American Diplomacy Stalemated

Listening to Alexander Mercouris and Doug Macgregor today—separately—was depressing if, like me, you’d like to see a revival of American diplomacy and leadership in the world. The takeaway was all too simple. Washington DC, the imperial city on the Potomac, is—if you’re an American patriot—enemy occupied territory. Neocon occupied territory. Mercouris and Macgregor each put it in their own way, one addressing the status of the American war on Russia and the other addressing the collapse of America’s standing in the Middle East, just as we’re on the brink of a possible regional war—with terribly dangerous implications for the the world but also for the US.

Let’s start with Macgregor, who engaged in a thought provoking discussion with Daniel Davis that focused on the country that, for far too many Americans, is the forgotten factor in the Middle East: Turkey. The entire video is highly recommended. Unlike so many Youtube videos there’s not a lot of dead time: Col Doug Macgregor: US Diplomatic Corps Must Restrain Israel & Turkey to Prevent Wider War.

Macgregor begins by recounting recent snubs of the hapless Tony Blinken, in his wanderings around the Middle East. The most recent, and in Macgregor’s view the most telling, occurred in Ankara. There, Blinken received no high level reception at the airport, met with the Turkish foreign minister but not with President Erdogan, and there was no joint press appearance. By contrast, when the Iranian foreign minister came to Ankara only days before, he met personally with Erdogan and was afforded VIP treatment. It’s no secret that Turkey and Iran have multiple conflicting ambitions in the region (notably Syria and the Caucaus), but the clear message here is that when it comes to Palestine—and Gaza in particular—channels of communication and possibly of cooperation are open. Not so much with the Zhou regime back on the Potomac.

Macgregor then reviews Turkish military power and offers a provocative assessment. Turkey is the one country in the region that could destroy Israel. Iran, he maintained, could damage Israel, but Turkey could destroy Israel. YMMV, of course, but that was a repetition of his previously expressed and considered view as a self professed friend of Israel. Macgregor sees the US mishandling of relations with Turkey as threatening even Turkey’s continued membership in NATO (a highly complex topic). Turkish withdrawal from NATO could effectively end NATO as a significant force on the global scene—something that is already happening in Ukraine, but perhaps more quickly. All these problems and dangers arise, according to Macgregor—again, a self professed friend of Israel—from the inability of the American government to stand up for its own interests in the face of the Israel Lobby. Here I turn to a transcript:

[16:00]

Macgregor: Biden and his administration is obedient in service to Israel, and this obedience and their unconditional support for whatever the Israelis want has led to something very dangerous. Effectively, what Biden has done--and I think, really, Biden is sort of an afterthought--I think it's Blinken and Sullivan and their powerful forces behind them that have essentially opened the cage door and let the tiger out. The tiger is called Netanyahu, and the tiger has determined that it must devour everyone and anyone in the neighborhood that it dislikes or considers a threat. We don't know what to do about that, and the reason we don't know what to do about it is that everyone in this government--and Washington in general--lives in fear of the Israel Lobby. In fear of what could be done to them here politically if they stand up and say, 'Enough's enough! There are limits to our support, there are limits to our tolerance!' You know, if Richard Nixon were the president, if Eisenhower were the president, I think even someone like LBJ, probably Carter ultimately, [any of them] would have stood up and said, 'Either you stop what you are doing right now or we will withdraw our forces.' I.e., we'll simply withdraw the naval power in the region. That would ultimately get Mr Netanyahu's attention. But Israeli influence, and Mr Netanyahu's personal power and authority at this point, is so great that everyone is afraid to contradict him. So it really doesn't matter what Mr Blinken says in public. The truth is, Mr Netanyahu is in control. He's not only in control of his destiny, he controls the destiny of American national power, prestige, and influence in the region.

In related news, Netanyahu, during the last 24 hours, summarily dismissed Zhou’s tentative suggestion of a “three day fighting pause” (NB: not a “ceasefire”) while the US negotiated the release of some hostages with American citizenship. Nice try, Zhou.

Davis: Is there is there anyone that is willing to stand up and just say, 'Hey, it's not anti-israel to talk about taking care of American National Security interest, American economic interest,' or all the things you just mentioned? Do you see anybody--I don't care what party--that's willing to stand up and say, 'Hey, look, we like Israel but we love America, and here's what we need to do toward that end to help both [Israel and America].'

Macgregor: I think John Mearsheimer has tried to do just that and, of course, in many of the more extreme circles inside the Israel Lobby he's regarded as a self-loathing Jew. Frankly, you're going to be tarnished almost immediately as not just anti-israel per se but as an anti-semite. Look, this is a tough position, but I've taken this position from the very beginning: that we would have to intervene to save Israel from itself. My assumption from the very beginning was that this could actually escalate to a regional conflict. I think the Israeli attitude has been, as long as we [America] are there and our [America's] power can be leveraged on their [Israel's] behalf, they [Israel] can simply go on with this war of annihilation against Gaza and Hamas until they're finished. And no one will interfere because we [America] are there, at least in the background, ready to support them [Israel]. That puts us in the uncomfortable position of supporting something we say we oppose.

