Tucker: We are moving toward confrontation with Iran. That should worry everybody, but it should especially concern the president’s supporters. If President Trump decides to go to war with Iran, it will destroy his presidency, just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Tucker: An Iran war would destroy Trump's presidency
Could Trump be talking ultra tough to get a better deal with Iran like he did with North Korea, or could this blow out of control as the military-industrial complex would like as it would be good for sales?
Tucker: We are moving toward confrontation with Iran. That should worry everybody, but it should especially concern the president’s supporters. If President Trump decides to go to war with Iran, it will destroy his presidency, just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
Tucker: We are moving toward confrontation with Iran. That should worry everybody, but it should especially concern the president’s supporters. If President Trump decides to go to war with Iran, it will destroy his presidency, just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-07-25/saudis-halt-oil-shipments-via-bab-el-mandeb-strait-after-attack
Iran trying to close shipping lanes:
“Saudi Arabia took the extraordinary measure of temporarily halting oil shipments via the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a key shipping lane for crude at the southern tip of the Red Sea, after it said two tankers were attacked by Yemen’s Houthi militia.”
First of all, we have to see what the deal with North Korea turns out to be. NK isn't going to give up its nuclear capability. Denuclearisation apparently means something else to NK. Meanwhile NK is making a lot of friends with SK, leaving the US looking increasingly hostile to a deal to reunite Korea.
As for Iran, Trump would need Iran to go out of its way to do something so outrageous that it would require war. Iran has been too savvy for decades, refusing to play Washington's game. This issue will continue bubbling away, leaving Iran to enter some economic arrangement with China, Russia and central Asia, and the wackos in Washington will have blown yet another geopolitical card. China is a long way from overtaking the US as the acknowledged superpower, but Washington does have an uncanny knack of shooting itself in the foot. Either they're all wackos or they're Manchurian candidates. Given what the Washington elites are doing to their own countrymen, it's safe to say they're ideological wackos who'll turn the country into Somalia 2.0 if they don't blow up the world before then.
Iran trying to close shipping lanes:
Not. The Yemenis have been threatening to do this in retaliation for the Saudi's attempt to starve them out (as in old time siege).
BTW, economic sanctions are about starving out as in old time siege of fortresses, which is why it is economic warfare.
It's just reason for kinetic response under the law of war.
it's safe to say they're ideological wackos who'll turn the country into Somalia 2.0 if they don't blow up the world before then.
That's what hubris will do for (to) you.
And hubris sends out a call to Nemesis automatically.
Tom, it's not a cliche: there really is nothing new under the sun. Ancient civilizations have seen it all before, and humans being what we are can't help but repeat the errors we so sneeringly laugh at when we read it in a history book. Unfortunately the Nemesis of today makes those of yesteryear look like the proverbial tea party. If Americans don't do something soon and, to use a loaded phrase, "take their country back", they're going to be in a world of pain.
Right. The corollary to, "There is nothing new under the sun," is, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
The Nemesis of today is Nemesis on steroids.
Of course, Americans don't think that the lessons of history apply to them because "American exceptionalism" — as in, "This time it's different." We know how that generally ends.
Trump probably sees a nice trading relationship where the gulf sends the West oil and the West sends food and military tech/training leading to a balanced trade result...
If this is his vision for business there and the Iranians can be seen to threaten this physically then imo this is what he is warning them about in his tweets...
Will be interesting to see how he reacts... ie whether he would consider these Yemeni proxies for Iran and then counterpunch Iran directly...
John you are BOTH biased anti-war AND anti-Trump where Tom is just biased anti-war but not anti-Trump...
Bloomberg back on this again today:
https://twitter.com/business/status/1023901877543550976?s=21
Start looking for spin where Iran is illustrated/positioned as physically threatening international commerce in these sea lanes...
Here he may be setting something up for a future response:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/07/08/trump-says-harassment-of-us-ships-by-iran-has-ended/amp/
So all the harassment has ended sooooooo if it starts up again then what?
Might be a BIIIIIIIIIGGG counterpunch being set up...
Trump probably sees a nice trading relationship where the gulf sends the West oil and the West sends food and military tech/training leading to a balanced trade result...
That's the deal already. The sell oil and the US sells them military equipment and sundries.
But the US doesn't import much petroleum from the ME. The US is a major producer and so is Canada.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=oil_imports
John you are BOTH biased anti-war AND anti-Trump where Tom is just biased anti-war but not anti-Trump...
