Iran: America’s Next War of Choice

Peace is not at hand in the Middle East, and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu remains determined to expand the war. Syria’s de facto partition into Israeli and Turkish territories is the prelude to wider war with Iran. As the Times of Israel reported last week, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has “continued to increase its readiness and preparations” for “potential strikes in Iran.”

Netanyahu’s top priority is the destruction of Iran before Russia wraps up its victory in Ukraine and Syria becomes a new battleground for Turks and Israelis. It’s not simply the end of Washington’s “rules-based international order.” It’s the onset of chaos. Israeli forces and Turkish auxiliaries (i.e. the Islamist terrorists who sacked Syria) are already staring at each other across a demarcation line that runs east–west just south of Damascus. Netanyahu harbors no illusions about the conflict between Ankara’s long-term strategic aims in the region and Jerusalem’s determination to claim the Syrian spoils of war.

In addition to serious financial trouble and societal discontent on the home front, President-elect Donald Trump now confronts the dangerous distraction of wars he did not start, wars that will bring his administration and his country no strategic benefit. America’s underwriting of Netanyahu’s expanding war in the Middle East will endanger U.S. national security and guarantee that Washington, its armed forces, and the U.S. economy will be hostage to whatever strategic direction Netanyahu decides to take.

Starting the war sooner, rather than later, is critical for Netanyahu. War with Iran presents Trump with a strategic fait accompli. In case Trump decides to distance the United States from another bloodbath in the Middle East, Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran and Turkey’s potential confrontation with Israel will make disengagement impossible.

American policy planners need to understand the larger context in which this is all unfolding—and why a war on Iran will ultimately bring us and our alleged Israeli friends to grief. The principal aim of U.S. foreign policy planners ought to be the adaptation of the American economy and military establishment to the multipolar world and the development of new markets, not new enemies. Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the fundamental shifts in power and wealth lie at the heart of much of the Biden administration’s foreign policy failure.

A successful management of change would avoid a conflict with Iran; it would peacefully reconcile competing claims to regional hegemony, as the Chinese recently did with their brokering of the historic rapprochement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would revitalize such multilateral organizations as the UN Security Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. These actions would cultivate the emergence of new constellations of power along the lines of Metternich and Castlereagh’s 1815 Concert of Europe. Just as no question of strategic security in Europe can be solved without Russian participation, Washington cannot create stability in the Middle East by unconditionally backing Israel’s territorial ambitions.

An American failure to manage its own transition to multipolarity will create more chaos and ignite a major war in the Middle East, not to mention a full blown war with Russia, and, eventually, China. An outlook that prioritizes avoiding conflict, not starting new conflicts, must replace nearly three decades of feckless leadership in foreign affairs. New thinking in defense and foreign policy should rank diplomacy and peaceful cooperation first over the use of military power.

Bonaparte quipped that in war, truth is the first casualty. Nothing has changed since then. Washington is a veritable fountainhead of lies feeding an unending stream of false narratives regarding the true character of the jihadist hordes raging across Syria. For our purposes, however, it is important to note the alignment of powers behind the Islamist factions now pillaging and terrorizing Syria.

Washington seems blithely oblivious to Syria’s destruction and the emergence of joint Israeli-Turkish hegemony across the Near East. The disintegration of Syria does, however, open up a short window of opportunity for Tel Aviv to attack Iran. As the Times of Israel report noted, while previously the “IAF would not fly directly over Damascus when carrying out strikes on Iran-linked targets in the capital, it now can.”

Netanyahu believes he has the wind at his back: Emboldened by the collapse of the Assad regime, he will turn his attention to Lebanon, southern Syria, and the West Bank. One predictable consequence of an attack on Iran will be a solidifying of the Chinese-brokered Iran-Saudi rapprochement—and a hardening of the blocs in the Greater Middle East, which will see Iran, backed by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, set against a temporary Israel-Turkish bloc backed by Washington and its European vassals.

Iran is not Iraq: At 90 million people, it is double Iraq’s population, has a more developed economy, and has more powerful allies than Saddam Hussein ever did. Contrary to neoconservative expectations, there are no cake-walks in the greater Middle East.

The only certainty amid the chaos is that, thanks to the connivance of Biden, Netanyahu, and Erdogan, a wider war in the greater Middle East is only just beginning. It is one we will come to regret.

Jeffrey Sachs Outlines Current Geopolitical Events – President Trump is Already Working on Optimal Solutions

December 17, 2024 | Sundance

Interesting discussion between Tucker Carlson and Jeffrey Sachs on the current state of geopolitical fluctuations and seemingly chaotic changes.

Mr. Sachs points to Israel and AIPAC as the originating control mechanism for U.S. foreign policy.

Here I must insert my prior metaphor for the U.S State Dept and the CIA [The DC Restuarant]. According to Sachs much of the activity from within the State Dept is in alignment with the objectives of those who dine in the kitchen.

I do not necessarily disagree…. However, once you understand this dynamic; I mean really understand the complexity of the dynamic and how it represents a challenge to anyone who would seek to change policy direction; then you can find context for how President Donald Trump is organizing his foreign policy mission.

Jeffrey Sachs: The Inevitable War With Iran, and Biden’s Attempts to Sabotage Trump

President Trump is circumventing the control mechanisms of the U.S. State Department –SEE HERE– And with that context, things take on an entire new perspective about the issues Sachs is describing.

