What’s up with all the “Trump is being told to wage war on Iran” talk?
[See UPDATE below]
I happened to turn on my TV late last night to a cable news station and I immediately started hearing talk about how Trump was going to start a war with Iran.
The line went something like this: “he is surrounded by people who are all telling him to attack Iran.” Then lots of discussion of how he was teetering on the brink of such action. Even though he’d often criticized presidents who had sent troops to faraway places too readily and gotten mired down, he was nevertheless poised to do it because of these warmongering advisors (such as Bolton) who were all around him.
And then his presidency and re-election chances would be ruined. This would become “Trump’s War.”
And the funny thing was, I happened to have been tuned to Fox at the time.
I already knew about recent heated events involving Iran, including the shooting down of the drone. But what else had happened since then that I’d missed?
So I Googled around a bit and discovered that two articles had appeared earlier in the day—one in the NY Times and one in the WaPo—saying that Trump had actually ordered a strike on Iran and then pulled back at the very last minute. However, I no longer trust a word they say about the inner workings of Trump’s mind and his White House.
But if you don’t think the Times and WaPo drive the news, think again.
I went to read the Times story, and as I had expected, it was from the usual anonymous sources who supposedly were in the Trump inner circle. This particular story had as its sources “multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.” This could mean someone in the know or not, someone friendly to Trump or not, someone lying or not, and note “involved in or briefed.” So perhaps not even present.
This sounds quite familiar.
Of course, it’s possible the story is true. I can’t verify it; I certainly haven’t spoken to any sources, much less “multiple” “official” “senior” ones who may have been “involved in” or “briefed” on this. But I’ve seen this picture too many times before.
Why would someone who actually was close to Trump leak this information? It seems to me that it could hurt Trump and feed into the “he’s so crazy he’s gonna start a war” mentality. Then again, someone loyal to Trump might leak this information (with Trump’s approval of the leak) if Trump actually has no intention of attacking Iran but wants Iran to think he just might be crazy enough to do it. What good’s a threat if there’s no chance whatsoever that it will be carried out?
More from the article:
Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said…
It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward…
Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article…
Mr. Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region.
If I had to guess, I’d say that—if it’s a bona fide leak of mostly true information—one of these “Pentagon officials” is the leaker, and is fuming at Pompeo, Bolton, and Haspel, and has been at odds with them for a long time. Not necessarily because they actually were actually advocating a military response; perhaps they just were discussing it as one possible option to consider, and this official exaggerated somewhat.
But as I said, it may be an engineered leak for strategic reasons.
Take your pick. Or maybe you’ve got another idea.
UPDATE 9:15 PM
The word we’re getting seems to be something resembling this particular guess of mine: “Then again, someone loyal to Trump might leak this information (with Trump’s approval of the leak) if Trump actually has no intention of attacking Iran but wants Iran to think he just might be crazy enough to do it.”
Trump has weighed in, explaining that:
….On Monday [Iran] shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
….proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
In other words—as I see it—it seems that he is trying to send the message that he is willing and ready to retaliate if Iran decides to escalate and test him further in the future. The idea that he almost attacked and that he was that close to pulling the trigger in response to this recent provocation by Iran is probably intended to act as a warning to Iran not to go further.
They want to strip Trump of all his staff, either through lawfare or through innuendo.
Trump and staff are awesome. Iran is now courting trouble with China, the largest customer for Middle Eastern oil. Trump decided to send a message to others as well as Iran with his action yesterday.
Check out https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/our-tricky-peace/
Let’s go with this: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055388965212161
I remember reading somewhere that Pentagon officials didn’t like Flynn because he wanted to give authority for strikes in Iraq to officers on the ground instead of sending info back to the Pentagon because it deprived our troops to make timely attacks. I wonder if something similar could be going on here.
Trump himself said that he decided against an attack because about 150 Iranians would have been killed. The Iranians may start to think they can get a better deal with Trump and back down from their attacks before the hawks take over.
Or: https://mobile.twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1142112546696118274
The NYT is a perfidious rag.
