Thinking about the first Iraq war 'Desert Storm' started by G Bush 1st, I think gets kind of overlooked these days. S Hussein was the Empire's man heading Iraq, installed after a CIA operation to remove his uncle. Iran, post Ayatollah Homeini, needed to be punished so the Iraq_Iran Eight year war was prosecuted with US support for Iraq and over a million deaths ensued. Iraq had been promised, by the USA, reconstruction assistance and compensation to be paid by the Gulf countries Iraq had 'protected'. Kuwait reneged on the US agreement, negotiations failed with a half hearted participation by the US, Iraq suggests that in the absence of any engagement it will be forced to take other measures and advances troops to the Kuwait border. Kuwait was also claimed to have been drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Neither James Baker nor April Gillespie / Glaspie, do anything about this nor say much of any substance. As silence implies consent, Hussein invades Kuwait, and suddenly Bush decides to protect the Kuwaities, not by seeking a ceasefire, but by planning a full scale invasion of its vassal state.
That's pretty much how I remember it, and it struck me at the time that the whole thing could have been avoided at a number of stages, but this did not happen.
I guess this was the beginning of the new ME policy post losing Iran, where the US wanted full control of Iraq, and launch endless wars.
As I recall my own impressions of the time, I believe I didn't wake up to the imperial project until the war on Serbia. By Desert Storm I understood the goal was pretty much total control over Central Asian energy. Iraq would be the permanent forward base for US regional control extending north into the former Soviet republics and the Caucasus, also surrounding Iran (ocean to the south, Afghan to the east, Iraq to the west). We're still clinging to something like that, but you're almost certainly right about earlier origins. There may have been less of a united policy during Bush1, but the ideas were there.
Does Donald Trump or "Trumpism aka MAGA" have a foreign policy Doctrine? I do not believe so, what I see is Donald Trump making decisions based on contingencies, his own views and agendas, along with those of his friends, family, associates, etc. I believe this is a common view of Trump's political style in the world of politics and is why the "establishment" aka the Uniparty (includes these people: https://archive.org/details/600pg-americas-60-families-ferdinand-lundberg-2007-the-vanguard-press/mode/1up ) were so intent on stopping him from gaining the presidency, and why they tried to impeach him. He did not want to play nice with the other kids in the globalist playground, he went around kicking kids in the shin, calling them names, and not following their playground rules--but the main issue was that he did not care about their feelings AKA their long-time agendas.
Who or what is the Uniparty and what is their long-time agenda? It goes back to the 1940s, but for Trump's problem with the globalist Uniparty it goes back to the 1990s after the end of the USSR. The riches of the new nations were salivated over by countless rapacious globalist elites. It was similar to how the Spaniards must have seen the New World when they realized the natives could provide them with vast amounts of gold, silver, and gems. Spain became the richest country in Europe after that. Their ships laden with gold, silver, etc. for many years to come was the main impetus for the rise of the famous New World Pirate culture from the 1500s-1800s. The elite Yale club Skull and Bones got their name and identity from Pirates because many of the richest American families at that time in New England made their riches from "legal Piracy" AKA the families of the founders of Skull and Bones were Privateers, e.g., they were given legal cover by their friends and family in government to engage in legal piracy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer ).
The new nations of the ex-USSR were besieged by their descendants (sometimes literally) in Piracy where globalist elites make it legal for their members to steal or take over the businesses or governments of other nations with this or that fake moral cause. They saw vast natural resources worth untold trillions in oil, natural gas, metals, diamonds, lumber, etc. ripe for the picking. They made partnerships with the famous "oligarchs" and many criminals not so well known. The new states were being looted by globalist pirates and then BAM! Putin and his associates from the old KGB put a stop to it.
The people and businesses who had been getting richer and richer as modern Privateers fleecing the people of the ex-USSR started to then pay lots of people in the political power structure of the "globalist establishment" who "legally" ruled over the evolving political order of the supposed American led empire. That graft has led to the current situation.
