Trump, Russia, Iran

The intel roundup on Judge Nap’s show today had a lot of interest in it. Naturally, there was a lot of back and forth about the Signal text business. Ray and LJ seemed to have the same impression that I came away with—that decision making on going to war with Yemen was quite perfunctory. There was likely not much debate or discussion featuring the top NatSec officials face to face with Trump. It seems to have been Trump saying, ‘Hey, let’s send ‘em a message,’ and the others pretty much just falling in line.

In fact, I suspect there was more behind Trump’s decision than he let on. My suspicion is that Trump is using the talks with Russia and the ultimatum to Iran—with the attendant massive buildup centering on Diego Garcia—to freeze regional players while giving cover to Israel to attack throughout the Levant: Gaza, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon. Combined with the US war on Yemen the impression is given that the US fully intends a war on Iran, as well. The putative benefit for Israel, while this weird sort of standoff continues, is that they have Trump’s blessing to kill as many Arabs as possible.

Re Yemen, Trump says he’ll keep bombing until the Houthis say: ‘No mas!’ Which isn’t likely to happen for two reasons. The Houthis don’t speak Spanish, and they’ve said they will simply escalate:

Trump Says He Will Continue Bombing Yemen For A 'Long Time'

Apparently Trump thinks the Congress will ignore the constitutional restrictions on presidential warmaking, which seems a safe bet.

However, I won’t to use the intel groups discussion to reiterate some of what I’ve been writing lately.

INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & McGovern : Weekly Wrap

Here’s an edited transcript at the point that Ray McGovern references Putin’s remarks to the sailors of Russia’s Northern Fleet, in Murmansk:

Ray: Putin talked yesterday to the sailors of the North Sea Fleet, and he spelled it out: '[Russia holds most of the original war aim territories.] We can get the rest of it. We can get it quickly, but we're in no rush.' And that's the reality on the field.

Here’s a slightly fuller account of Putin’s remarks on that topic—some of which will be important as Ray continues:

Russians With Attitude @RWApodcast

Putin being BASED tonight

'Russia will no longer make mistakes based on excessive trust in so-called partners'

'Russia welcomes the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine by peaceful means, but not at our expense'

'Putin suggested discussing the introduction of interim governance in Ukraine under the auspices of the UN and a number of countries in order to hold elections there'

'Russia has the strategic initiative along the entire front line, and there is reason to believe that the Russian Armed Forces will finish off the Ukrainian military'

I would call that a pretty hard line statement and, while Putin’s audience was a military one, he was, of course, speaking to the Russian nation as a whole. He was raising expectations as well as offering assurances to the Russian public. He will follow through, and that means, while Putin will talk and talk, he will not be rushed into any Trumpian deal—in his own words, ‘no excessive trust.’ That part is directly relevant to what follows.

Ray: Most important is this. A midshipman asks commander in chief Putin:

Petty officer 2nd class Ivan Dominan: “Today the world's attention is focused on negotiations between Russia and the United States. We have a a dialogue. If possible, I would like to hear first hand about the progress and the outcome of those talks."

Putin: “Don't worry about it, do not concern yourself with this, simply carry out your service and fulfill your duty.” [Laughter--lots of laughter.] “That was a joke. I understand that everyone in the world is looking at this closely, following these developments. In this regard I would like to state the following. First and foremost, in my view the newly elected president of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict--for a number of reasons, which I won't go into right here, as they are numerous. But in my opinion the aspiration is genuine.”

Now, Ray jumps all over that:

Ray: Just a couple of months into Trump's regime, Putin is taking the risk of saying, 'This guy can be trusted, because he's sincere.'

I don’t think that’s what Putin was saying, at all. In my view, Putin was simply acknowledging that, in Trump, he has a world leader who really—really—wants to end this war. For numerous reasons, none of which are likely to be the one that Trump has offered several times, that it’s a shame for all those “handsome soldiers” to die. Putin is, in essence, saying: We’re winning and we can afford to win on our own timetable. In the meantime, we welcome concessions from Trump but we will not put “excessive trust” in him. We know he has “numerous reasons” for wanting out of this war—that’s genuine, but that’s also his problem. Not ours.”

