others in flyover country believe they are entitled to bear arms, speak however they like in one language only, promote their values and culture and fully decide on who can live in their communities, what's wrong with that? If you long to hear church bells on Sunday morning, sing the national anthem and use gender-segregated bathrooms you can always visit or move to those communities.
Source: Prof. Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan
And that arrangement can be fined tuned further by going down to the county level, such that the views of local communities would be more accurately represented. In that case the map shown above provides an indication of how a two-state US could look like, with red being a proxy for the nationalist counties (i.e. majority Republican voters in the 2016 Presidential election).
Similarly, the same concept could be implemented across the European Union. If Germans, Swedes, French and the Dutch want their countries or municipalities to go full multicultural, good for them. What they shouldn't do is impose their vision of the world through the supranational mechanisms of the European Union on the Poles, Hungarians, Finns and many others who do vigorously want to retain their culture and identities.
And that's what we have in every election cycle, with one party seeking to push its values onto the rest of society, which is increasingly divided and at odds with each other. So the pushback from either side is predictable. New "populist" movements across Europe already threaten the very existence of that federal government (except that in Europe's case it is anything but limited), and they will not go away any time soon.
This two-state system might be a seemingly fair way to achieve the best of both worlds, allowing both ideologies to coexist within a common governmental framework. A large scale version of Belgium if you like. But the reality is not so simple (just look at Belgium!)
First, Western nations for the most have accumulated debts at the supra-regional level so large that apportioning them ‎between the two "states" is likely to be extremely contentious. With their sustainability already dubious in many cases, and without even considering all the crushing healthcare and retirement contingent liabilities, any division would be really problematic. As such the federal/national government would likely continue to be much larger than what would be desirable to disentangle differing political views.
Second, transitioning into a multicultural society can be very problematic, as evidenced by the debate on Sweden's immigration policies that has now gone viral, at least until a consensual set of rules and behaviors can be forged. The inherent security risks could force some parts of the other "states" to curtail the free flow of people. This is already happening in many parts of Europe as a result of the recent refugee crisis.
Third, Western alliances would likely have to be redrawn along this split in Western aspirations. Donald Trump has more in common with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán than Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who will likely never welcome him in his city despite the special relationship between his country and the US.
Indeed, Trump proposes core nationalistic values not too dissimilar from his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin (a key reason why the globalist media and intelligence are so keen to demonstrate a formal connection between the two). On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel a hardcore globalist could not be farther apart from either one.
Fourth, how can each "state" coordinate on international commercial policies with the other one, as many companies have extensive operations across the two? This cold war is now spreading to the corporate sector, with some employees feeling alienated and consumers on each side threatening boycotts and sanctions. It has come to that.
And finally, a divided West is a weak West. China is not worried about any of these existential social issues. Neither is Russia, Turkey or Iran‎. There aren't any mainstream cultural hesitations in any of these countries (although each has its own fairly large share of dissidents, with good reason). As such, this split is a sure way to accelerate the erosion of the West's standing in global affairs, although the current state of affairs is not exactly helpful in that regard either.
Let's have no illusions: this is a deep division and it's unlikely that we will ever return to a level of unity and understanding in Western societies like we had in the recent past. We're at a major crossroads in History.
Will we be able to live together even if our backs are turned against each other, or will one side try to impose its will on the other with backlashes turning more violent each time? This will not be solved with simple calls for unity since the two sides are so far apart at this point.
More importantly, which "state" will YOU choose?
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
