Thursday, May 24, 2018

Gareth Porter — Bolton Trying to Convince Trump to Topple Iran

It appears that Bolton was still pushing the idea within the administration earlier this month. The Washington Free Beacon reported on May 10 that a three-page paper outlining a regime-change strategy from a small far-right organisation called the Security Studies Group, with which Bolton is said to have close ties, was circulated among NSC officials. The quotes from the paper in the story make it clear that the strategy is based largely on seeking to exploit ethnic and religious conflicts in Iran.

The paper reportedly makes the point that ethnic minorities – such as Kurds, Azeris, Ahwazi Arabs and Baloch – represent one-third of Iran’s population, and argues that the Iranian regime’s “oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created he conditions for an effective campaign to splinter the Iranian state into component parts”.
It adds: “U.S. support for their independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.”

Those minorities have all had organisations that have carried out violent actions, including bombings and assassinations against Iranian officials, over the past decade, and such a strategy would presumably involve supporting a step-up in such activities – in other words, U.S. support for terrorist activities against Iranian government targets.…

What could go wrong — again!

Consortium News
Bolton Trying to Convince Trump to Topple Iran
Gareth Porter

See also

Econospeak
Iran Responds to Plan B
J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics and Business Administration James Madison University

14 comments:

lastgreek said...

So ... I guess we can look forward to an increase of US/Israeli provocations against Iran to suck them into a war.

Maybe "suck into a war" is the wrong choice of words. I mean, there is only so much humiliation a country can take before it eventually decides to fight back, right?

By fighting back, and correct me if I am wrong Tom, it would probably mean the Iranians blowing up the US fleet in the Str. of Hormuz. Would the US government/Joint Chief of Staffs be willing to take such losses?

Personally, I wish the broad-mustachioed Bolton would convince the "broad-shouldered" Trump to topple Canada. (They can use the stalled NAFTA talks as an excuse.) You see, I reckon an American invasion will eventually lead to some sort of political integration of Canada by the US. That's good news for me as I have been trying to figure out a way to get my ass down to Virginia or the Carolinas. Couldn't care less about the northeast: because NORTH -- *brrrr* -- east; the mid-west has no coastline, ergo no beaches; Florida is too bloody humid, and the west is just too damn far -- not to mention that I don't like the thought of always being 3 hours behind everyone to the right of me... Trivia: most Canadian NHL hockey players (probably at the behest of their spouses, no doubt) retire to Virginia or the Carolinas :)

lastgreek said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lastgreek said...

Just to add,

I wonder if Dunford has the mettle to say to the orange buffoon, "Attack Iran? Not on my f---ing watch." Of course I am thinking of Dunford's predecessor, General Martin Dempsey.

Trivia: Goofball, and shamelessly sleeping with the hired help, Joe Scarborough had the nerve to call for Dempsey's firing when Dempsey, in Congressional testimony (2012) considered Iran to be a "rational actor." I bet Mika can beat Joe up ;)

Noah Way said...

We should give Bolton an M16 and send him to Iran.

Tom Hickey said...

More likely Iran would take out the Gulf oil fields if attacked and close the Straits of Hormuz. That would drive the oil price through the roof and bringing US allies Europe and Japan to their knees. Russia would be laughing all the way to the bank.

As usual the US leadership handling this is not thinking things through. Hopefully the military will clue them in to the potential downside.

lastgreek said...

He'd dodge Iran the same way he dodged Vietnam ;)

Matt Franko said...

“there is only so much humiliation a country can take before it eventually decides to fight back, right? “

You mean the US right???

lastgreek said...

More likely Iran would take out the Gulf oil fields if attacked and close the Straits of Hormuz. That would drive the oil price through the roof and bringing US allies Europe and Japan to their knees. Russia would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Indeed ... and that the US Navy has no defense against Iran's anti-ship cruise missiles ;)


You mean the US right???


Matt, I bet Netanyahu used that line of "reasoning" on Trump. Then again, considering Trump's abject ignorance and thin skin (more like orange peel), it just might work.

Konrad said...

PART 1 of 2

“Enemies" are the glue that holds an empire together. If no enemies are available, then the empire is compelled to fabricate them, or else deliberately create them via bullying, aggression, and theft.

Within the empire, oligarchs need “enemies” in order to keep the peasants distracted from their slavery. Politicians need “enemies” in order for politicians to “matter.”

(John Bolton needs “enemies” in order to have a job, and avoid having to live in a tent under a bridge.)

From Consortium news: "The paper reportedly makes the point that ethnic minorities – such as Kurds, Azeris, Ahwazi Arabs and Baloch – represent one-third of Iran’s population, and argues that the Iranian regime’s “oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created he conditions for an effective campaign to splinter the Iranian state into component parts.”

Is Iranian society sufficiently divided along ethnic lines for Israel and the West to mount yet another proxy war, as in Syria?

