The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Boxed in by Neocons and the Media, Will Trump Launch Iran War?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

President Trump did the smart thing last week by calling off a US airstrike on Iran over the downing of an American spy drone near or within Iranian territorial waters. According to press reports, the president over-ruled virtually all his top advisors – Bolton, Pompeo, and Haspel – who all wanted another undeclared and unauthorized US war in the Middle East.

Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to completely destroy another country’s economy; when you position military assets right offshore of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a campaign of “maximum pressure,” to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.

Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes, sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.

The media are also a big part of the problem. The same media that praised Trump as “presidential” when he fired rockets into Syria on what turned out to be false claims that Assad gassed his own people, has been attacking Trump for not bombing Iran. From Left to Right – with one important exception – the major media is all braying for war. Why? They can afford to cheer death and destruction because they will not suffer the agony of war. Networks will benefit by capturing big ratings and big money and new media stars will be born.

President Trump has said he does not want to be the one to start a new war in the Middle East. He seemed to prove that by avoiding the urgings of his closest advisors to attack Iran. It is hard to imagine a president having top advisors who work at cross-purposes to him, planning and plotting their wars – and maybe more – behind his back. Even Trump seems to recognize that his national security advisor is not really serving his administration well. Over the weekend he said in an interview, “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay?”

I think when you have a national security advisor who wants to fight the whole world at once, you have a problem. Does anyone believe we will be more secure after spending a few trillion more dollars and making a few hundred million more enemies? What does “victory” even look like?

President Trump is in a bind and it is of his own making. Iran has shown that it is not willing to take its marching orders from Washington, which means “maximum pressure” from the US will not work. He has two options remaining in that case: risk it all by launching a war or make a gesture toward peace. A war would ruin his presidency – and a lot more. I would urge the president to issue waivers to China, India, Turkey, and the others who wish to continue buying Iranian oil and invite the Iranian leadership to meet at a neutral location. And fire Bolton and Pompeo.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You can have retaliation, but it has to be like for like. I don’t see why the US should not shoot down an Iranian drone over the East River, for example.

  2. It is very hard for nations to avoid war when core interests clash. President Trump may not want war, but he ‘is in a bind’. He wouldn’t be the first leader in history facing this dilemma. Launch the attack or make a gesture for peace? The latter might avert disaster, or it might not, forcing a return to the first option. National interests are very important to states, but they tend to lead them eventually into the very conflict they need to avoid. Tehran and Washington must find a way out of this bind: it has all the potential of escalating into global conflict – world war – which is in nobody’s interest.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @anastasia
  3. Realist says:

    He seemed to prove that by avoiding the urging s of his closest advisors to attack Iran.

    Then why does Trump hire the dumb bastards???

    • Replies: @Precious
  4. Beb says:

    The last sentence of the article is EXCELLENT common sense advice. I pray that the President will take it.

  5. I actually heard a Florida congressman a macho man about whom it is reported that he was a hard charging Green Beret in Afghanistan,say we have to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them here.
    Those Florida goyim are heavy duty shabbos!

    • Replies: @Markster
  6. @peter mcloughlin

    What are you talking about? Iran has existential interests here, the US has… Israeli interests…. There’s NO comparison.

  7. Precious says:

    Then why does Trump hire the dumb bastards???

    You didn’t send in your resume, so he had to pick from what was left.

  8. “And fire Bolton and Pompeo”

    Ummm, you left out another that deserves firing, Gina Haspel, the torturing CIA Director.

  9. Markster says:
    @Father O'Hara

    The Green Beret is absolutely right Father and the reason is obvious. They aren’t doing a good job there so won’t do any better here. Better there than here. It is entertaining that Green Berets, who are “tough and highly trained”and also ” in the best and most technologically advanced army in the world” are unable to prevail against goat herders wearing dresses and rubber slippers and using motorbikes. I know some of these types who tout the fact that they were among the 10% chosen for the Special Forces. Politeness forces me to appear impressed and interested. So again, I am glad they are there !

  10. anastasia says:

    People are not looking at our withdrawal from that agreement with Iran properly. The agreement was made by Obama. Trump complained ONLY about the amount of money spent by Obama (although it is questionable that the money was paid as a part of that agreement, or merely to settle an old case Iran had vs. the US which would have otherwise cost trillions by the US).

    It was the money, although Trump did say he “could have made a better deal.”

    But the salient point is that when Trump withdrew from this agreement, he knew he would not get that money back, so why did he do it? The only performance left on that contract was not by the US, but by Iran. They were the party to the contract that had yet to perform. So, when Trump pulled out of the agreement, he freed Iran from it’s obligation of performance on the contract.

    Does it make any sense at all?

    By withdrawing from the contract, Trump was now free to sanction Iran, which it did. Sanction and blockades is what FDR did to the Japanese hoping against hope that Japan would attack the US, which it had no choice and did. This county has been using sanctions for the same purpose – to provoke – since then, eg. Iraq and now Iran.

    Trump withdrew from the contract so that he could sanction and provoke, and for the same reason, he allowed a drone to go over Iranian waters. Who does Trump think he is kidding. Certainly not me. Elect Trump and his lunatic administration again, and war with Iran is insured.

  11. anastasia says:
    @peter mcloughlin

    They deliberately got themselves into a “bind” by withdrawing from a contract wherein the only party who had to perform on it was Iran. This is all deliberate action by the US. They are deliberately putting themselves on the road to war. And it is not as if we have not seen this before. We have been seeing it since WWII, and the latest episode was in Iraq. They tried to provoke that country with sanctions, and when they were not successful, they were forced to make up out of whole cloth a story about “weapons of mass destruction. ” Your memory is short. As Putin said many years ago. “It does not matter who is elected, what his campaign promises were, or how sincerely he made those promises, as soon as they get in office, it is the same policy.”

    Trump is doing NOTHING different than the last four Presidents. Nothing at all.

  12. anastasia says:

    He was hired at the recommendation of Israel. He will not be fired.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS