The common wisdom before the Trump announcement last night was that Trump had two choices:
More war—a losing proposition—or
Withdrawal from the Persian Gulf region—another losing proposition, from the standpoint of Anglo-Zionist global hegemony.
My cautiously presented suggestion was that Trump would end up choosing some form of the second alternative. The reason was simple. As many economic analysts had vigorously argued, to choose war would mean a global depression, which would include the US economy. The political calculation, from that standpoint, was a no-brainer. Economic depression in the US would spell the end of Trump’s presidency—probably before November, as I have maintained. A TACO would give Trump the chance to sell this as a victory for peace. Given that the American public is largely unmindful of events outside their narrow parochial interests—the price of gas, etc.—the choice would seem clear to Trump’s calculations.
So here we are. Some, like Larry Johnson this morning, argue caution. That’s a sound approach. If Trump is anything, he’s untrustworthy and a liar. He’s attempting to pass the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) off as a return to the old normal—Hormuz will be “open”. That, in and of itself, is an admission of defeat, as is the agreement to withdraw the USN from the Arabian Sea. Iran is stating that Hormuz is now under its control, with the participation of Oman in management of the strait. One way or another, Iran will be receiving reparations—whether by “tolls”, permits for passage, or some other roundabout financial device. Yes, Trump could break the agreement, but the major point I keep returning to is that he and his backers are over a barrel and face financial disaster.
What about the Iranians? Robert Pape, who has vehemently argued that Trump would end up attempting a suicidal invasion of Iran by the mechanistic operation of Pape’s Escalation Trap, now openly states that Trump has chosen surrender. To me that’s the wrong conceptual framework—it’s more like an orderly withdrawal under fire. That’s a sensible response to an ultimately untenable military and—most importantly—economic position. People like Pape lose sight of the truism that all modern wars are bankers wars, and the bankers are the ones who undoubtedly told Trump he had no other alternative than to pull the plug and make the best sales pitch possible to the American public—and he is a persuasive salesman.
But, again, about those Iranians:
Robert A. Pape @ProfessorPape
Here’s the most detailed response so far by Iran
Hormuz and all nuclear material remain under Iranian control
If so, Trump has chosen complete surrender
And to allow Iran to emerge as the 4th center of world power — for now
To give Pape credit—since I’ve been criticizing him to a degree—he has also been maintaining for some time now that, one way or another, Iran was highly likely to emerge from all this as a fourth center of world power.
Now, with regard to my claim about Trump’s banker backers—the Anglo-Zionist imperial managers, if you will—a sure sign of their hand behind the scenes, as it seems to me, was one I noted last night: Lindsey!’s quiet acceptance of Trump’s TACO. No histrionics, just the admonition to “get this right.” He knows he’s on the losing side in this imperial squabble for a way out.
Robert Kagan, too, saw this coming—in The Atlantic, on May 21—as pointed out to me last night by commenter IJM. In that piece, forseeing the shape of Trump’s TACO and the coming defeat of the cause of Jewish Supremacy, Kagan makes many of the same points I made last night (Breaking Hot: Some Sort Of Peace Deal, Or Something)—and he does so with a note of resignation. No clarion calls to true believers to rally and change Trump’s mind.
For these reasons, I’m cautiously optimistic. To close, I’ll briefly cite a few brief passages from Kagan’s article, rather than requote myself. Recall that I termed Trump’s decision, his choice, a “a rather clever TACO because, while allowing Trump to back down and out, it also allows for an indefinite extension in time of talking.” “Surrender” is the wrong term, because an admission of defeat accompanied by a strategic withdrawal is simply not a “surrender”. That’s a reality that Kagan acknowledges in the article. Words matter. But this is definitely a game changer—Kagan is repeating Pape in this regard:
He seems to hope to slip away without Americans noticing the magnitude of this defeat.
The purpose and effect of such an agreement should be clear: The United States is walking away from the crisis.
Trump has blinked many times in the confrontation with Iran—
Trump’s repeated threats to resume attacks since then have proved to be bluffs. The leaders in Tehran have been calculating for two months that Trump would not launch another attack, and for this reason they have made no concessions
[It] is a tacit admission of defeat. ... No one believes that he is going to resume a full-scale war a month from now.
In 30 days, moreover, the new Iranian strait regime may already be firmly in place. … Iran has been using the cease-fire period to “normalize” its control over the strait …
Now that Trump has made clear he has no intention of fighting to reopen the strait, the stampede to get good terms with Tehran will begin. … Those nations currently allied with the United States and friendly to Israel will feel pressure to distance themselves and make their peace with Iran. … By the end of 30 days, most of the world will have a stake in the new arrangement …
The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