(Incidentally Iran has 100,000 affluent Jews who refuse Israel’s repeated calls for them to move to Palestine, like most Iraqi Jews did. Indeed, between April 1950 and June 1951, Jewish terrorists repeatedly bombed Jews in Baghdad to make Iraqi Jews move to Palestine. The Jewish terrorists blamed their bombing on Arabs, and called their campaign “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.”)

Personally I see Iranian society as divided along economic lines, not ethnic or racial lines. Whether this division is enough for the empire to destroy Iran is debatable.

As I have noted before, it is very difficult (almost impossible) for the Empire to destroy a nation whose people are united. This is why the Empire has not been able to destroy Cuba or North Korea.

Middle East Muslims are very divided, and hence are easily manipulated

Most of the world’s Muslims live in Southeast Asia, where 99% are Sunnis, and all are united in their hatred of Israel. Therefore Israel has little power over them.

(Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf oil sheikhdoms are allies of Israel, but pretend not to be.)

I have noted before that two rival groups grapple for supremacy in Iran: [1] affluent neoliberals, which are Atlanticists, and [2] the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which are nationalists. The 2009 election protests consisted of rich (and wannabe-rich) Atlanticist Iranians protesting against the re-election of President Ahmadinejad, who was a nationalist and a socialist.

The Atlanticists got back into power in August 2013 when President Rouhanitook office. This is why the West entered into the Iran Deal in July 2015. The Iran deal angered Israel and the Saudis, but they could not resist the combined will of Europe and North America. Now Trump’s handlers have submitted to Israel and the Saudis by reneging on the Iran deal.

Continued below

Konrad said...

PART 2 of 2

Trump’s handlers now have two problems regarding Iran. First, Europe will keep the Iran deal in defiance of U.S. and Israeli demands. Second, every act of belligerence toward Iran weakens the Atlanticists, and strengthens the nationalists (just like belligerence toward Russia).

BY THE WAY, Bashar al-Assad was an Atlanticist when he first took office in 2000. His wife was born and raised in London.

Assad’s promise of neoliberal “reforms” made him a darling with Western corporate media outlets. Muammar Gaddafi also went Antlanticist (actually his sons did when Gaddafi formally retired from power in 2003). You recall that Libya ceremoniously discarded all its "WMDs."

Despite Assad and Gaddafi bowing to the Empire, the Empire marked them for elimination because they declined to bow to Israel.

Gaddafi’s sons in Libya, and Assad in Syria, imposed neoliberal “reforms” that benefitted the rich at the expense of the rest. This, combined with a prolonged drought in Syria, created enough social tension in Libya and Syria for the Empire to attack.

Iran too has a prolonged drought, but Iran is a tougher case for the Empire. Libya was socially divided between [1] Benghazi in the east, and [2] Tripoli in the west. Syria was divided between [1] Damascus / Aleppo, and [2] Homs and everywhere else. By contrast, Iran is not clearly divided geographically.

From Consortium news: Despite the neocon fixation with supporting MEK, both the CIA and the Israelis have long regarded the idea that it could be an instrument for regime change in Iran as ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous because no one in Iran, on any side, at any level would tolerate the MEK, which is communist and militant feminist, and which fought alongside Iraq in the 1980-88 war that killed almost half a million Iranians.

Why then is Washington DC rattling its sabers at Iran? Because Washington DC is quite simply insane.

The dying Empire has entered terminal dementia.

Tom Hickey said...

In my view, the die is now cast. It's now almost inevitable that there will be war and the probability it will go nuclear is high.

The question now is whether it begins in the Middle East, North Korea, Ukraine, or the South China Sea.

Noah Way said...

Ukraine is a proxy war, Russia would clean that up quickly if it threatened the motherland. Another land war in Europe? I don't think Europeans are stupid enough (except maybe the Poles).

China has North Korea's back and appears to be running the show there now. The South China Sea is a moderately contentious point but the US has no vital interest there (other than selling weapons and containing China).

Middle East, hands down. The Chosen People are doing everything they can to race toward self-extinction, and they are dragging the US along for the ride.

Tom Hickey said...

We'll see.

Ukraine is expected to attack Donbass shortly now that the weather is not at issue, and NATO is ramping up. Congress just approved upping production of tactical nukes.

The US baiting the Chinese military in the South China Sea.

The NK summit is cancelled.

I would add Venezuela but I don't think that overthrowing the government there would lead to a a world war. All the others would likely lead either to WWIII or at least a lot of hot conflicts, because so many interests are involved.

But once it starts, there's no way of knowing in advance how it is going to unfold or what the outcome will be.

Matt Franko said...

“The Chosen People are doing everything they can to race toward self-extinction”

Not extinction but maybe a good ass kicking.... either would expose the same “end times!” dogmas as falsehoods...

See the previous RCC dogmas on LGBT issues... next thing you know the institution is revealed as a homosexual
pedofile operation....

If all of this “end times!” stuff is false there is only one way to reveal that and I don’t see how it would be in any way favorable for the nation of Israel....

“Beware of false prophets..... By their fruit you will recognize them.” Mat 7

This is the way truth works... including the collateral damage to humans... get over it...