Who's Running American Foreign Policy?

This was one of the issues that Judge Nap and Chas Freeman discussed today. I want to present a partial transcript of this portion because the two get into a number of important related issues, and their remarks may prove enlightening. The background to the discussion, of course, is the US led attack on the Russian nuclear triad—the Russian strategic bombers. For that issue alone I recommend the video with Scott Ritter, to blow away some of the foolishness that Ray McGovern has been propagating. However, that’s not the part that we’ll concentrate on.

Judge: As as I look at the events of the past week—the finger pointing and the denials--I'm speaking, of course, of the drone attacks on four Russian air bases and some civilian sites as well--I want to ask you: Who controls American foreign policy? Who calls the shots?

Chas: It's not entirely clear. One of the conclusions you might draw from this recent series of events, the attacks on Russia that violate the norm against attacking elements of the nuclear deterrent of a great power, is that in fact we're on autopilot to some extent. A covert program probably hatched by MI6 with the Ukrainians, undoubtedly approved by the CIA during the Biden administration, probably Rishi Sunak in in Britain. Who knows? Just carried over into the Trump administration. There is no evidence that the Trump administration was, in fact, informed of this program or that, if it was, it was able to make its own decision about whether it should go forward or not. And, in fact, the purpose of the attacks seems, in part, to have been to sabotage any prospect of a successful meeting between Russia and Ukraine at Istanbul. Those talks have now been essentially reduced to dealing with technical issues like the exchange of the dead and the exchange of wounded and women who are in the two countries. So peace talks--which the president very much wanted--have been set aside.

The point that Freeman makes that the permanent government continues to operate “on autopilot,” which in reality means that it continues to carry out its favored policies—even when it may contradict presidential policy. This is possible because even top level appointees may not be fully in charge when it comes to agencies like the CIA. I agree that one purpose of the attacks was to sabotage the Istanbul talks, but for reasons that Freeman may not share. Freeman maintains that Trump wants “peace” talks. I maintain that Trump’s use of that word is a subterfuge for his real aims. Trump wants a ceasefire that will weaken Russia and lead Russia into a separation from China via a forced “deal” with Trump. That deal would be sweetened by removal of sanctions. The end result would be a free hand for the Anglo-Zionists to pivot against China. That was Trump’s stated policy in 2016 and there’s no reason to think he has changed his mind. Trump seems to understand that a full scale US war on Russia cannot achieve this, but a “frozen conflict” in Ukraine could be part of the package of coercion to bring that about. So, “peace” is not the goal.

Judge: Do you think that the Kremlin believes--and do you, Ambassador Charles Freeman--finds credible Donald Trump's denials that the United States knew nothing about this?

Chas: Well the United States certainly DID know about it, but whether President Trump knew or not is another question. I think it's entirely plausible given the messy, confrontational nature of the transition between the outgoing Biden regime and the Trump administration that, in fact, knowledge of this operation was not passed on. So I think it's entirely possible that the head of the US government--elected to defend the constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the country was ignorant. He did not know. This says something very bad about the reliability of the United States as a partner for anyone if, in effect, the head of state, the head of government, the president, is trying to do one thing and programs set in motion by his predecessor continue to do something else. Who is in charge? I don't know.

Judge: I would think CIA director Ratcliffe would fire whoever in the agency did this and didn't inform him. I would also think, given his propensity for these public firings, the president might fire Ratcliffe because he ought to have known. I mean, the CIA is a paramilitary organization and they have an obligation to inform their superiors of what they're up to. Here's what the dean of foreign diplomats, Sergey Lavrov, had to say about this yesterday at a conference in Moscow:

Lavrov: "It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible, but it would be absolutely helpless without the support ... of the British, although you never know. Probably some US special forces would be involved in that. But the British are actually behind all those things. I'm 100% sure."

Judge: Well, Lavrov has access to very sophisticated intelligence from one of the world's great and successful intelligence services, the Russian FSB. And he's saying he's 100% sure the British were behind it--and probably the Americans, as well. Do you agree?

Chas: I think he's probably right but one of the issues here goes back to the question of the role of the CIA and our intelligence community. Obviously we have liaison relationships with foreign intelligence services--the Ukrainians [SBU], for example. We also have a very intense relationship with MI6 in Great Britain. Part of the liaison relationship should be to inform the CIA or, if CIA is not informed, for it to ascertain through its own efforts what other foreign intelligence services are up to and foreign militaries. Ukraine has said it did not inform the United States of what it did in in these attacks. That suggests that the US - Ukrainian intelligence liaison relationship is not what it should be. But more importantly, MI6 has a relationship with CIA which goes back to the dawn of the CIA's creation. Much of the law of espionage, intelligence analysis, and so on that the United States has developed was developed under British tutelage. So we should know about these things, and the fact that we didn't is pretty dismaying.

Judge: Yesterday when I was talking with Alastair Crooke--who's experienced in many of these things--I asked him who he thought was calling the shots in American foreign policy. He was bemoaning the presence of senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal in Kiev--patting President Zelensky on the back and encouraging him and making all sorts of promises. One of which is this bizarre boast that they both were making--though mainly Senator Graham--that they have legislation co-signed by 80 senators--veto proof, if they can get the same proportion in the House--to force the president's hand, compel him to impose secondary sanctions on Russia. Meaning that any country who bought products from Russia or sold products to Russia would also be sanctioned. Alastair was bemoaning that this is an improper interference in foreign policy which, under the constitution, devolves on the president. I asked him the same question I asked you: Who is running American foreign policy? Here's the answer he gave:

Crooke: "He's terrified of the Senate with 80% of the Senate opposed either to the Iran deal or to his deal for normalization with Russia--they want an escalation. This is very dangerous. So, 'Who's in charge of foreign policy?' the Russians may be asking themselves. Well, not President Trump. It will be split up between the Deep State, the Congress, and Israel."

Judge: Deep State, the Congress, and Israel. I suspect you agree.

Chas: I do. I think if I were a foreign ambassador in Washington and was asked to analyze that question, I would make a number of comments. First I think the United States is in a pre-revolutionary situation. There's widespread dissatisfaction, the laws are being broken, the legitimacy of the government is in question. The operation of the federal system is broken, the policy process is chaotic and, as Alastair indicated, well, you go back to the Federalist Papers, one of them, I think written by Alexander Hamilton, argues very cogently that the legislature should not be in charge of foreign policy because of the fickle nature of legislative decisions. This should be a matter of discretion primarily for the president, and the constitution does give the president primary authority in foreign affairs. It's his decision whether to recognize a country or not, whether to receive foreign emissaries or not, to appoint ambassadors subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and our constitutional system is not functioning on many, many levels. So of course everybody abroad is confused.

I am of the opinion that confusion about American policy on the part of foreign countries is not a good thing—not good for America. Trump’s tariff shock and awe strategy, which in my understanding was intended to stampede the world into making rash and ill considered “deals” with the US, has failed in its main effort. Trump may still do some deals, but the biggest player, China, remains “very tough” to deal with. Further, the intent was a stampede, not a gradual trickle—because America’s fiscal and political situation requires a quicker fix. The seeming failure of this strategy introduces further confusion and uncertainty into our relations with other countries, and that in turn affects the reserve status of the USD. Which affects domestic policy and politics. And none of this confusion and uncertainty assists Trump’s efforts to deal with our major strategic opponents—opponents largely of our own making: Russia, China, Iran.

Look for lots of turmoil incoming.