I’m not even sure what I’ve read today that gave me the impression that the Dems are now changing their position to more of a “What!!??? He didn’t attack??? why not??? How come he didn’t attack?!” What’s wrong with him…is he afraid?? He should have attacked…”
I don’t know…but that was my impression. It would be pretty funny if he played them that way…
A perfect instance to demonstrate that Donald Trump isnt playing 3d dimensional chess and is not some secret genius free from criticism.
Unless all the military strike was designed to do was drop leaflets, the potential to kill anybody on the target always existed. If you arent a bout a disproportionate response, then why make the decision to launch in the first place?
This is faulty decision making and it isnt serving us very well.
I’m not paying any attention to any of those opining in the media because they’re all avoiding any analysis of WHY Iran is provoking Trump. Which the Mullahs are certainly doing.
My take is that they’re in their final push to acquire nuclear ICBM weapons capability. And the Iranians are terribly afraid that Trump will act decisively before they can reach that goal.
So the attacks on shipping are designed to send a threatening message to Trump; back off or Iran will make shipping through the Strait of Hormuz costly to the point of financially ruinous. Approx. 1/3 of the world’s oil passes through the Strait and choking off that supply would create chaos in the global economy.
I think Trump is well aware of the political minefield that attacking Iran would create and he’s waiting for the Iranians to give him a casus belli, i.e. an inarguable case for war.
It is rationally inarguable that should Iran acquire nuclear ICBM weapons capability that it will be a ‘game changer’ and an unimaginably bad one.
N. Korea’s Kim is a monster but he pales when compared to Iran’s ‘religious’ fanatics. Fanatics who welcome death. Fanatics who will not hesitate to give ISIS nukes if they think it will serve their ends. Fanatics who have already experimented with EMP scenarios.
What Pres. Trump said on Twitter:
“On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”
…10 minutes before the strike he asks a pertinent question that certainly would have already been considered well beforehand.
While I view Tucker Carlson as generally right on most issues, when speaking of coverage of this issue on FOX, I have been particularly disappointed with Tucker Carlson’s point of view on how the U.S. should deal with Iran.
As I gather from watching Carlson’s comments over the years, Carlson views all recent U.S. foreign military involvements—going back at least to the Vietnam War—as being unnecessary; as ultimately pointless disasters, as almost criminal wastes of “blood and treasure.”
Moreover, as conflicts that this country has been deliberately sucked into, based on lies and exaggerations created and spread by war-mongering “neocons.”
For Carlson, today’s neocon of all neocons is President Trump’s quite publicly conservative National Security Advisor, John Bolton—a subject of his frequent attack—who Carson accuses of trying to push the U.S. to get itself involved in conflicts/wars in countries all over the world.
Funny, but I never knew that Tucker Carlson had any particular training or experience in the area of Foreign or Military Affairs, which John Bolton has in spades.
This recent attack on our unmanned drone is a continuation of decades of Iran’s myriad of both rhetorical and physical attacks on the U.S., on our troops, and on our interests—which many see as starting with Iranian “militant’s” 1979 seizure of our Embassy in Tehran and the captivity of our diplomatic personnel there for 444 days, followed by the 1983 “Islamic Jihad” terrorist truck bombing of our Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, which killed 241 of our military personnel—almost all of them Marines—plus 58 French military personnel, and six civilians, which was carried out by Iranian proxy Hezbollah forces, up through the Iranians having supplied the IEDS that may have killed as many as an estimated 500 of our troops in Iraq.
(According to the FBI, up until then, the Beirut Barracks bombing was the largest ever car bombing—one that used an estimated 2,000 pounds of explosives—and, in fact, this was the largest non-nuclear explosion since the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII).
Carlson says that there is no reason that the U.S. should respond to Iran’s current provocations—which it seems he thinks and portrays as not being that serious—with force.
But, in the case of Iran, we are dealing with a regime of Muslim religious fanatics, with leaders who are ruthless, untrustworthy, and who only understand force.
An anecdote to give you an idea of the ruthlessness of the Muslim religious mentality we are dealing with:
During the hard fought and extremely brutal and bloody 1980-1988 war between the two Muslim nations—Iran and Iraq—which resulted in casualty estimates ranging from three quarters of a million up to two million, the then Muslim Shi’ite religious leader, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wanted to keep his absolutely essential, trained military forces from having to absorb a lot of casualties on the battlefield.
