You might call Cotton, who is now being touted as the next director of the CIA, the “Trump whisperer.” In fact, according to the Weekly Standard, in a recent meeting with his top national security and foreign policy advisers, “having failed to receive the decertification option from his own team, Trump called Senator Tom Cotton and put him on speakerphone. The president asked Cotton to make the case for decertifying the Iran deal. Cotton took five minutes and walked Trump and his team through the case, emphasizing one point in particular: re-certifying the deal would be declaring that it was in the national security interest of the United States, something Cotton understood that Trump didn’t believe.”
The Weekly Standard report added that Trump “left the phone call” convinced that the decision to decertify was “the right one.”
Got that? The reality TV star who now occupies the Oval Office defied the advice of his own inner circle, including Defense Secretary James Mattis; ignored the pleas of America’s closest allies; and dismissed the evidence offered by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the deal. Instead, he decided to go with the advice of a 40-year-old freshman senator from Arkansas, who has zero expertise in Middle East diplomacy and none in the field of nuclear proliferation.Probably not just Tom Cotton. I suspect that Trump had already made up his mind and Cotton was just a cover. But the fact Trump chose Cotton for this is indicative.
I’ve published several posts on the topic, with the most popular one titled, Prepare for Impact – This is the Beginning of the End for U.S. Empire. Here’s an excerpt:Krieger zeroes in on über-hawks Tom Cotton and Nikki Haley. He sees Cotton as the major foreign policy influence on the president, more influential the the generals, and Haley as likely to replace Tillerson if he leaves the administration, which seems increasingly likely.This is not the sort of thing you see in a confident, brave, and civilized nation, it’s the sort of stuff you’d expect to see toward the end. It’s the stuff of craven war-mongers, of dishonest cowards, of a totally deranged and very dangerous media. The signs are everywhere; imperial decline is set to accelerate rapidly in the coming years…
Tom Cotton is as dangerous a war hawk as exists in America today.…
Tom Cotton might actually be the most dangerous person in the entire U.S. Senate (which is saying a lot), so the fact he’s become so cozy with Trump on foreign policy is extremely dangerous....
I’m glad Nikki Haley came up, as she’s a certified grade-A maniac and bloodthirsty neocon. While she’s dangerous enough at the U.N., there’s talk that she could ultimately replace Tillerson as Secretary of State. Any combination of Cotton and Haley moving into increased prominence within the Trump circle of influence effectively guarantees more disastrous war in the Middle East....I wouldn't limit that to the Middle East.
Tom Cotton's eagerness to revive torture should banish the idea that maybe Trump won't be all that badWhen the US does it, it is not torture, you see.
Like most hawks, Cotton minimizes the costs and duration of military action, he ignores the likely consequences, and he treats an attack on Iran as cavalierly as possible. The comparison with Desert Fox is laughable. That operation took place years after the U.S. had already destroyed Iraqi defenses, which clearly isn’t the case with Iran. Cotton further misleads the public to think that the only thing that can qualify as war with Iran is a scenario involving “150,000 heavy mechanized troops on the ground.” It is the Iran hawks that want the public to think that a major ground invasion is the only thing that can be called war, which allows them to advocate for a different kind of war against Iran while pretending that they don’t favor war. They don’t want to face the potential political cost of warmongering, so they pretend that they are advocating for something that isn’t “really” war. But, of course, war is exactly what they’re demanding.If McCain had been elected instead of Obama in 2008, the US would already be deeply enmeshed in war with Iran.
Those members of Congress don’t arrive at their positions on issues related to Iran through discussion and debate among themselves. They are given their marching orders by AIPAC lobbyists, and time after time, they sign the letters and vote for legislation or resolution that they are given, as former AIPAC lobbyist MJ Rosenberg has recalled. This Israeli exercise of control over Congress on Iran and issues of concern to Israel resembles the Soviet direction of its satellite regimes and loyal Communist parties more than any democratic process, but with campaign contributions replacing the inducements that kept its bloc allies in line.
Rosenberg has reasoned that AIPAC must have drafted the letter and handed it to Senator Cotton. “Nothing happens on Capitol Hill related to Israel,” he tweets, “unless and until Howard Kohr (AIPAC chief) wants it to happen. Nothing.” AIPAC apparently supported the letter, but there may be more to the story. Senator Cotton just happens to be a protégé of neoconservative political kingpin Bill Kristol, whose Emergency Committee on Israel gave him nearly a million dollars late in his 2014 Senate campaign and guaranteed that Cotton would have the support of the four biggest funders of major anti-Iran organisations.Let's the GOP leadership in the House invites Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without informing the White House, and a freshman senator writes a letter that GOP senators sign onto throwing a spanner in White House negotiations with Iran. Just before the Israeli election, in which Netanyahu is hard pressed. Coincidence, right?
