Trump And Iran

American Conservative ran an article yesterday that seems timely, coming as it does within a week of the facially goofy claim that Iran “hacked” the Trump campaign and leaked internal communications to Politico. The idea that Iran is seeking to undermine Trump in order to facilitate a continuation of an American regime that is totally under the control of the Anglo-Zionist ruling class—which is currently threatening Iran—doesn’t really pass the laugh test. I take it that the story is not intended to portray Trump as a victim of the a “terrorist” regime, but instead to portray Iran as the eternal enemy of “our democracy”. The damaging leaks to Politico from the Trump campaign—presumably a Deep State job—will be so much gravy to perpetuate the current facade of “our democracy.”

The AmCon article is by Anglo-Zionist bête noire Trita Parsi, and may, in fact, be intended to counter the “hacking” narrative.

How Trump Should Deal with Iran

Iran can make or break Trump’s Middle East withdrawals.

The basic idea of the article is that both Trump and Iran made missteps during the Trump administration. Trump’s first misstep was probably—my view—assuming that Iran wouldn’t pay a lot of attention to his style and rhetoric. The reality is that Iran studies the rest of the world—and especially its adversaries—with an eagle eye, filtered through their own history and culture.

Trump came into office promising to cancel Obama’s Iran deal, calling it, among other things in typical Trumpian style, “the worst deal ever.” Parsi argues that the core of Trump’s objections to the Obama deal had little or nothing to do with Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions but, rather, had to do with the failure to open Iran to US business:

“They bought 118 Airbus planes, not Boeing planes. They’re spending all of their money in Europe,” he argued in 2016. “It’s so unfair and it’s so incompetent.”

Iran, unused to Trump, took his rhetoric to be threatening. That was in large part due to Trump taking on so many Neocons in his administration—Pompeo and Bolton, in particular. Iran may or may not have misunderstood Trump’s intentions regarding the Obama deal, but they certainly did not misunderstand the intentions of Pompeo and Bolton, and that colored Iranian perceptions of Trump. Trump certainly did well to back out of the attack on Iran, following Iran’s shootdown of our spy drone in their airspace. He had originally been persuaded by Pompeo and Bolton to attack Iran, but reconsidered the craziness of it all:

“I thought about it for a second and I said, you know what, they shot down an unmanned drone, plane, whatever you want to call it, and here we are sitting with 150 dead people… And I didn’t like it. I didn’t think—I didn’t think it was proportionate,” he later told reporters. The Washington Post reported that Bolton was “devastated” that Trump had changed his mind. 

That was the good part, but unfortunately Trump’s Neocons talked him into other missteps that culminated with the assassination of a high Iranian official (Soleimani) on an official visit to a third country (Iraq). Sound familiar? That sealed Iranian perceptions:

Tehran misread Trump, concluding that his aggressive rhetoric and his deference to Pompeo and Bolton’s strategy, as well as his proximity to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, suggested that his objective was regime change or even war. On several occasions, Trump sought to talk directly to the Iranians but was rebuffed.

Trump, apparently oblivious to the impression he had made, actually did make repeated good faith efforts to open a direct line of communication with Iran, using both the French and Rand Paul as intermediaries. Parsi, with his good contacts in the Iranian government, argues that Iran is reconsidering their past with Trump:

Iranian officials told me later that rejecting talks with Trump was a mistake. Though they had reasons to be skeptical and wary, the refusal to talk only prompted Trump to double down on Pompeo and Bolton’s pressure strategy.

The lesson learned was reflected by Massoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s new president, during his election campaign. He insisted that Iran needed to renew diplomacy with the U.S., including with Trump, to resolve its economic problems.

If he wins in November, Trump may have an opportunity to finally get his calls returned by Tehran. …

This much appears to be true: The new Iranian “reformist” government is prioritizing better relations with the West. Obviously the Anglo-Zionists are very much opposed to that, which brings up the final point.

In 2016 Trump scared the wits out of the Anglo-Zionists with his idea of either restructuring NATO or withdrawing from NATO outright—in any case, Trump saw that it was time to come to terms with Russia. Trump then, and probably now, wants to rebuild US influence on the basis of deals that are good for the US economy, rather than military muscle. These ideas made Trump a pariah to the Ruling Class, never mind that his Neocon advisers sabotaged all his plans with regard to Russia—in much the same way that the sabotaged his ideas with regard to a reset with Iran. Behind Trump’s rhetoric, there’s little reason to suppose that his own ideas have changed, it’s just that he may know better what it will take to get elected.

Parsi makes clear that Iran is very much interested in a greatly reduced US military presence. Trump is generally interested in cutting back on the US role as world cop, and is touting his supposed ability to end the US war on Russia. This dynamic, in combination with recollections of Trump’s heterodox ideas about a deal with Iran, must have the Anglo-Zionists deeply concerned. The Intel Community is furiously manufacturing narratives to disrupt any Trumpian outreach to Iran if he wins in November. We’ve already seen the coincidental claim of an Iranian assassination plot, and now we get the implausible hacking story. Strangely—or not—none of this can be verified except through the very same people who ran hoax after hoax against President Trump.

Go figure, right?