Trump has famously proclaimed that he wants his presidency to go down in history as the “peace presidency”. However, as we argued yesterday, Trump attaches his own MAGA meaning to words like “peace” (TrumpSpeak: 'Peace' vs. 'Peace Deal'). Bear with me, because I’ll be getting to Russia and Iran a bit further down.
On the domestic front, along with many unquestionably salutary measures, ‘peace’ can also embrace a suppression of the First Amendment. James Bovard today issues a warning to all conservatives about the implications of the Trump regime’s suppression of speech on college campuses—it is emphatically aimed at speech as such, not simply at disruptive and ‘illegal’ protests (self promo—I touched on much of this over a month ago in Chaos Is Great! For Israel). Readers are urged to do themselves a favor and read both my previous post and Bovard’s current article—this issue is that important:
It would be the height of folly for Americans to presume they face no peril from entitling the feds to seize boundless power to punish students’ speech. Ozturk’s name was provided to the Trump administration by Betar—an organization that the Washington Post characterized as a “militant Zionist group.” US citizens are at risk as well. A spokesman for Betar declared: “We provided hundreds of names to the Trump administration of visa holders and naturalized Middle Easterners and foreigners” who have criticized Israeli policies. The Anti-Defamation League condemned Betar as an extremist organization in February.
Any precedent for blanket censorship will propagate like a covid virus. Many conservatives and libertarians may shrug off Ozturk’s degradation because they have no interest in criticizing the policies of foreign governments. But the Ozturk case hinges on collective guilt—on assuming that anyone who advocates a position is culpable for any crimes committed by any other advocate with the same view.
This was the tacit doctrine that the Biden administration used to legally scourge peaceful January 6 protestors who merely “paraded without a permit” through or near the US Capitol that day. Because a minority of January 6 protestors became violent, the FBI presumed that “trespassing plus thought crimes equal terrorism,” justifying harsh sentences for anyone at the scene (except for the undercover federal agents and informants).
What legal perils will pro-freedom protestors face in the coming years if the Ozturk rule is canonized, entitling federal officials to crush any disfavored opinion? Big-spending Democrats may consecrate Modern Monetary Theory and demonize anyone who criticizes the Federal Reserve. I took this “Kill the Central Bank” photo of Ron Paul supporters at a 2008 Capitol Hill event for his presidential campaign. If the same protestors had peacefully carried the same banner within a half mile of the Capitol on January 6, they likely would have been nailed on a bevy of federal charges. Many politicians have made stark their hatred of libertarians and freedom advocates. A federally-funded Fusion Center tagged Ron Paul supporters as potential terrorist suspects, and another federally-funded center sounded the alarm on anyone “reverent of individual liberty.”
As long as anyone is sitting in shackles in a federal detention center simply for writing an op-ed, freedom of speech is not safe for anyone in the United States. Will Ozturk’s persecution finally wake up people too confident that “it can never happen here”?
It’s the height of irony that Veep Vance roundly—and rightly—criticized Euro governments for their draconian speech and freedom suppression, while he himself (a lawyer from the most prestigious law school in the US) says not a word about what’s going on at the instigation of radical Jewish Nationalists on our college campuses.
OK, why do I bring this up when the big news of the day has to do with Trump’s ‘peace’ initiatives abroad? Because suppressing opposition to Israeli bad behavior in America was a key part of Trump’s electoral deal. In coming weeks Jewish Nationalists will be pulling out all the stops to sabotage Trump’s ‘peace deals’ and to cement their war policies in place. That could still happen.
The fact is, in TrumpSpeak (again, see yesterday’s post linked above), “peace and prosperity” has a weirdly Maoist tone to it—it grows out of the barrel of a gun, so to speak. Well, if not a gun, then out of our nuclear arsenal, as Trump has hinted on more than one occasion when boasting of US military might. I’m not exaggerating. Trump’s closest economic advisers are adamant about maintaining the USD as the world reserve currency and the US as the single dominant hegemonic superpower—the two go hand in hand:
U.S. military might ensur[es] our financial stability and the credibility of our borrowing. Our military and financial dominance cannot be taken for granted; and the Trump Administration is determined to preserve them.
Trump’s domestic measures and geopolitical peace initiatives (with Russia)—as well as his wars and threatened wars (Yemen, Iran, Syria, Gaza, China)—are all connected to his Grand Vision for reshaping the world. MAGA is not what most of us thought it would be—a return of America to living at peace in accord with our republican values. It is a retrenchment preparatory to a concerted power projection. It has been based on Trump’s long held goal of detaching Russia from China, to enable “dealing” with each separately—from the Russo-Chinese perspective, hanging separately.