In reality it hasn't been an American Empire under the globalist power structure, America is like a pitbull on a leash, the people who hold the leash are put into power by mostly very rich families and people who are payed-up members of the long-time globalist ruling class--but they can come from any nationality IF they have been welcomed into the social and economic inner sanctum of the globalist elite class. Then they are not messed with legally. Similar to how in the "criminal underworld" a "Made Man" in La Cosa Nostra cannot be harmed unless you have official sanction. Since Trump was not only not a member of the ruling class, which is fine to them if you kowtow to their guidance, but he also did not respect their agendas, their rules, their class, and their caste privileges--Trump is seen or was seen as a barbarian at their gates, who along with the so-called "Far Right Populist Movement" in Europe is or was seen as threatening to tear it all down, e.g., end NATO, tariffs, let Russia off the hook, etc. Now they call him Daddy! Why the about face? Are they trying to play to his ego or do they believe he has changed and either joined their club or maybe he has thrown them some bones to get them to heal--Iran & Ukraine wars still being supported? You can tell by how their media speaks about Trump.
The globalist elite class has existed continuously since the early 19th century with the rise of the banking industry, it then expanded greatly later in the 19th century during the "second industrial revolution" AKA The Gilded Age ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Hundred_(Gilded_Age) ) and for some families their involvement as members of the "ruling class" goes back even further, e.g., the families of the people who started Skull and Bones--the old Boston Brahmin families ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin ). They ruled America since its inception with family members in and out of government, state and federal, but especially after the Civil War they concentrated their power over the federal government. They were mostly WASPs, but not all, there were some Catholics, but in general they were followers of the Enlightenment in their mentality--not religious except for a few, their religion was greed and almost to a man ( https://pamho.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-enemy-of-t%CC%B7h%CC%B7e%CC%B7-their-state-282c70c1fc5a ). After the cultural mindset radically changed in America in the 1960s they welcomed other types of people into their elite class, making them more like their cousins-in-arms in Europe, who had welcomed Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews--and others into their class many years earlier.
In 2013, Jeff Engel, who was director of the Bush library, discussed his book, Into the Desert, and the decision-making behind GHWB's decision to go to war to "liberate Kuwait" ( and save all those incubator babies).
"We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.
...
Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that **Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. ** It would be a world he said, Quote “Where the United Nations freed from Cold War stalemates is poised to fulfill its historic vision of its founders” End Quote
Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote. ..."
I consider that moment, that decision of GHWB's, to be "the imperial pivot."
It's possible I make too much of that reference to WWII, but that war is the starting point for American discourse about itself ever since. In my estimation, for GHWB, WWII was an enormously emotionally-charged point in his life: he was young, well-educated, a flier, in uniform, married to a beautiful & desirable woman who waited for him as he engaged in heroic acts. Powerful stuff.
In Diesen-Petra conversation, @20 min:
**Petra: ~20 min: “The Trump administration argues that we're not really that concerned about international law. We're not even sure t's worth the paper it's written on. What is however crucial is American power and we need to exercise that power in order to remind other nations of their obligations to uphold the order that American power has created.
“The content of this world order is really nothing beyond western dominance and a western a world order favorable to the United States first and foremost and to those allies that the United States consider loyal. There's nothing else. There’s no international law beyond that or international order hoped for beyond that.
“If I were to bet, yeah, I would say that that's where we are right now.
“It's the revelation of the harsher aspects, the harsher side of what was always American foreign policy at least clearly ***since World War II since the end of World War II.*** Uh but that has been disguised in liberal rhetoric.”**
On a larger front, WWII and USA's asserted 'victory' in that war ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity and world power.
We've been taught that all our lives: WWII was the "Good War," despite the fact that USA/Allies committed war crimes previously unimagined and still unaccounted for -- and unrepented for.
We -- my generation, certainly, and our children -- live well because of those actions that brought about the deaths and destruction of so many millions of people.
I understand that Mark's focus is on Trump's attempt to confront the economic crisis in USA; to return to a period of prosperity similar to that which emerged from WWII.
Maybe Trump does or maybe he doesn't understand that prosperity as having emerged from a terrible war about which the whole truth has not yet been told and is not permitted to be told.
Scott Horton and Tucker Carlson were careful not to let any inconvenient truths, or any history-heresy, leak into their conversation. That's one reason I think that conversation was worse than worthless, it is dangerous, because young(er) people listen to Tucker, and Scott, and Cooper, and trust them as "historical truth-tellers," but they are not.
"Mark's focus is on Trump's attempt to confront the economic crisis in USA; to return to a period of prosperity similar to that which emerged from WWII."
