What Will Affect Trump 2.0 Foreign Policy

Last night, in an exchange in the comments, a commenter pointed out that Tom Luongo has said (whether to patrons or publicly, I’m not sure) that he doesn’t believe Trump will be behind a Middle East war. I responded that I believe Tom is correct. Back in 2016 the Sheldon Adelson money was the biggest donor source for Trump and Trump—as the ultimate DC outsider—was forced to take a lot of backstabbers into his administration. All that is, or should be, different now.

Yes, the Adelson money was big, once again. But Trump has many more deep pocket donors. He also will be looking for a legacy this time around—his delayed second term—and he has stated after his victory that he will be looking to bring about peace. I believe the Pentagon will be, more or less, on the side of peace. They know now that they could lose any such war. And more and more GOP senators know this, too. Marco Rubio, for example, is openly criticizing “funding a stalemate”. There’s more, and it will be very basic to Trump 2.0.

Trump Has Sweeping Plans For His 2nd Administration: Here's What He Has Proposed

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times

Projected President-elect Donald Trump has made a number of sweeping proposals for a second term in office, outlining a wide-ranging agenda that targets federal regulations, taxes, immigration, and social issues.

…

That’s a hugely ambitious agenda, and Trump knows he can’t accomplish that—can’t really begin to address that—while waging a global war. He knows that his voters did not back a global war, and he knows that his mandate can’t be dictated to him by AIPAC shills in Congress. Even those AIPAC shills can read the exit polls and see where the mandate comes from. I don’t believe that Trump will be inclined to genuflect to a POS like Netanyahu.

Now, this morning I listened to the first part of a podcast by BLKelleran:

Election Aftermath, The Different Factions Of Power & The Future Of America

His guest, EMBurlingame made a number of interesting geopolitical comments, some of which, to me, mirrored Tom Luongo’s Theory of Everything. For example, EMB stressed that,

• with SOFR, the US is now independent of the City of London. He further stated that

• Europe is in bad shape, and nowhere worse than in the UK and Germany.

• These two countries had backed a world war against Russia as a means to get out of their debt traps by looting Russia.

• EMB doesn’t believe there will be any such world war because Russia-China-Iran are simply too strong for us.

I believe Trump gets all that, too, and understands that Making America Great begins at home.

Speaking of these matters, I’m listening to Gilbert Doctorow and Judge Nap. Doctorow has some trenchant observations on the Russian reaction to the US elections. First, he says that Russia really did hope for a Kama Sutra win, because they viewed her as a weak leader who would continue America’s decline. Second, he noted that Putin—almost alone among world leaders—did not call Trump to congratulate him, the reason being that Russia regards relations with the US to be those of virtually open war of America on Russia. As a result, Russia is simply prepared to impose peace on its own terms. “They are confident that they will have their way.” I predict the result will be that Trump will come to terms with that reality, rather than jeopardizing his agenda at home.

Now, speaking of Luongo, he had a number of pithy comments after the election. I’ll share a few, as a more big picture perspective from which to view the (yes, very important) details of the election—and what comes next.

Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) @TFL1728

Scholz and the rest of Europe are desperate to throw money into Ukraine to secure those who guarantee Ukraine's debt and keep them from collapsing.

Who has the power to get governments to act like this?

And if you say "Jews" you are disqualified. It's so much more basic than that.

This is about Germany selling Germans down the river (AGAIN!) over debt guarantees to London and Paris.

Same as it ever was.

*

These people bet big on Ukraine. It was supposed to be Ground Zero for the Great Reset. They were all put in power to effect that outcome. The US was supposed to come in via NATO and kick Putler's ass.

And they ran out of moves. It's now Round 13 of 14 of a game of Agricola and they still have a half-undeveloped board, starving citizens, no cows, and empty fields at harvest time.

Round 14 will see them make moves and lose points when their people starve and they lose to the BRICS 45 to -6

*

Tez @Tez11288903

…

Alastair Crooke said couple of years ago, this is the biggest intelligence and elites failure in Europe since the end of WW2.

They got everything wrong.

In fairness, here’s an alternative view—a mixed view, from Max Blumenthal. Judge Nap pushes to Max the idea that nothing will change under Trump—the Neocons will still control FP. Max first says, yes, there are disturbing signs that Neocons will be appointing many people at State. On the other hand, Max notes that Tiffany Trump—Trump’s daughter whom everyone forgets—is married to Michael Boulos, and Boulos, says Max, will replace Amos Hochstein as envoy to Lebanon. Boulos happens to be a Lebanese Christian from the faction that is in a political coalition with Hezbollah, so that puts on interesting twist on things.

Max goes on to speculate that there is internecine warfare brewing in the Trump transition between people who did so much for Trump’s campaign and are anti-war—Tucker, Tulsi, and others—vs. the Neocons. Judge Nap, like others, points out that names like Pompeo and Rubio are being advanced for key positions—DOD and State, respectively. Working against (this is me) is that the Neocons are great at floating such suggestions in the media. Tucker and Tulsi? Not nearly so much. My argument would be that Trump has other advisers who are close to him on economic matters, and those advisers know that war militates against Making America Great at this point in history. Max acknowledges that Trump’s base definitely did not vote for war, in fact was anti-war to a great extent. The fact of Trump’s anti-war (with Russia and Iran) supports that point. On the other hand, Max believes the Neocons still control DC foreign policy.

My final observation is that Rubio interview. Rubio is lobbying hard for SecState, and he’s also lobbying hard to end the war on Russia—although not necessarily to make peace with Russia. Does his peace making apply only to Russia, but not to the Middle East? Max soft pedals Rubio’s peace talk by acknowledging that support for the war on Russia has “cratered” in DC. But that leaves the Middle East. We shall see.