So then LJ chimes in:

LJ: Except the problem is, Trump's actions in Iran, if he does choose to try to attack Iran, could undo what he's trying to accomplish with Putin. That's why it [a US attack on Iran] is so unlikely. Iran and Russia have that comprehensive security agreement that was signed. It was very nuanced, but the one section where--they didn't have an explicit mutual defense clause, however the clause that did deal with it said something to the effect: if Iran is attacked, under the terms of article 51 where it's it's an unjustified attack on Iran, then Russia would get involved. But Russia didn't commit itself that, 'regardless of what fight you get into we're going to have your back,' no they didn't commit themselves that far.

These are well considered remarks, but in one important way the cart is in front of the horse. My view is that Trump probably does want to go to war with Iran, and that the bolded portion (above) assumes to great a separation between Trump’s Russian strategy and his Iran strategy. As I’ve been writing, I believe a major reason that Trump is so eager to end the war with Russia is because he hopes that he may then be able to, in effect, bribe Russia into walking away from Iran. Thus:

The Black Sea Ceasefire--Connected To War On Iran

As I’ve been writing recently, Trump’s goal in reconciling with Russia is to detach Russia from Iran. Presumably to induce Russia to, essentially, give the US a free hand to attack Iran—if the threats don’t work. That’s what these concessions to Russia are all about. The concessions are inducements and, at the same time, threats—sanctions could always be re-imposed. Trump has given Iran a two month ultimatum, and that’s why he’s in such a rush to reconcile with Russia and will give up virtually any concession that Russia demands.

Now, why do I say that Trump is gambling by making valuable concessions to Russia, and that—unlike Mercouris says—these concessions are not simply on the Euros? I believe that Trump has not actually given up on the overall US strategy of placing Russia in a subordinate position so that the “Main Enemy”, China, can be subdued. That was the strategy of Trump 1.0 and I can think of no reason to suppose that Trump 2.0 has changed its strategy. The complication this time around is in the Middle East, which is far closer to chaos than the last time around, with Israel under great pressure. The Israel Lobby that owns Trump is insisting that Trump must deal with Iran first and foremost, because unless Iran can be cowed the resistance to the Jewish Supremacy Project will remain alive. Again, there is a complication. Iran has become the keystone for Putin’s vision of a BRICS world economy that preserves Russian access to the global economy, free from the threat of Anglo-Zionist inspired blockades of the Black, Baltic, and Arctic seas.

Trump’s gamble is that he can snooker Putin into taking the concessions and cutting Iran loose. Then, having pulled off regime change in Iran by military means if necessary, Trump will once again be in a position to pressure Putin—this time, to cooperate against China, as originally planned. My bet is that Putin understands all this. He will take any concessions, but won’t change Russia’s strategic planning, which is based on BRICS. He won’t sell out either Iran or China. What form his support for Iran will take remains to be seen, and it must certainly be a matter of great concern to US military planners.

So, with that, here’s the conclusion of the intel group discussion:

Ray: Will Trump allow himself to be sucked into this thing [war on Iran] to the degree that there'd be a worldwide recession or depression that we'll be paying 10 15 bucks for a gallon of gas at the gas station? The stakes here are extremely high--not only World War III but economic collapse. And the Russians and the Chinese have a deep stake in preventing this. During those two hours that Putin and Trump talked together I am morally certain that Iran came up, and that Putin said, 'Look, we don't need to let BB do what he wants to do in Iran. if he does, this is what's going to happen. Mr President, you don't need that.'

Judge: Larry, same question. Will Netanyahu attack Iran without American military support.

LJ: No, because they don't have the capability. They require US air support, they require US ISR support. Israel on its own lacks the ability to actually carry that out, as we saw on October 27th. The October 27th attack was facilitated, enabled, by the United States and, even then, with US support, they weren't able to carry it out or complete it.

Ray: The caveat in my view is that with all these bombers convening and Diego Garcia, there is a widespread preparation for war, and BB might think that he can mousetrap the US into a war with Iran, as he's tried to do many times. This time he may be desperate because of his internal problems ,so I wouldn't rule it out. The US may be giving the wrong signal by sending all these heavy bombers and missiles and so forth into the area, leading Netanyahu to think, 'Well, they'll be mousetrapped into that. I'll just go ahead and start it. They can't possibly stop supporting us.'