I thought I've been pretty explicit in saying that that is definitely NOT what Trump is after--although he may deliberately give that impression because he knows that type of nostalgia appeals to his base. I've consistently maintained that Trump's goal is to sustain the empire that first emerged, per Michael Hudson, when the US left the gold standard. I can agree that the first Gulf War was "the imperial moment", that validated the emerging empire.
Prosperity as we know it didn't emerge from WW2. I remember those days. Prosperity as we know emerged after leaving the gold standard, allowing us to run up debts that the rest of the world had to absorb.
Trump's war on Iran seems like his attempt to resurrect the kind of fervor that Americans experienced in waging-winning WWII in order to achieve the kind of financial gains US achieved thereby.
- generational change in warfare, obsoleting much of U.S. snd Israeli military
- reduction in trust of experts
- scotus decisions on executive power
- trade deficit
- anti Dei initiatives
Each item above has a significant impact on the remainder of the Trump Term, and where we’re going. My gut feeling is the bbb bill will also have a lot of impact.
Guess what, Ray? Both Diesen and Petro are specialists profs in geopolitics and their discussion was specifically about US geopolitics. Not about DNC fundraising or stable coin or most of the rest--not a review of Trump 2.0 generally. I made my view clear that going forward Trump's agenda will be determined by his ability to handle the debt crisis. I did, btw, briefly reference changes in modern warfare that have affected previous views of US (and derivatively Israeli) ability to wage war on their own terms--a topic which I've discussed repeatedly.
Mark - your substack has covered most these potential game changers, especially changes in modern warfare. Yemen making the U.S. Navy retreat was was an inflection point in the threat of U.S. military intervention. Macgregor as you wrote commented on this.
I’m commenting on Pedro’s essay. My view is US foreign policy is significantly impacted by US Domestic actions. We will see on stable coin, if it passes, and Tom Luongo is correct, it will have a major impact on the U.S. financial system.
Stable coin backed by what? I heard Bessent explicitly admit to Miranda Devine that the stable coin legislation is about selling treasuries (debt). It’s about creating more suckers to buy up more U.S. debt. Why? To continue the proliferate spending and continue the Ponzi for another generation or two. Creating an asset backed by debt instead of a stable value of gold. Crazy
I agree. It’s about getting others to buy more US debt, which gets the U.S. out of the current debt bomb quickly. And it weakens the financial transaction cartel, increases efficiency, and incentives micro transactions and tether is involved.
If it works, it will be very significant perTom Luongo.
I honestly don’t get crypto, and the entire space seems infested with a lot of scammers and Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin seems more open and not as dodgy and becoming more reputable. Stable coins I’m not sure about.
I’m not sure there are any other good alternatives. The U.S. Congress has no appetite for cutting spending, and what little was done or moved in the bbb bill is still astonishing.
“The irony in this is that few Americans view their country as an Empire—let alone as an oppressor of others.”
If you want to really turn your stomach and challenge some of your preconceived notions about the U.S. as a great country, indispensable for world peace, check out Scott Horton’s very long interview with Tucker Carlson. Horton lays out, in excruciating detail, the lawless and counterproductive behavior of our intelligence services and government since the installation of the Shah of Iran in the 50s. We citizens were but pawns in this deadly drama. There were basically no wars we entered with pure intentions, we had a role in getting all of them started, and we were a primary aggressor. We engaged in terrorism, mostly via proxy, and it often turned against us.
And our leaders blatantly lied us into the wars, lied about their causes, lied about our victory, just as Trump is doing now.
PS Prodded by G1Tim's comment about Iraq war 1, above, listening again to Tucker-Scott.
They DO present some useful information and connections.
Carter was not the good-guy he morphed into post-presidency (though he did try to reform CIA, which turned back to bite him).
regarding G1Tim: the first Persian Gulf war is the one that elicited Madeleine Albright's comment, The deaths of 500,000 children "was worth the price."
Patrick Clawson, a WINEP tool, wrote several white papers calibrating the calories provided to Iraqis in the period between the two wars in Iraq, when Iraq was under sanction and US, UK and France enforced No Fly zones over swathes of Iraq. Clawson argued that foods supplied to Iraq were "sufficient."
The Kuwait debacle did not have to result in a war.
