Source – paulcraigroberts.org
– “…Trump’s appalling decisions and explanations are largely a product of the vulnerable position he has been put in by three years of CIA, FBI, and Democratic Party efforts to remove him from the presidency. Now that vulnerability has shifted to his opponents, unless they physically assassinate him, Trump may yet prevail with his peace agenda”
SM:…The ‘Realpolitik’ behind the strategies & tactics employed in the Middle East asymmetrical quagmire…
The State of the Iranian Crisis – By Paul Craig Roberts
Readers are asking my take on the Iranian retaliation and Trump’s response. I think a deal might have been arranged between Washington and Tehran via a third party. The Iranian attack resulted in no US casualties. Thus, it serves both Iran’s purpose of retaliating and Trump’s purpose of interpreting the Iranian retaliation to be, in effect, a stand down. Possibly Trump will apply “crippling sanctions” as a cover for withdrawal from most of the Middle East. Iran wants the US out, and Trump’s original intention was to withdraw before Russiagate forced him to stay. Thus, both Trump and Iran have a common interest in US withdrawal.
(Also Read: My (rare) Dissent from The Saker’s Latest Assessment of the Iranian Situation – By Paul Craig Roberts @ https://thesaker.is/my-rare-dissent-from-the-sakers-latest-assessment-of-the-iranian-situation/)
Although the Iranian missiles killed no one, they did demonstrate to Israel that the Iranian missiles have pin point accuracy. As Israel is a small land area, the accuracy of Iranian missiles possibly has changed Israel’s mind about provoking a war. If Israel also stands down, perhaps the crisis is over.
On the other hand, the neoconservatives will be unhappy. They see chaos in Iran as a way of spreading instability into the Russian Federation. The military/security complex will be unhappy as US withdrawal would downsize their profits. US oil interests will be unhappy to lose the Iraqi oil.
Trump is in a better position now to stand up to these powerful interests. The war scare has introduced a sobering element.
Republican senators have urged Trump to de-escalate. Russia, China, and Turkey have spoken against any escalation. The Barr-Durham investigation of the role of the military/security complex and Obama regime in orchestrating the “Russiagate” hoax brings a sense of vulnerability to the CIA, FBI, and Obama Justice (sic) Department. Therefore, Trump possibly can turn the situation to the advantage of his original aim to withdraw from the Middle East and restore normal relations with Russia.
Trump’s appalling decisions and explanations are largely a product of the vulnerable position he has been put in by three years of CIA, FBI, and Democratic Party efforts to remove him from the presidency. Now that vulnerability has shifted to his opponents, unless they physically assassinate him, Trump may yet prevail with his peace agenda.
My (rare) Dissent from The Saker’s Latest Assessment of the Iranian Situation – By Paul Craig Roberts
I am addressing what might be weaknesses in The Saker’s clarification of the Iranian situation.
At this time, it is up to Israel whether or not war occurs between the US and Iran. Israel very much wants this war as a means of putting Iran and Syria into chaos, thus leaving Hezbollah isolated and unsupplied. Then Israel can succeed in occupying southern Lebanon.
The American neoconservatives want Iran in chaos, because then the chaos can be exported into the Muslim regions of the Russian Federation with the purpose of causing sufficient internal turmoil to remove Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism.
Israel and the Neocons have Trump where they want him. Trump’s outrageous and reckless murder of Qasem Soleimani has provoked serious Iranian threats against the US to which Trump has replied with threats. Although there is some indication that Trump has realized his mistake and is trying to calm the situation, a calmed situation is not what Israel and the neoconservatives want.
Polls of the American public indicate that anti-Iranian propaganda has succeeded. All Israel or the neoconservatives, who are well placed, need to do is to conduct a false flag attack on some American entity, military base or personnel or ship, and blame it on Iran. The American press will demand Iranian blood and so will most of Trump’s constituency. As Trump has already committed himself to a response, he will have to deliver.
All wars have unknown and unintended consequences. As a result of Putin’s caution, Iran lacks sufficient air defense to prevent saturation bombing of the country. Washington would send in jihadists rather than its own soldiers, and the jihadist assignment would be to carry turmoil into Russia.
If it looked like Iran was prevailing in the conflict with the US, Trump would save the day for himself by nuking Iran. Indeed, some of the American rightwing are already calling for nuking Iran.
Rather than speculate on the consequences, I ask, “why risk them?”
A defensive alliance between Russia, Iran, and China, and any others inclined to join, would tie Israel’s hands and prevent the outbreak of war. Neither Trump nor Natanyahu are going to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran.
The reason US and Israeli aggression continue unabated is that no defense alliance has formed against them.
As an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia, forming a defensive alliance is a way to prevent the attack, perhaps the only way. An alliance would simply be a formalization of the implied, de facto alliance that already exists. It would actually reduce the threat against Iran and Russia and is the surest way of stabilizing the dangerous situation.