I am not anti-war actually. I agree that war may be necessary for national defense. Every sovereign nation is duty-bound to provide for the national defense adequately, but only adequately, and not for chiefly with at eye to offense.
What I object to war as either foreign adventurism of as a matter of choice rather than necessity. Specifically I am against war to promote either liberal internationalism, neo-imperialism, or "national interest" when it doesn't involve a direct threat to the nation.
I also oppose foreign entanglements, especially through military treaties in "collective self-defense." That's what led to WWI, which none of the participants actually wanted, other than maybe Great Britain. It was one of those unfortunate causal chains. Nato has served its purpose and should be disbanded. Admitting Colombia to NATO is just nuts.
So regarding current US foreign and military policy, I am anti-war. That policy needs to be changed and DJT more or less promised to change it in focusing on American First, in the Jacksonian sense, by abandoning the previously dominant Wilsonianism of the US.
I don't think that the US elite want to engage Iran in a war. Makes no sense geostrategically.
The goal is regime change through economic strangulation.
However, Iran's response may be kinetic, which would force the US to respond kinetically.
But Trump is still favoring creating a Sunni NATO against Shi'ite Iran. That is unlikely to happen as far as I can see. They want to hold Uncle Sam's coat while he does the fighting.
After all he has said about the foolishness of getting involved in Iraq as a war of choice, I doubt he would be fool enough to repeat the one of the greatest strategic mistakes the US has ever made in the eyes of many experts in the relevant fields.
My view is that DJT is using the typical New Yorker m. o. of bullying in negotiation to get the best deal. Iran knows this since it is a ME m.o. too.
So what we are seeing is the same bluster as between DJT and "Rocket Man" before they made and became BFF.
The difference is that Kim wanted a deal and was already in the process of cutting one with SK under the new administration there. so this was going to happen in some form anyway.
Nothing like that going on in Iran.
Hope so Tom but you have to wonder what Trump’s breaking point is here ...
I’m thinking if they physically effect US trade he will lose it... but they might have to actually hit a ship first.. for him to be seen as “counter puncher” ... so ball is in Iran’s court... if Iran never does anything physically to provoke Trump he won’t do anything other than like you say sanctions etc...
Hopefully he leaves it to SA tobdeal with Yemen themselves...
Apparently hominoids living north of the African Rift were violent because of scarcity of food (due to water) and east of the rift peaceful because an availability of food (due to water) - water availability due to climate change caused by shifting of the tectonic plates.
So, no anti-war / pro-war bias there – just the pressure of resources.
That is, humans too are naturally peaceful, unless interfered with and deprived of food and water.
just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush
Bush did two full terms, so I don't see how Iraq "destroyed his presidency". Every president since JFK has been a turd-puppet, and each one is worse than the last. Clinton was arguably the worst president in history - until that time.
Hope so Tom but you have to wonder what Trump’s breaking point is here ...
I don't know that he has a breaking point anymore after getting carried away a couple of times with poor results. I think he will be weighing consequences and only be forced into action if he thinks it expedient.
I hope I am not wrong about this. But the military will also be advising him, and the military is under no illusions about taking on Iran. Iran is not Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria, and it a much greater challenge than Vietnam was. They are going to tell him that there is no easy way to do this and it could develop into another quagmire for the US.
That doesn't mean that US won't bomb the Iranian suspected nuclear facilities though. Iran will definitely respond but likely asymmetrically — like cyberwarfare, to which the US infrastructure is known to vulnerable.
Frankly, Trump would be crazy to go there. There is little upside for the US and a huge potential downside. In addition, he has to take into his calculation the polling that shows US voters opposed to war in Iran over the nuclear deal.
If Trump is going to go for Iran, then he needs to pull another Iraq, but the public is now wary of being put on.
Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz, choking off oil supplies and causing a recession that would make 2009 look like a wild party.
This just out:
https://twitter.com/usnavy/status/1024064103395065856?s=21
“critical to ensuring the safety of sea-lanes and security on the world's oceans. #NavyLethality”
Bush did two full terms, so I don't see how Iraq "destroyed his presidency". Every president since JFK has been a turd-puppet, and each one is worse than the last. Clinton was arguably the worst president in history - until that time.
Bush lost the GOP to the "deplorables," must to the consternation of the GOP establishment. Jeb is off the table for the foreseeable future, probably forever.