His solution?
His regime rounded up hundreds of thousands of people who weren’t already in the Iranian military forces—reportedly including children as young as 12, the high school aged, people in their 30s, even people aged up to 80—formed them into a Revolutionary Guard Unit, a paramilitary “voluntary” militia unit called the Basiji, give each one of these usually unarmed Basiji’s a small, cheap plastic “key” to hang around their necks (that he bought in bulk from Korea), keys to the Paradise that was promised to martyrs by the Qur’an, then, had these Basiji—according to some reports sometimes chained or roped together—placed out in front of his trained military forces, and had them driven as a “human wave” attack, through the minefields that had been put in place as standard practice by the Iraqis.
This as a way to set off as many as possible of the mines before the better trained Iranian military forces had to advance through the minefield to cross that battlefield, a very cold-blooded and ruthless military tactic resulting in the reported tens of thousands of casualties among the Basiji.
Basiji some of whom, it is reported, used to wrap themselves in blankets, so that, if they stepped on a mine and were blown up, their remains would not be so widely scattered, but could more easily be gathered up for burial.
That is the kind of religious fanaticism and ruthlessness we are very likely dealing with in today’s Iranian leaders.
Ask yourself this—if this is how ruthless the Iranians have been when fighting fellow Muslims, just how persistent and ruthless are they likely to be in their attacks against us and our interests, against us ”unbelievers,” and our country, which Khomeini back then, and which current Iranian leaders today, have labeled as the “Great Satan.”
Today, it happens, is the tenth anniversary of the killing of Neda Agha Soltan.
I find the whole thing interesting and the decision doesn’t bother me at all. Some have mentioned that we will have gathered intelligence on the Iranian plans for defense, to which I would add, we might also have gathered intelligence on leakers here at home.
Apart from Iran, there are domestic political considerations when using the military, considerations that cannot be ignored at present. Look at what happened to Bush. I am old enough to recall being taught that FDR edging the US into WWII was a good thing and the America First movement the bad guys, but those times are long past. And Iran is not Imperial Japan, let alone the Third Reich. I don’t see a need to hurry when economic sanctions are beginning to bite.
” I don’t see a need to hurry when economic sanctions are beginning to bite.”
The link posted by Edward (1st comment on this page) leads me to the same conclusion. It leads me to believe that they’ll have more economic problems if we do nothing, but if we attack them they’ll have renewed support from the entire muslim world population. Cash will flow in to help fight the infidel. Maybe. I’m not a chess player.
I’m not opposed to Trump’s decision to hold off on a retaliatory attack. I am opposed to his sharing the reason for it. It tips a bit of information into Iranian hands. “Oh, Trump doesn’t care if we destroy property. We can destroy buildings, ships, drones, anything inanimate as long as we don’t kill anyone. Let us begin.”
The issue here is that we have not come up with a workable strategy for fighting fourth generation warfare (4GW). We are facing a hostile Muslim world that uses 4GW almost exclusively. The attacks are small and the units of fighters are small. Unless they take land and defend it like ISIS did, they are hard to combat. Muslim countries like Iran, Syria, Afghanistan Libya, etc. know they can’t defeat a major power on a normal battlefield, but they can harass them to the point of distraction and infiltrate Muslims inside with hopes of an eventual takeover. Of course, since the U.S. has developed our oil reserves (Thanks to Trump) the Muslim oil countries aren’t quite as powerful vis a vis the West.
Iran is trying to develop ICBMs and nukes because they believe that will protect their regime from attack by the U.S. and Israel while allowing them to hold a gun to Israel’s head. That can’t be allowed. Trump, by allying with the Saudis and other Gulf States against Iran and putting economic sanctions on them has put a plan into place to stop them by, he hopes, not going to war. By all accounts Iran’s economic situation is getting more desperate. So, maybe it is better to see how the sanctions work. One problem is that the Mullahs are not suffering. And they are the ones who are in control. The economic situation has to become really desperate for the average citizen before the people will rise up against the Mullahs. Eventually Iran has to be de-nuked and war will be the last resort. Let us continue the sanctions but be ready for war should it be necessary.