Pierre Salinger had been press secretary to JFK and was a reporter on the foreign desk at ABC news in early '90s. He wrote Secret Dossier: the hidden agenda behind the Gulf war
Vernon Loeb completed the writing of King's Counsel, the record of Jack O'Connell's work with Jordan's King Hussein to negotiate with fellow Arab leaders to resolve the Kuwait debacle. George H W Bush would not agree to "let the Arabs resolve their own problems."
My intention for today was to study the Diesen-Petro discussion carefully. On first view, it seemed a new perspective from the "Mearsheimer-Wilkerson" standard.
But then I came across the Horton-Carlson discussion which I found less-than-impressive and not a good use of my time. imo Horton salts his narrative with just enough truthiness to grab an audience's attention, but not enough to solve problems.
In my opinion, this 2014 discussion by Seyed Hussein Mousavian, https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/iran-and-the-united-states/353599 , based on his book, Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, offered richer fare. Mousavian, born and educated in Iran, UK and USA, was in Iran's diplomatic corps and, at time of this interview, active in JCPOA negotiations. He's now a professor at Princeton.
As the title indicates, the book offers history; predictions of how then-present situations, i.e. Syria, Iraq, Iran-Saudi relations, will work out; and recommendations.
Syria was totally upended; Israel has gone from strength to strength in the years between Mousavian's talk and today, and the region has been plunged into chaos unimaginable.
Had Mousavian's recommendations been taken seriously --- what might have been.
Thinking about the first Iraq war 'Desert Storm' started by G Bush 1st, I think gets kind of overlooked these days. S Hussein was the Empire's man heading Iraq, installed after a CIA operation to remove his uncle. Iran, post Ayatollah Homeini, needed to be punished so the Iraq_Iran Eight year war was prosecuted with US support for Iraq and over a million deaths ensued. Iraq had been promised, by the USA, reconstruction assistance and compensation to be paid by the Gulf countries Iraq had 'protected'. Kuwait reneged on the US agreement, negotiations failed with a half hearted participation by the US, Iraq suggests that in the absence of any engagement it will be forced to take other measures and advances troops to the Kuwait border. Kuwait was also claimed to have been drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Neither James Baker nor April Gillespie / Glaspie, do anything about this nor say much of any substance. As silence implies consent, Hussein invades Kuwait, and suddenly Bush decides to protect the Kuwaities, not by seeking a ceasefire, but by planning a full scale invasion of its vassal state.
That's pretty much how I remember it, and it struck me at the time that the whole thing could have been avoided at a number of stages, but this did not happen.
I guess this was the beginning of the new ME policy post losing Iran, where the US wanted full control of Iraq, and launch endless wars.
As I recall my own impressions of the time, I believe I didn't wake up to the imperial project until the war on Serbia. By Desert Storm I understood the goal was pretty much total control over Central Asian energy. Iraq would be the permanent forward base for US regional control extending north into the former Soviet republics and the Caucasus, also surrounding Iran (ocean to the south, Afghan to the east, Iraq to the west). We're still clinging to something like that, but you're almost certainly right about earlier origins. There may have been less of a united policy during Bush1, but the ideas were there.
Bush always talked about the "new world order."
Perhaps someone already noted it, the continuation of Petro’s take is on Neutrality Studies: https://youtu.be/xXBxmWJGF20?si=Z6uMsuRu6oG6Uol8
Does Donald Trump or "Trumpism aka MAGA" have a foreign policy Doctrine? I do not believe so, what I see is Donald Trump making decisions based on contingencies, his own views and agendas, along with those of his friends, family, associates, etc. I believe this is a common view of Trump's political style in the world of politics and is why the "establishment" aka the Uniparty (includes these people: https://archive.org/details/600pg-americas-60-families-ferdinand-lundberg-2007-the-vanguard-press/mode/1up ) were so intent on stopping him from gaining the presidency, and why they tried to impeach him. He did not want to play nice with the other kids in the globalist playground, he went around kicking kids in the shin, calling them names, and not following their playground rules--but the main issue was that he did not care about their feelings AKA their long-time agendas.
