Whose Court Is The Ball In?

We’re in a global war on the rest of the world—we, being the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That reality of a global conflict means that most of the moving parts interact with one another, making for great complexity. Trump has attempted to break through the complexity by adopting the Israeli style of negotiation—at least publicly. That involves announcing an unacceptable “peace” offer, followed by the admonition: If you don’t accept the unacceptable that means you’re against peace—the ball’s in your court now. It’s never really that simple and the other sides in the conflict are likely to instead push back in some way.

Today we hear from Trump that he’ll be speaking to Putin tomorrow about divvying up Ukrainian assets.

Trump-Putin To Hold Tuesday Call On 'Ending War In Ukraine, Dividing Certain Assets'

"We will be talking about land. We will be talking about power plants," Trump said when asked by a reporters about concessions. "I think we have a lot of it already discussed very much by both sides, Ukraine and Russia. We are already talking about that, dividing up certain assets."

Trump's special envoy who met with Putin in Moscow last week, Steve Witkoff, has said that the Russian president "accepts the philosophy" of Trump’s ceasefire. Still, the Kremlin has repeatedly said it will not accept anything that's a short-term solution.

This morning, as recounted by Gilbert Doctorow, the Russians have reiterated their firm position:

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko and Russia’s terms for a cease fire

Grushko’s coming forward a day ago to restate the Russian position on its hard terms for entering into peace negotiations demonstrates that the Ministry, on instructions from Vladimir Putin, is firm and unwavering in its demands, namely neutrality for Ukraine, territorial concessions to acknowledge Russian annexation of the Donbas and Novaya Rossiya oblasts, no foreign troops or infrastructure in Ukraine. …

… the Russians are uninterested in a 30-day ceasefire for a variety of reasons I set out below. They insist on entering at once into talks for a durable peace on terms that respect their security concerns.

How can these two positions—which seem so far apart—be brought closer together? That’s a real problem. One way, as set forth by Alastair Crooke late last week, would be to have elections in Ukraine to remove Zelensky. But this morning, speaking with Judge Nap, Crooke stated that he sees no sign whatsoever of any prospect of preparations for that. Further, Crooke adamantly maintained that—from his own experience of arranging five Israeli-Palestinian ceasefires—none of the elaborate and necessary preparation involved in any ceasefire has been undertaken.

A further complication is the fact that, by most reliable estimates, no fewer than 7000 Ukrainian military personnel are currently encircled in Kursk, along with something like 30 fairly high level NATO personnel who have been directing the combat for Ukraine. Trump has pleaded with Putin to let them all go, but that’s not going to happen.

That brings us to MK Bhadrakumar’s discussion of Trump’s attack on Yemen and fairly hair raising threats against a key ally—that seems to be the correct word—of Russia and China: Iran.

Trump hypes up tensions with Iran

MKB’s take is that Trump has been outmaneuvered, landing the ball back on his side of the court with no obviously credible alternatives moves. The move against the Houthis appears to be an attempt to intimidate Iran into entering “negotiations” to neuter itself. Here’s what’s going on.

Recently I noted two current developments. One was the naval exercises of Russia, China, and Iran in the Arabian Sea, on the approaches to the Persian Gulf. The other was a major meeting on nuclear issues by the same three countries in Shanghai. MKB provides the context that I was unaware of.

First, Iran has rejected Trump’s efforts to force negotiations:

Trump’s belligerence [toward Yemen and Iran] came within two days of a visit by Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, to Tehran on Thursday to hand over a letter from Trump addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s support to resistance groups. Tehran remains open to nuclear talks but has rejected any linkage with its regional policies.

Trump’s demand was for Iran to bargain away its sovereignty. Not likely. Iran’s response has been that if Trump wants a nuclear agreement with Iran he shouldn’t have torn up the JCPOA—a pretty unanswerable riposte. Russia has sided with Iran on these issues (a bit more below). The following attack on Yemen was coupled with a threat to Iran by Trump. Not only did Iran reject these threats but Russia also rejected Trump’s resort to military force:

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in a readout on Saturday, stated that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Lavrov and informed him about the US decision to attack the Houthis. It said Lavrov, in response, “emphasised the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance of all parties engaging in political dialogue to find a solution that prevents further bloodshed.” Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t it? On March 15, Trump forfeited the moral ground to be leading with peace through strength in his foreign policy.

This can’t be helpful in normalizing relations with Russia.

What’s behind all this? The bigger background is the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action):

an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions. The agreement was finalized in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations S.C.—China, France, Russia, the U.K., U.S.—plus Germany) together with the European Union.

Of course, Trump unilaterally trashed that during Trump 1.0, having been paid to do so by the Israel Lobby. The JCPOA expires in October. With that in mind, Trump is attempting to strong arm the other UN Security Council members into claiming that Iran has violated the JCPOA. That would allow for a resumption of sanctions. However, since the the JCPOA was an agreement between the Security Council and Iran, any Security Council member can veto such a move. That’s what the Shanghai nuclear meeting was about. Russia and China are solidly in Iran’s corner, so Trump has been frustrated in his Grand Reset schemes. That’s the background for Trump’s threats of unilateral military action against Iran—a very bad idea.

… Trump faces multiple challenges at the diplomatic level over the Iranian nuclear issue with Tehran, Moscow and Beijing coordinating their approaches in the crucial six-month period ahead and Tehran giving confusing signals over Trump’s letter to Khamenei. Trump cannot be pleased with the developing situation on the diplomatic track and some pressure tactic becomes necessary against Iran. Simply put, Trump’s egocentric mind took the easy route of punching the Houthis so hard to send an indirect message to Tehran (and Moscow and Beijing) that he is not to be trifled with.

Indeed, Moscow has lately waded into the Iran nuclear issue and is positioning itself for a mediatory role potentially. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently came out against attaching extraneous issues (eg., verifiable arrangements by Tehran to ensure the cessation of its support for resistance groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) to the nuclear negotiations. Lavrov said frankly, “Such a thing is unlikely to yield results.”

Lavrov has also emphasised Moscow’s support for Tehran’s basic stance that any resumption of US-Iran negotiations ought to be stemming from the 2015 nuclear deal known as the JCPOA which carries the approval of the UN Security Council (which of course Trump tore up in 2018.)

What this looks like is that Trump, while trying to put an end to his war on Russia in Ukraine, is setting the US up for an even more dangerous war against the Russia-China-Iran combination. Having started that ball downhill by attacking Yemen, while our ISIS/HTS proxies are now attacking Lebanon, one wonders whether there’s an off ramp.