“…10 minutes before the strike he asks a pertinent question that certainly would have already been considered well beforehand.” Harry
Which is worse, intentionally obtuse or too dense to grasp plain English?
“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.”
In that quote, there is no mention of how much time elapsed between the answer of 150 dead and his decision 10 minutes before the strike.
“10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”
The sanctions are making the mullahs desperate. Desperate fanatics do desperate things. They are provoking the great satan to bolster public support to rally around the koran. The thing to remember is 7 rinos nixed billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Yes, SA and many of the Gulf States are quetionable allies, but they are sunni and they fear a nuclear armed shite Iran.
The adage the enemy of my enemy is my friend, which of course can be temporary. When SA makes nice wih Israel, you know they fear Iran more than they hate the Israelis.
We’ve got some Kabuki Theater going on, and I’m guessing Trump’s got his costume on, as well as others possibly.
This morning I heard on the Fox Biz network, that Trump had guessed that some possibly rogue Iranian general had mistakenly shot down the drone, so Trump wisely decided against a retaliatory strike. It was also claimed that our electronic intercepts suggested a confirmation of the “rogue general” mistake, after the stand down order was given. Gosh, Trump is almost clairvoyant!
This evening a Fox News anchor claimed that there were not any electronic intercepts indicating a rogue general or a mistake. No mention of Trump’s guess about mistakes.
Oh well, I’m glad there weren’t any strikes. Especially ones like the half-cocked strike against a pharmaceutical factory that Clinton launched.
Geoffrey Britain: “In that quote, there is no mention of how much time elapsed between the answer of 150 dead and his decision 10 minutes before the strike.”
The entire idea from conception would have entailed dead people Geoffrey. From start to finnish, the possibility of people being rendered dead should have been previously baked into the decision.
Neo: “The idea that he almost attacked and that he was that close to pulling the trigger in response to this recent provocation by Iran is probably intended to act as a warning to Iran not to go further.”
Oh no, not you Neo. We’re beginning to sound like rabid AOC supporters inventing excuses for the dumb things she says.
The Trump gambit doesnt sound credible. Who is on the cusp of launching an airstrike then pulls that punch at the last minute (or ten) because they suddenly realize people might get hurt? If this is a gambit, its a silly one, but hey, it wouldnt be the first time Ive been surprised at an outcome of one of his moves.
Harry:
Actually, I defended it before he said it—or rather, I defended something like it when I wrote in the original post, when I was writing about the leak to the NY Times: “someone loyal to Trump might leak this information (with Trump’s approval of the leak) if Trump actually has no intention of attacking Iran but wants Iran to think he just might be crazy enough to do it.”
And long, long before Trump ever ran for office, I believed that a president must convey the idea that he is ready and willing to retaliate in the harshest of terms (whether he actually is or isn’t). It’s a very tricky business, dealing with countries such as Iran, and there are many pitfalls. It’s a bit like playing poker—are you bluffing? Are you not? Is your bluff going to be called? And with Iran there is no really no good way to deal with the country.
But the worst way is to show them you are weak. Obama was a specialist in that. They had absolutely nothing to fear from him and they knew it.
Trump is trying to convey the opposite. I am convinced of it. Whether his ploy will succeed is anyone’s guess. It may not. But I am convinced that is what he is trying to do, and my conviction is not based on some sort of ex-post-facto attempt to excuse or rationalize a stupid move on his part.
And by the way—if you think Trump’s excuse (that people would be killed, etc.) is silly and not believable—actually, quite a few people seem to believe that’s exactly what happened. They think he’s just that stupid and he’s just that crazy or both. But it’s to his advantage for certain enemies to think he might just be crazy enough to launch a strike if they up the ante.
He also said that killing 150 people wouldn’t be proportionate to what Iran did. But that implies that, if Iran does something rash and kills any of our people, their people will be killed in retaliation. It’s a warning from Trump.
I think those are the tough choices facing any president regarding Iran, and I’ve thought that for decades.
I just noticed that this writer at Vox, of all places seems to rather agree with this point of view about what Trump was trying to do here.
sdferr on June 21, 2019 at 6:53 pm said:
Today, it happens, is the tenth anniversary of the killing of Neda Agha Soltan.
* * *
Thank you for the reminder.