Who or what is the Uniparty and what is their long-time agenda? It goes back to the 1940s, but for Trump's problem with the globalist Uniparty it goes back to the 1990s after the end of the USSR. The riches of the new nations were salivated over by countless rapacious globalist elites. It was similar to how the Spaniards must have seen the New World when they realized the natives could provide them with vast amounts of gold, silver, and gems. Spain became the richest country in Europe after that. Their ships laden with gold, silver, etc. for many years to come was the main impetus for the rise of the famous New World Pirate culture from the 1500s-1800s. The elite Yale club Skull and Bones got their name and identity from Pirates because many of the richest American families at that time in New England made their riches from "legal Piracy" AKA the families of the founders of Skull and Bones were Privateers, e.g., they were given legal cover by their friends and family in government to engage in legal piracy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer ).
The new nations of the ex-USSR were besieged by their descendants (sometimes literally) in Piracy where globalist elites make it legal for their members to steal or take over the businesses or governments of other nations with this or that fake moral cause. They saw vast natural resources worth untold trillions in oil, natural gas, metals, diamonds, lumber, etc. ripe for the picking. They made partnerships with the famous "oligarchs" and many criminals not so well known. The new states were being looted by globalist pirates and then BAM! Putin and his associates from the old KGB put a stop to it.
The people and businesses who had been getting richer and richer as modern Privateers fleecing the people of the ex-USSR started to then pay lots of people in the political power structure of the "globalist establishment" who "legally" ruled over the evolving political order of the supposed American led empire. That graft has led to the current situation.
In reality it hasn't been an American Empire under the globalist power structure, America is like a pitbull on a leash, the people who hold the leash are put into power by mostly very rich families and people who are payed-up members of the long-time globalist ruling class--but they can come from any nationality IF they have been welcomed into the social and economic inner sanctum of the globalist elite class. Then they are not messed with legally. Similar to how in the "criminal underworld" a "Made Man" in La Cosa Nostra cannot be harmed unless you have official sanction. Since Trump was not only not a member of the ruling class, which is fine to them if you kowtow to their guidance, but he also did not respect their agendas, their rules, their class, and their caste privileges--Trump is seen or was seen as a barbarian at their gates, who along with the so-called "Far Right Populist Movement" in Europe is or was seen as threatening to tear it all down, e.g., end NATO, tariffs, let Russia off the hook, etc. Now they call him Daddy! Why the about face? Are they trying to play to his ego or do they believe he has changed and either joined their club or maybe he has thrown them some bones to get them to heal--Iran & Ukraine wars still being supported? You can tell by how their media speaks about Trump.
The globalist elite class has existed continuously since the early 19th century with the rise of the banking industry, it then expanded greatly later in the 19th century during the "second industrial revolution" AKA The Gilded Age ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Hundred_(Gilded_Age) ) and for some families their involvement as members of the "ruling class" goes back even further, e.g., the families of the people who started Skull and Bones--the old Boston Brahmin families ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin ). They ruled America since its inception with family members in and out of government, state and federal, but especially after the Civil War they concentrated their power over the federal government. They were mostly WASPs, but not all, there were some Catholics, but in general they were followers of the Enlightenment in their mentality--not religious except for a few, their religion was greed and almost to a man ( https://pamho.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-enemy-of-t%CC%B7h%CC%B7e%CC%B7-their-state-282c70c1fc5a ). After the cultural mindset radically changed in America in the 1960s they welcomed other types of people into their elite class, making them more like their cousins-in-arms in Europe, who had welcomed Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews--and others into their class many years earlier.
"regarding some place called Glastonbury"
Glastonbury is basically the perpetuation of Woodstock for hippies as they got older.
In other words; liberals that haven't grown up. 😉
**" Petro argues that since the end of WW2 ..."**
Petro was in G H W Bush's administration.
In 2013, Jeff Engel, who was director of the Bush library, discussed his book, Into the Desert, and the decision-making behind GHWB's decision to go to war to "liberate Kuwait" ( and save all those incubator babies).
http://www.c-span.org/video/?310832-1/book-discussion-desert-reflections-gulf-war
Embedded in my mind are Engel's closing comments:
"We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response. Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history.
...
Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that **Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. ** It would be a world he said, Quote “Where the United Nations freed from Cold War stalemates is poised to fulfill its historic vision of its founders” End Quote
Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence. End quote. ..."
I consider that moment, that decision of GHWB's, to be "the imperial pivot."