While he accurately defines the problem, I’m not sure Sachs is seeing what President Trump is doing to cut the gordian knot {I’ll reexplain below}.

Chapters:

0:00 The Regime Change in Syria
8:48 What Is Greater Israel?
21:45 Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad?
34:26 War With China by 2027
40:22 Biden’s Attempt to Sabotage Trump
46:10 The Attempted Coup of South Korea
51:20 Jeffrey Sachs’ Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War
55:18 Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents?
1:07:11 Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange?
1:16:43 The Most Important Appointment of Trump’s Cabinet
1:26:29 Biden’s Attempt to Kill Putin
1:35:58 Can Trump Bring Peace?
1:45:44 Is War With Iran Inevitable?
1:51:21 Why Corporate Media Hates Jeffrey Sachs

Only a small number of Americans understand the relationship between the U.S. State Dept (DoS) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). However, as more people understand how these two agencies operate, then people have a much more accurate context for how both agencies are viewed by the rest of the world.

Almost every deployed CIA operative has a cover profile within the State Dept. The foreign service missions of the DoS and CIA are so enmeshed there is literally no way to separate the functions of their agencies. [Go back to the Benghazi Attack for an operational reference] CIA/DoS have to be viewed through the prism of connection.

To better understand this concept, I use the following metaphor:

♦ The U.S State Dept and CIA operation is like a restaurant. The Dept of State is the front of the restaurant, with the Secretary as the Maitre D’. The CIA is the back of the restaurant, the kitchen. The Director is the Chef. The consulates are the wait staff. USAID are the food runners. The Dept of Defense are the bus boys.
The tables and chairs are assigned by the Maitre D’ according to their value. Countries viewed as more important get the best tables. The menus offered to each nation are completely different. Israel has a table in the kitchen. To get the best experience, tips (bribes) are required for everyone, from the parking valets outside, to the sommelier, to the server. Currently, Ukraine is the biggest tipper.

On the oversight aspect the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is the control mechanism to approve/install the Secretary of State. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the control mechanism to approve/install the CIA Director. Everything therein and thereafter is a system of pretending it is something else.

The Dept of State (DoS) is so large there’s no way of addressing the inherent institutional corruption. The Secretary of State can control a small portion of DoS operations, but that’s usually only the geopolitical stuff we see discussed on television, in print media or in press conferences. The business functions of the DoS take place within a network of carefully guarded silos.

Perhaps, the first step in advancing an American-First policy, is to just stop the various administrative offices within the Dept of State from doing anything, literally anything. The challenge within DoS is massive, complex and complicated. I’m genuinely not sure what the Executive Branch mechanism is to do it, but we need to close the restaurant for a few months and do a deep cleaning.

On the back of the operation is the kitchen, the CIA.

It is a popular DC sentiment to say the CIA Director is the most powerful person within the intelligence apparatus. As the viewpoint is shared, it is the established secrecy within the mandate of the institution that gives them power.

Essentially, the CIA was created to be a place where dark arts (lying, spying, manipulation, tradecraft) would be approved and used at the discretion of the institutional leadership. As a consequence, there is no check on the CIA operational agenda. They are permitted by function and mandate, to lie to everyone about what they are doing; this includes the Office of the President.

Because they are essentially an unchecked intelligence silo within a government that has allowed the institution to hold unilateral power and self-policing, the CIA has a power within the apparatus unlike any other member. Inside the business model of foreign policy as a restaurant, the CIA are in control of the kitchen.

Together the DoS/CIA operate a shadow government, looking out for their best interest while generating power through large multinational institutions (corporations), spy agencies (5-eyes), banks, non-governmental agencies (NGAs) and various influence operations.

♦ The activity of the CIA/DoS construct takes place regardless of who is president. Any hope of busting up this corrupt system is going to take a lot of strategic pounding while confronting the supportive element within the Senate at the same time. [Note this is why repealing the 17th amendment would make the work infinitely easier – and also why the 17th amendment was created by banking interests.]

When you stand back and look at the challenge of confronting the DoS and CIA, you can easily see why the Emissary was the first most important person I noted. If you are going to confront the domestic corruption within the DoS, you need the Emissary as a contact for specific foreign government leaders.

Under my sketch, the foreign policy of the USA shifts away from Foggy Bottom [Rubio] and directly back to the White House [Trump]. This provides space to destroy the system through domestic confrontation.

Marco Rubio as Secretary of State would normally to have to push intensely and forcefully to support the goals of President Trump while simultaneously trying to shift control away from the kitchen diners. Literally impossible in one four-year term; so, what is the optimal solution?

Enter President Trump, building the parallel system. A new foreign policy construct that does not need support from the State Dept., Trump works around the issue.

With Lt General Keith Kellogg special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, and with the appointment of Steven C. Witkoff to be Special Envoy to the Middle East, President Trump has essentially created a construct that works around the insufferable issues with a globalist State Department.

Rubio doesn’t have Ukraine/Russia in his portfolio, nor does he have diplomatic or policy control over the Middle East. President Trump has neutered the State Department, and the cherry on the proverbial cake is Ric Grenell.

The CIA is replaced with a Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board. The Dept of State is replaced as above. Both operate as parallel systems.

We should all give him major credit. President Trump is actually doing it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.