While Bush is regaining some favorably recently, he did not venture out in public for years and he still doesn't very much. He has no voice in the Party, which is unusual for ex-presidents.
Carter doesn't either but that is largely as a result of his progressive turn.
Bill lost establishment control of the Dems, too, with freshman senator Barack Obama beating the Clinton machine to take the nomination from Hill, who was supposed to be a shoe-in.
Obama turned out to be another Clinton clone though. The reason for this is interesting.
On one hand, the tell was that he speedy rise in Democratic politics was due to Chicago money. But there's much more to it. and it begins long before Obama, when O was only about 10.
Nixon trounced McGovern for his second term in 1972. (Obama was born in 1961.) That fiasco ended progressives in the Dem Party since then.
The strategy was to move to the right and capture the center. Conservative Southerner Carter was the next Dem president, followed by conservative Southerner Bill Clinton, who tacked further right. This was also HRC's campaign strategy against Obama and Trump also.
Obama beat out HRC by feigning enough progressive blood to woo progressive voters, then revealed his true colors by immediately appointing Rahm as his chief of staff, poking progressives in the eye. Then when he was interviewed by Rachel Maddow, he denied having progressive leanings and went on to govern more conservatively than Bill.
Why has the Dem establishment stuck with this for so long? Not just because of McGovern anymore.
Now it is based on the belief that campaigns are so expensive that they need to court the donors, and guess who has the $. So the Dem party has become the party of Wall Street, which, of course, began when Bill appointed Robert Rubin treasury sec.
Don't forget what Reagan did upon losing a couple of hundred US troops in Lebanon. He wisely cut and ran. No doubt that DJT remembers this.
1983 Beirut barracks bombings
“That is, humans too are naturally peaceful, unless interfered with and deprived of food and water“
JR,
Ravi Batra has 1/4 of mankind in a Warrior class... and we’ve been in surplus conditions since after the flood... today we (US anyway) throws out like half of our food yet US can be seen going to war often...
It’s like a human demonstration of dialectic method “thesis v anti thesis” where you have military A as ‘thesis’ and military B as ‘anti thesis’ and they fight it out A vs B... been that way forever...
Trump may have his eyes on Iraq’s market share...
They provide like 2mbpd so Trump May be thinking US can replace them in the market place and reduce US trade deficit to the nations Iran supplies like China Japan Korea India.. ... Trump will appeal to them to buy US oil instead of Iran’s...
If Iran instead physically threatens US to stay away from their current business then Trump might lose his shit...
Think like rival street gangs warring over territory...
Now CFR from 5 hours ago:
https://www.cfr.org/blog/free-flow-oil-strait-hormuz-and-policing-international-sea-lanes
Something might be cooking...
The ROW is already getting suspicious that Trump's using sanctions and other strong arm tactics chiefly to benefit US capital — which he is.
I don't think he cares about this being realized, but it will have consequences.
RaviB is observing the ‘what’ but not the ‘why’ Matt.
The warrior class were meant to defend the nation: – for example, when the tsunami strikes, famine or sickness arrives. Defend the helpless. That is strength. If you want to be strong, be kind. Not interfere with another nation.
This is because a human being has a heart.
Now people may ignore the heart and follow mind (concepts, egotism, me me me ...). Look at where that has taken us. People who listen to the human heart follow ‘Us’. The whole human race is us. Celebrate humanity! No classes – celebrate capability, diversity, beauty. The essence of a human being is the heart and the heart is very peaceful. This is why the Indians have a story about the good wolf and bad wolf in man. We get to choose. We have been choosing badly. Warriors defend truth.
‘A’ and ‘B’ battle in the mind. The heart is far above them all. The heart allows the mind to be still; appreciate what is there, in reality – not someone’s ideology. From the heart springs gratitude.
If I throw out my surplus food, I still have plenty left. There is no logical connection between this state and a nation without food. Try starving your family and see what happens.
Remember how to feel and your thinking, like a compass, will swing around.
It is the heart that is the essence of a human being.
“This is why the Indians have a story about the good wolf and bad wolf in man. “
That’s just the dialectic.. good wolf is ‘thesis’ and bad wolf is ‘anti thesis’.... they fight it out ...
Genesis account the man and woman both ate from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ where ‘good’ is thesis and ‘evil’ is anti thesis... thus in a philosophic context the dialectic (scriptural satanism) entered into man and mankind... and with it death..