It's possible I make too much of that reference to WWII, but that war is the starting point for American discourse about itself ever since. In my estimation, for GHWB, WWII was an enormously emotionally-charged point in his life: he was young, well-educated, a flier, in uniform, married to a beautiful & desirable woman who waited for him as he engaged in heroic acts. Powerful stuff.
In Diesen-Petra conversation, @20 min:
**Petra: ~20 min: “The Trump administration argues that we're not really that concerned about international law. We're not even sure t's worth the paper it's written on. What is however crucial is American power and we need to exercise that power in order to remind other nations of their obligations to uphold the order that American power has created.
“The content of this world order is really nothing beyond western dominance and a western a world order favorable to the United States first and foremost and to those allies that the United States consider loyal. There's nothing else. There’s no international law beyond that or international order hoped for beyond that.
“If I were to bet, yeah, I would say that that's where we are right now.
“It's the revelation of the harsher aspects, the harsher side of what was always American foreign policy at least clearly ***since World War II since the end of World War II.*** Uh but that has been disguised in liberal rhetoric.”**
On a larger front, WWII and USA's asserted 'victory' in that war ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity and world power.
We've been taught that all our lives: WWII was the "Good War," despite the fact that USA/Allies committed war crimes previously unimagined and still unaccounted for -- and unrepented for.
We -- my generation, certainly, and our children -- live well because of those actions that brought about the deaths and destruction of so many millions of people.
I understand that Mark's focus is on Trump's attempt to confront the economic crisis in USA; to return to a period of prosperity similar to that which emerged from WWII.
Maybe Trump does or maybe he doesn't understand that prosperity as having emerged from a terrible war about which the whole truth has not yet been told and is not permitted to be told.
Scott Horton and Tucker Carlson were careful not to let any inconvenient truths, or any history-heresy, leak into their conversation. That's one reason I think that conversation was worse than worthless, it is dangerous, because young(er) people listen to Tucker, and Scott, and Cooper, and trust them as "historical truth-tellers," but they are not.
I'll take issue with this:
"Mark's focus is on Trump's attempt to confront the economic crisis in USA; to return to a period of prosperity similar to that which emerged from WWII."
I thought I've been pretty explicit in saying that that is definitely NOT what Trump is after--although he may deliberately give that impression because he knows that type of nostalgia appeals to his base. I've consistently maintained that Trump's goal is to sustain the empire that first emerged, per Michael Hudson, when the US left the gold standard. I can agree that the first Gulf War was "the imperial moment", that validated the emerging empire.
Prosperity as we know it didn't emerge from WW2. I remember those days. Prosperity as we know emerged after leaving the gold standard, allowing us to run up debts that the rest of the world had to absorb.
Trump's war on Iran seems like his attempt to resurrect the kind of fervor that Americans experienced in waging-winning WWII in order to achieve the kind of financial gains US achieved thereby.
The B2 flyover was lame.
Melania was bored.
Stuff missing from post:
- U.S. drilling
- doge
- usaid
- illegal immigration/ ice
- aipac
- transshipment tariffs - Vietnam
- permanenceoif Trump 1.0 tax cuts
- trust in press, rise of alternative media
- censorship
- AI
- Stable coin bill
- dnc fundraising
- Democratic popularity
- generational change in warfare, obsoleting much of U.S. snd Israeli military
- reduction in trust of experts
- scotus decisions on executive power
- trade deficit
- anti Dei initiatives
Each item above has a significant impact on the remainder of the Trump Term, and where we’re going. My gut feeling is the bbb bill will also have a lot of impact.
Guess what, Ray? Both Diesen and Petro are specialists profs in geopolitics and their discussion was specifically about US geopolitics. Not about DNC fundraising or stable coin or most of the rest--not a review of Trump 2.0 generally. I made my view clear that going forward Trump's agenda will be determined by his ability to handle the debt crisis. I did, btw, briefly reference changes in modern warfare that have affected previous views of US (and derivatively Israeli) ability to wage war on their own terms--a topic which I've discussed repeatedly.
Mark - your substack has covered most these potential game changers, especially changes in modern warfare. Yemen making the U.S. Navy retreat was was an inflection point in the threat of U.S. military intervention. Macgregor as you wrote commented on this.
I’m commenting on Pedro’s essay. My view is US foreign policy is significantly impacted by US Domestic actions. We will see on stable coin, if it passes, and Tom Luongo is correct, it will have a major impact on the U.S. financial system.