How is the deal making going? Not so well. Trump’s negotiating tactics seem to rest on idea that if you squeeze your negotiating partner hard enough they will eventually abandon all principles and submit to a foolish deal based on selfish and short sighted self interest. That may work in real estate deals, but it’s not working on the geopolitical scene.
Yesterday saw Marco Rubio making the remarkable statement that the US might just walk away or “move on” from negotiating with Russia—because Russia isn’t submitting to either Trump’s deadlines or to his demands for a ‘ceasefire’ rather than a peace treaty that addresses fundamental issues of security. Here are two stories that explain what’s going on here:
What a close reading of these articles reveals is that Trump has been trying to game the Russians—play them for fools—all along. And he’s not stopping now. All these ploys—sanctions relief, recognize Crimea as Russian—are all subordinate to the main goal, which was inherited from Biden’s regime: freezing the conflict. The idea is to get Russia to agree that the war is unwinnable and to just stop fighting—without any comprehensive treaty. In other words, the idea is to get Putin to admit defeat. Which would likely lead to regime change in Russia, but also global chaos from which the Anglo-Zionist could benefit greatly by fishing in these troubled waters. Needless to say, Russia can see through this and is not about to distance itself from China.
Do not kid yourselves. The Trump regime is not going to simply walk away from its war on Russia. Trump has renewed all sanctions on Russia. Rubio has met with Euros, in the company of Trump clown Keith Kellogg, and claimed that the ideas of these Euro advocates of more war on Russia—Starmer, Macron, Merz—had been “very helpful and constructive." Ha ha! As if the Russians are about to sign a purchase contract for that bridge in Brooklyn.
This all subterfuge and double dealing. Trump will not walk away from the war on Russia, however he may camouflage what he’s up to for domestic audiences. What is true is that Trump finds himself in the position of having overreached geopolitically and needs the Euros to step up while he pivots to other matters—like reshaping the Middle East and handling what’s beginning to look like a growing trade war with China. Again, I recently addressed the Trump plans to reshape the Middle East at the end of this recent post: Recommended Reads: Russia, China, Middle East. The point is that Trump’s plans for reshaping the Middle East are very grandiose, and rest on “dealing with” Iran.
It’s not entirely clear what Trump’s strategy with Iran is. Early on in Trump 2.0 he made all sorts of quite direct threats, all to the same effect: Iran had two months to submit to the Trump/Israel demands (which amounted to total capitulation and neutering) or Trump would take military action. Iran wasn’t buying any of that, so those demands have been tempered to something like JCPOA 2.0—a return to the deal that Trump unilaterally walked out of. Obviously Trump has come to realize the limits of US military capabilities—thanks to Tulsi and Hegseth. Perhaps he also believes that Iran can be subtly separated from Russian and China by integrating it back into an Anglo-Zionist Middle East order. However, again, the Iranians don’t appear to be buying into this. They know all about hanging separately:
“We have started trilateral talks between Iran, Russia and China on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program for some time now,” he said, adding that two such meetings have already taken place. “We are ready to continue these talks and expand them to other issues,” the minister added.
Araghchi expressed confidence that “Iran, China and Russia – in a coordinated move – can take effective steps towards international peace.” The three partners “are serious about this,” he insisted.
Those remarks came in the context of today’s indirect Iran - US talks in Rome—which Iran said were “constructive”:
To get an idea of the difficulties Trump is finding himself in after foolishly acceding to Jewish Nationalist demands to trash the JCPOA, getting back to even a JCPOA 2.0 will not be easy. Iran, before the Rome meeting, adamantly stated that its enrichment program is “non-negotiable”.
MenchOsint @MenchOsint
Iran got new cards in hands compared to 2015, it will be difficult for the US to impose anything
This map is instructive on US military limitations:
2/ Fascinating details in this new WSJ piece on today’s US-Iran talks in Rome: Iran is reportedly open to sending its enriched uranium stockpile to Russia—and even to a high-level visit in Washington. The latter is especially striking.
The WSJ is reporting that Iran is seeking guarantees that Trump won’t pull another stunt like last time—unilaterally withdrawing from an agreed deal.
4/ BREAKING: Iran's Foreign Ministry says today's indirect talks with the US, mediated by Oman in Rome, were “useful” and held in a “constructive atmosphere.”