Iirc Paul “thru one man sin entered and thru sin death thus death entered into all mankind on which all sinned” ... death would have to be literally abolished for this to change..
To your point though we were interfered with by the serpent here with his lies (“you shall be as God, knowing good and evil...” while God in truth is not dialectic) but this is still the way it is...
we have no control over any of this...
it’s a dialectic/satanic era... Paul termed it “the present wicked era” and “man’s day”...
No Matt. It looks like you’re squinting; open the other eye – it’s in perfectly good order.
The heart is not a thesis and neither is our lower nature. These fight in us for supremacy -over us - regardless of our religious, social, economic, or topsy-turvy political mind-centric-entangled-world.
‘Adam’ is a word-symbol for humanity. This battle belongs to ‘Us’.
Choosing is entirely within our control. I think it’s called a ‘window of opportunity’. A challenge!
Dialectic is mind fighting itself. Heart flies like an arrow to its target – it has its own sense of urgency; no time to chew the fat. What the heart seeks is already inside of Adam, but he has to work for it.
Today was a beautiful day here; nothing dialectic of satanic at all as far as I could see. But I didn't take that much notice what Adam was up to though ..... :-) !!
Matt, what the bloody hell are you talking about?
Being anti-war is the default, sane position - unless there is an overwhelmingly good case for it. That's my position. Not no war, but war if there is a reason. Your position is war no matter what the evidence, doubly so if a Republican says it's necessary. That's a sign of psychopathy. Where's your critical reasoning? I'm not willing to subcontract my moral integrity to anyone. You seem happy to do so because of, what, the first five minutes of a civics 101 class taught by a simpleton: America is good and America is run by honest God-fearing people. All the evidence suggests that countries are generally run by a corrupt elite. Notwithstanding that, there still may be a case for war. But is has to be made, not asserted. How anyone can have a problem with that is beyond me.
As for Trump, if Trump does something good, that's fine and I'll say so. If he does something dumb, I say so. Just as I did with Obama. That's called consistency. I'm not tribal and most of the people here aren't tribal. You're the only tribal one here. You should take a page out of Magic Mike Norman's book: he voted for and supported Trump, but isn't tribal and will disagree when need be, which is quite often these days because Trump is obviously unhinged.
John don’t look at me I’m not running this moron-fest I’m just reporting on what is going on...
We’ve always been at war the first one out (Cain) killed the second one out (Abel)... war is often used as analogies in the scriptures it’s a universal concept.... try to get over it already... you’re probably not warrior class is all you’re probably intelligentsia...
I vote GOP because imo they seek the best material outcomes and seem to attract the most technically competent... I’m biased material oriented...
I don’t think Trump will attack Iran without US being physically assaulted by them first... he is a “counter puncher”... Tucker is HEAVY libertarian he shoots guns, talks about gold, etc libertarians are biased anti-war so Tucker is over reacting here ... so it is up to Iran whether this happens or not... if it happens then it is all on Iran...
Trump seems to be starting a transition to hand over the Gulf security or MENA security to those nations themselves which he thinks we can make some munnie off of thru trade of the military systems and support... I’m trying to think what would cause him to lose his shit and thinking he might hold business interests as sacrosanct and might really lose it if business is threatened...
Tucker is a libertarian, hey, hmmm, the more biased anti war people the better!
Matt: "...don’t look at me I’m not running this moron-fest I’m just reporting on what is going on..."
That isn't how you come over. You're always willing to take shots at those who are "anti-war and anti-Trump" rather than saying, "Hmm, the anti-war and anti-Trump crowd have a damn good point on this occasion and the pro-war and pro-Trump, pro-GOP hyper-nationalist crowd are wrong on this occasion". That's being consistent. That doesn't seem to me - or many others here, hence the many confrontations with other MNE readers and contributors - what you do or what you defend. What your detractors see is a blind following of GOP Washington, Trump in particular, hyper-nationalism and blind obedience to the fundamentalist religion called "America" (not your fellow Americans but American power no matter how wrong it is). Whether it's fair or not, that is how you come across. Now you can defend this position, which would be rather brave given everyone here is either diametrically opposed or, at best, think you're defending the indefensible on this occasion. The other option is to be more exact in your wording, and say, "I don't agree with it, but this is what we have to deal with", a "moron-fest", as you nicely put it, but only when forced to do so:)
@ John
I write it off as Trump derangement syndrome. Formerly rational people on all sides are slipping off the deep end. Bizarre.
Post a Comment