Stable coin backed by what? I heard Bessent explicitly admit to Miranda Devine that the stable coin legislation is about selling treasuries (debt). It’s about creating more suckers to buy up more U.S. debt. Why? To continue the proliferate spending and continue the Ponzi for another generation or two. Creating an asset backed by debt instead of a stable value of gold. Crazy
I agree. It’s about getting others to buy more US debt, which gets the U.S. out of the current debt bomb quickly. And it weakens the financial transaction cartel, increases efficiency, and incentives micro transactions and tether is involved.
If it works, it will be very significant perTom Luongo.
I honestly don’t get crypto, and the entire space seems infested with a lot of scammers and Ponzi schemes. Bitcoin seems more open and not as dodgy and becoming more reputable. Stable coins I’m not sure about.
I’m not sure there are any other good alternatives. The U.S. Congress has no appetite for cutting spending, and what little was done or moved in the bbb bill is still astonishing.
“The irony in this is that few Americans view their country as an Empire—let alone as an oppressor of others.”
If you want to really turn your stomach and challenge some of your preconceived notions about the U.S. as a great country, indispensable for world peace, check out Scott Horton’s very long interview with Tucker Carlson. Horton lays out, in excruciating detail, the lawless and counterproductive behavior of our intelligence services and government since the installation of the Shah of Iran in the 50s. We citizens were but pawns in this deadly drama. There were basically no wars we entered with pure intentions, we had a role in getting all of them started, and we were a primary aggressor. We engaged in terrorism, mostly via proxy, and it often turned against us.
And our leaders blatantly lied us into the wars, lied about their causes, lied about our victory, just as Trump is doing now.
PS Prodded by G1Tim's comment about Iraq war 1, above, listening again to Tucker-Scott.
They DO present some useful information and connections.
Carter was not the good-guy he morphed into post-presidency (though he did try to reform CIA, which turned back to bite him).
regarding G1Tim: the first Persian Gulf war is the one that elicited Madeleine Albright's comment, The deaths of 500,000 children "was worth the price."
Patrick Clawson, a WINEP tool, wrote several white papers calibrating the calories provided to Iraqis in the period between the two wars in Iraq, when Iraq was under sanction and US, UK and France enforced No Fly zones over swathes of Iraq. Clawson argued that foods supplied to Iraq were "sufficient."
The Kuwait debacle did not have to result in a war.
Pierre Salinger had been press secretary to JFK and was a reporter on the foreign desk at ABC news in early '90s. He wrote Secret Dossier: the hidden agenda behind the Gulf war
https://archive.org/details/secretdossierhid00sali/page/n7/mode/2up
to record that the war did not have to happen.
Vernon Loeb completed the writing of King's Counsel, the record of Jack O'Connell's work with Jordan's King Hussein to negotiate with fellow Arab leaders to resolve the Kuwait debacle. George H W Bush would not agree to "let the Arabs resolve their own problems."
https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/kings-counsel/272233
ooof.
My intention for today was to study the Diesen-Petro discussion carefully. On first view, it seemed a new perspective from the "Mearsheimer-Wilkerson" standard.
But then I came across the Horton-Carlson discussion which I found less-than-impressive and not a good use of my time. imo Horton salts his narrative with just enough truthiness to grab an audience's attention, but not enough to solve problems.
In my opinion, this 2014 discussion by Seyed Hussein Mousavian, https://www.c-span.org/program/book-tv/iran-and-the-united-states/353599 , based on his book, Iran and the United States: An Insider's View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, offered richer fare. Mousavian, born and educated in Iran, UK and USA, was in Iran's diplomatic corps and, at time of this interview, active in JCPOA negotiations. He's now a professor at Princeton.
As the title indicates, the book offers history; predictions of how then-present situations, i.e. Syria, Iraq, Iran-Saudi relations, will work out; and recommendations.
Syria was totally upended; Israel has gone from strength to strength in the years between Mousavian's talk and today, and the region has been plunged into chaos unimaginable.
Had Mousavian's recommendations been taken seriously --- what might have been.
(It's worth noting that Israeli and dissident-Iranian-Americans have been campaigning to have Mousavian fired https://www.ynetnews.com/article/bjhbgzbp1e)