[19:25]

The very real danger Macgregor sees is that other regional players—like Hezbollah, which is currently mostly observing developments—could take a more active role, leading to regional war for which the US is simply unprepared. Davis plays a tape of some guy named Austin totally fumbling a question from Manchin regarding US ability to defend our national interests in the context of our exhaustion of our weapons and munitions in Ukraine. The answer, reading between the fumbling platitudes, was a pretty clear, No. Yellen’s glib claim that the US can fight two wars simultaneously is obvious gaslighting. But that doesn’t translate into any leverage over Netanhayu. Macgregor also highlights statements by Turkey’s Erdogan which appear to be clear statements that at some point Turkey will become involved militarily. Coincidentally, today Andrei Martyanov was commenting on how delighted the Turks are with their spanking new Russian made S-400 air defense system.

In related military developments, especially in light of a possible regional war, the Pentagon is confirming earlier reports that Yemen’s Houthis have shot down an American MQ-9 Reaper drone.

The two Alexanders at The Duran had an excellent discussion today on a topic I’ve been harping on, and which plays into the continuing debacle of US diplomacy—this time, on how to find a way out of our war on Russia while somehow avoiding utter humiliation:

West will choke on Putin's terms for Ukraine

I’ve been maintaining that Russia will probably present demands that will amount to Ukraine’s unconditional surrender—before even agreeing to actual negotiations. The Duran guys begin by discussing the spate of articles—often sourced to high level Zhou regime officials—that demonstrate the increasing urgency with which the Neocons are attempting to find some exit from Ukraine. They focus on the NBC article, which openly admits that US officials are concerned that Ukraine is simply running out of soldiers and that if Ukraine can’t find some way to enter negotiations with Russia the Ukrainian military could collapse in 2-3 months.

Of course, what that means is that Western claims of a “stalemate” is no more than a talking point. There is no stalemate, and nobody knows that better than the Russians. Mercouris quotes Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, in a response to a direct question that was clearly intended to send a message to the Neocons: Nope, no stalemate, and the goals of the Special Military Operation will all be achieved. In other words, thanks, but we know a stalemate when we see one. Nice try.

Notably, the Western chatter now no longer talks of a “frozen conflict”—remember when that was the talking point? Instead the talk now is openly of a negotiated peace, and the sooner the better. Thus the increasingly open moves that appear aimed at isolating and removing the recalcitrant Zelensky.

Mercouris notes that the Russians have obviously been thinking endgame strategy. Just two days ago Putin, in public remarks, sketched out what look very much like Russia’s preconditions for any negotiations:

Putin talked about Ukraine’s borders being artificial—creations of the Soviet era that lack a basis in real ethnic and geographic conditions; about how cities in the south and east of Ukraine actually being Russian cities (Odessa and Kharkov were probably very much on Putin’s mind); he indicated that NATO membership for Ukraine was simply a non-starter; finally, he once again maintained that Ukraine remains a 'fraternal country', and broadly hinted that the maximum legitimate extent of “core” Ukraine—the central area starting around Kiev and west—is a part of the “Russian world.” That would leave a rump area in Galicia, around Lwiw, as a kind Banderistan.

Of course, Russia’s preference is to negotiate only with the US, rather than dignifying what Putin now refers to as the Kiev regime—not even dignifying the idea of a separate Ukraine. The Neocons are desperate to avoid such a humiliating eventuality and, in Mercouris’ words, want Ukraine to “carry the water for them.” The difficulty for US diplomacy—such as it is—is that Russia probably has all sorts of ways to ramp up geopolitical pressure on the US. The Palestine situation and the US inability to exercise any control over Netanyahu is just one such way to exert pressure. The economic and energy situations are others. In the meantime, Russia is content to continue to a complete military victory.

To close.

I’ve been waiting for Steve Sailer to weigh in on the Palestine conflict—naturally, in his own way. He has, in Shifting Support. It’s pretty self explanatory, so I’ll simply add some excerpts that highlight the implications for our ever more fractious politics back in the US.

The past month has led to agonizing reappraisals among some mainstream Jewish-American liberals over the traditional Jewish-American shibboleth that diversity must be good for the Jews.

Not surprisingly to anybody who has been paying cold-blooded attention to the past half century, the older, unfashionably homogeneous American population has turned out to be wildly positive toward the Jewish state in its moment of crisis, while the younger, diverse upcoming generation finds itself roughly evenly split over whether the real bad guys are Hamas or Israel.

In the wake of the October 7th atrocities, the Harvard/Harris Poll asked, “In general in this conflict do you side more with Israel or Hamas?” Among American voters aged 65 years or older, 95 percent sided with Israel over Hamas. But 48 percent of the much less white 18- to 24-year-old cohort backed Hamas.

…

An obvious reason for declining support for Israel among American voters is because the U.S. isn’t as white Christian as it used to be. In 2019, the Pew Research Center reported that “for white Americans, the most common [modal] age was 58.” And, as we see in the polls, white Christians tend to love Jews and Israel. …

…

Some of us have been pointing out this mechanism by which increasing diversity makes American voters less enthusiastic toward Israel to our Jewish friends for many years. For example, in my 2015 column “Are Jews Losing Control of the Media?” I observed that the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement had made its greatest progress in the most demographically futuristic institutions: the University of California campuses, where whites had long been reduced to a minority as they eventually will be in the rest of the country. I summed up:

…

The irony, of course, is that Jewish organizations have long tended to heavily promote the diversification of the American population, the precise policy that now threatens American support for Israel in the long run.

Lots more discussion at the link. None of the dynamics Sailer discusses are new, but they have come to the fore as US global standing has declined—thanks to the Neocon forever wars, and arguably also thanks to the multi-culti/diversity craze. All it needed was a spark to start a conflagration. It won’t be suppressed—not by Congressional votes and not by the MSM.