Trump, Elon, Iran, And The Crazies

Amid the current chaos of Trump 2.0, Larry Johnson offers some hope. I highly recommend perusing his:

Has Trump Derailed a Deep State Plot to Attack Iran?

Regular readers will recall that I have basically refused to engage with the supposed Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. I have, mostly in what amount to asides, dismissed this supposed plot as a Deep State ploy, as opposed to the all too real plots to assassinate Trump that failed. Those real plots, in stark contrast with the made up ones, were all of the home-grown variety.

I’ll only summarize LJ’s post—which is very important, IMO—so do follow the link.

Basically …

LJ first notes the hallmarks of the recruitment and grooming of Farhad Shakeri abroad—a drug smuggler who was arrested but then provided with another easy source of financial support: The US Deep State. To me, the mechanics of this plot all ring true. Please note, there is nothing in any of this to suggest that Shakeri was taken into the confidence of the Deep State—probably far from it. He was a tool.

LJ then moves on to Elon’s meeting with the Iranian ambassador to the UN, and argues that the dispatch of a now trusted Trump insider to this meeting had Trump’s blessing and was part of thwarting the Deep State effort to immerse the US in a crazy war with Iran—a war so disastrous that it might have caused Trump 2.0 to be stillborn. This also rings true to me.

LJ next contrasts—implicitly to some extent, explicitly otherwise—the understandable freakout over some of Trump’s bizarre appointments of folks who are on record saying absolutely crazy stuff about Russia, China, Israel, Iran. Here’s what I mean: Contrast the extremely rational use of a highly savvy guy like Elon, with the knuckleheads like Rubio and Hegseth and Waltz. That stark contrast between Elon’s prominent role and the other knuckleheads should raise your antennas. Here I’ll quote LJ:

Why Elon? It is a clear message to Iran that Trump is serious about engaging them diplomatically because he sent a guy that all of the world knows is a new best friend of Donald. Iran will not be wondering if Elon is speaking on his own. Nope. Elon is doing so with the blessing of Donald Trump. By engaging Iran, Trump is trying to prevent a war, not hasten one.

I find that persuasive.

Now, let me take some credit here—bear with me. During the campaign I argued that, despite the $100 million from Miriam Adelson, Trump would not necessarily be a prisoner of the Anglo-Zionists. I argued that Trump is sincerely opposed to war and wants to build a legacy in this Trump 2.0 of being a peacemaker. I based that on Doug Macgregor’s personal interaction with Trump in an official advisory capacity, and yesterday supported that with the observations of a longtime insider and outspoken anti-Trumper, Col. Larry Wilkerson. Both agree that Trump does NOT want war. Implicit in that observation is the conundrum: If Trump is anti-war, what’s up with the slavish ass kissing Trump has directed to Anglo-Zionists and Jews in general? I argued, as above, that that was about campaign money.

Commenter ML provides today a must read post (On Trump's Cabinet Of Curiosities And How Little It Matters) that adds to the picture. In essence, it was also about the votes. During the campaign I repeatedly ran with polling that showed that Trump’s base—older people—were the group of Americans that retained support for the genocidal Zionist entity. Despite Trump’s strong appeal to other demographics, he couldn’t risk offending that base group and still hope to win. From the previous link—please read it in the context of my appeal to the polls:

In the case of the ME the American politicians have to bear in mind the strength of the voting bloc made up of the Evangelicals, Christian Zionists, Mormons and the various religious sects for who Israel First is an article of faith. That voting bloc is large, in the tens of millions. It was not one Biden wished to offend. It was a necessary component in the portion of the electorate that carried Trump to victory. They need the rhetoric even if the reality falls short of their expectations. By proposing Israel Firsters, and vociferous Israel Firsters at that, Trump has given them that rhetoric.

LJ places all of the above in the super important context of the reachout—through Elon—to Iran to avoid the Anglo-Zionists’ longed for war. To avoid disaster for the US, which Zhou’s outgoing Anglo-Zionist regime may be seeking to inflict on Trump. Also recall Elon’s public humiliation by Netanyahu and the rest of the Zionists. Count on it that Elon hasn’t forgotten that. And so LJ writes toward the end of his post:

While I share the[] alarm at the names of Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Michael Waltz as folks who are on the record advocating stupid military responses to Russia, Iran and China, let me suggest another way to look at this. Trump’s rapid appointments of his cabinet — the fastest in Presidential history — may be intended as a negotiating ploy, with the Deep State and foreign governments.

What do I mean? I believe Trump’s nominations of what can be charitably described as hardliners, is intended to set a benchmark or signal to other countries — i.e., he’s going to be tough. Yet, at the same time he appears to be assembling a war cabinet, Trump dispatches Musk to chat with the Iranians. Art of the deal? Check out the following video from 2015. Trump is talking about trying to make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. You will be surprised [but hopefully regular readers here will NOT be surprised] to learn who he says is the party not serious about negotiating:

…

… I am pretty sure that Trump is not throwing darts at a board filled with pictures and names. We will have a better idea come January 21st whether he was making terrible errors in judgment or following a plan. I will leave it to you to debate.

I’ll repeat what I said a few days ago. At that time I was evaluating these appointments as part of a possible good cop/bad cop negotiating ploy directed at other countries. My evaluation was that I doubted that would work very well—if at all. Russian specialist Gilbert Doctorow said that the Russians were looking at these appointments and “smiling from ear to ear.” These are not people that the Russians take seriously—for the most part. There are some exceptions, whom Doctorow noted.

Are these appointments, then, aimed to placate the Deep State? Here I would argue, again: probably not to a major extent. Most of them are too lightweight and, while people like Waltz may be seen by the Deep State as reliable tools to use against Trump, Waltz lacks either the political stature to stand up to Trump that a higher profile appointee, or maybe a general, would have. In other words, as LJ suggests, these people can be easily replaced.

It remains that these appointments—on this theory—are meant as sops for the die-hard Trump supporters who approve of them because Trump. He can do no wrong. To those people, who reflexively support anyone who is seen as an outsider—something that Elon is EMPHATICALLY NOT, not in the real world—I argue that supporting incompetent or otherwise objectional appointees will not prepare you for a realistic assessment of Trump’s devious deal making plans. It could even make it more difficult for Trump to dispense with them, according to this plan.

No doubt reflexive support will be useful for Trump’s plans to portray much of the establishment as attempting to undermine him by opposing these appointees. In that he’s undoubtedly correct and we probably need to leave that part of this plan (if correct) to Trump, although this strategy does also put some of his sincere allies—people like Rand Paul, just as an example—in a difficult spot. We’ll see how Trump handles that, if this is the plan. In the meantime, evaluate with open eyes and open minds, and read LJ’s post.