-Technical talks will start Wednesday in Oman
-Senior negotiators will reconvene next Saturday
5/ Iran's FM @araghchi says today’s "4-hour" US-Iran talks were “good” and, "like the last round forward-moving.”
-“We reached better agreement on principles and goals”
-“Technical talks will begin Wednesday in Oman”
-“Next week, we’ll meet again to review the experts’ work”
What was so constructive in the talks? The US seems to have accepted Iran’s demands on what issues are and are not up for discussion.
7/ Iran’s FM Araghchi says the talks have only focused on the nuclear issue “so far.”
-“The Americans have so far not raised any issues unrelated to the nuclear topic.”
-“We have stated that our negotiation is related to nuclear issues, and we do not accept any other topics.”
And, btw, there may be another connection here. Veep Vance—a known ally of Witkoff, or so we’re told—is in Rome as we write. Vance is Catholic, so maybe he’s there for Easter. OTOH, there’s nothing to say he can’t be doing double duty—also conferring with Witkoff before/after the meeting before heading back to DC.
OK, before you get all optimistic about peace breaking out all over the world, or even just in the Middle East, be aware that competing factions within Trump 2.0 are vying to influence Trump. The Jewish Nationalist faction, represented by Rubio, is fighting back against some of Trump’s key supporter. Trita Parsi analyzes Rubio’s statement yesterday from (I believe) Paris, after his meeting with Euro types. He is seeking to undermine the current consensus against war with some subtle suggestions:
Trita Parsi @tparsi
Listen carefully to what Runio is saying here. He was arguing for Netanyahu's line, ie that the US should bomb Iran and if not, adopt impossible demands (dismantlement) that ensure the collapse of diplomacy.
Since that fight appears to have been lost, Rubio is shifting to two new demands that also will ensure the collapse of talks and a rush to war.
First, he signals that the special restrictions on Iran's program should either be in perpetuity or for a very long time, rather than time-limited (which is standard for arms control agreements). Perpetuity is a non-starter, just like dismantlement. Lengthening them will be very hard, but it is not likely impossible. Again, given his support for military strikes, according to the NYT, this raises questions.
The second point is more crucial. He argues that the Europeans HAVE TO trigger snapback sanctions on Iran at the UN. This is what Bolton and Pompeo tried to do under Trump 1.0 and failed. Trigger snapback will cause Tehran to walk out of the NPT and kick out the IAEA inspectors. This would cause a major crisis and very likely the end of diplomacy. Rubio knows this very well because the Europeans have gamed this out extensively.
So on both counts, Rubio is publicly arguing for measures that will cause the collapse of diplomacy and pave the way for war. Which is consistent with the NYT account of the internal debates in the Administration.
Trump's focus is on preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Diplomacy is by far the superior path to that goal, but it also requires realistic goals and not the adoption of deliberate non-starters.
There are ways for Trump to get a better deal, but Rubio's recommendations will get Trump no deal - and a war.
There’s a lot going on here, and it’s not going to happen overnight. This will be politically contentious within the inner circles of our rulers—the infighting will be, if anything, even more ferocious going forward.
And then there’s China.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
The U.S. is a co-belligerent. It wants to create the impression that it’s an honest broker. It has been defeated strategically on the battlefield. Spare us all the made-for-PR flummery. Pack up your death machines all across the world, go home & heal your own country.
Secretary Marco Rubio @SecRubio.
@POTUS has been clear: The time to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is now.
Today in Paris, @SE_MiddleEast, @SPE_Kellogg and I met with leaders from France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Ukraine to talk about how we can stop the killing and reach a just and sustainable peace.
Easter:
Putin announces ceasefire.
Zelensky to lead homo parade.
Remember how our anti-Christian media claimed Palm Sunday was so holy in Kiev? How about Easter?
"Flummery." That's the word I was looking for:
Warwick Powell | 鲍韶山 @baoshaoshan
The U.S. is a co-belligerent. It wants to create the impression that it’s an honest broker. It has been defeated strategically on the battlefield. Spare us all the made-for-PR flummery. Pack up your death machines all across the world, go home & heal your own country.
Secretary Marco Rubio @SecRubio.
@POTUS has been clear: The time to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is now.
Today in Paris, @SE_MiddleEast, @SPE_Kellogg and I met with leaders from France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Ukraine to talk about how we can stop the killing and reach a just and sustainable peace.