It’s hard to believe that a decade has passed already.
expat on June 21, 2019 at 3:09 pm said:
I remember reading somewhere that Pentagon officials didn’t like Flynn because he wanted to give authority for strikes in Iraq to officers on the ground instead of sending info back to the Pentagon because it deprived our troops to make timely attacks. I wonder if something similar could be going on here.
* * *
I don’t know if the Pentagon disliked Flynn for the reason you cite (it sounds plausible), but they certainly didn’t approve of hime or his policies and priorities.
An, um, “senior contractor involved in or briefed on the deliberations” has told me, several times, that their “mission” included derailing or flat-out disobeying Flynn’s orders, because they thought he was wrong.
Ah,Henry,
As an armchair quarterback you know everything. Personnely, I am not second guessing the Donald since mid 2017. Yes, he is sometimes obnoxious. But given the opposition he faces, the bull in the china shop is EXACTLY what is needed. It is a matter between a republic or mob rule. Choose a side, no matter your tender sensibilities. Consciously, you will judged by your own senselesness. Harsh but, true.
But, I wish Cruz was POTUS. But wishes are not reality.
Opps ‘Harry’.
I offer another link offering thoughts to ponder, Scott Adams:
https://blog.dilbert.com/2019/06/21/episode-573-scott-adams-fixing-the-iran-situation-for-you/
I could not get the thought of the technique of the Inquisition for getting someone to cooperate: they showed the recalcitrant one “the implements”.
If the Iranians would be so foolish as to openly attack a manned US aircraft or ship, I believe that Trump would drop the hammer, and not exactly where they think the strike would be made. And it would not just be US forces. Who are directly threatened by Iranian development of nuclear weapons — SA and Israel. Recall that some time ago we sold Israel a slew of deep penetration bombs. What targets would all three nations wish to obliterate? Take a guess.
Parker, I wish Cruz were President as well. I dont see how that would make me either an armchair quarterback or one with “tender sensibilities”. I just like to be assured the guy I voted for has all his marbles accounted for. There’s plenty of cause for doubt and this latest thing adds to that.
I also dont like mob rule, and Im also unsure of how “a bull in a china shop” isnt just one sort of counter mob.
Neo: So the entire plan was to put some unknown sized force on alert for an armed attack all the while always intending on having that same force stand down on short notice anyway on the guise of disproportionate response? …and If Im a mullah, Im supposed to think such an attack was truly immanent? (Was it actually airborne or not? I read conflicting accounts). I cant see how this would sway anybody one, especially the mullah’s one way or another. If this is a gambit, Its a mighty clumsy one.
The problem with bluffing or threatening is that it must be believable. Every U.S. president gets pushed and tested by our enemies until they actually use military force. Trump hasn’t done this yet. Thus, our enemies still don’t know how far they can go yet.
An, um, “senior contractor involved in or briefed on the deliberations” has told me, several times, that their “mission” included derailing or flat-out disobeying Flynn’s orders, because they thought he was wrong.
The good old military industrial complex.
The problem with bluffing or threatening is that it must be believable. Every U.S. president gets pushed and tested by our enemies until they actually use military force. Trump hasn’t done this yet. Thus, our enemies still don’t know how far they can go yet.
Trum’s trade war is actually wiser than a shooting war. That’s because wars in which you kill peons on the ground doesn’t do anything. Humanity keeps doing the same thing that hasn’t worked, and repeats it. That’s basically insanity.
I’m not paying any attention to any of those opining in the media because they’re all avoiding any analysis of WHY Iran is provoking Trump. Which the Mullahs are certainly doing.
The light arrives and the darkness cannot comprehend it.
The light arrives and humanity rejected it.
….On Monday [Iran] shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
….proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
If this is true and not just Trum pulling a Ymar style joke, then that’s something very good the Donald has done. I approve, for once. Of course if he ends up nuking Tehran, that’s going to go backwards in a hurry.
It seems to me that Trump’s very public act of restraint will be seen as justifying him retaliating that much harder if the Iranians do, indeed, stage some further provocation, particularly if people are injured or killed as a result.
If the Iranian regime were at all inclined to behave without belligerence for a change they could take Pres. Trump’s refusal to reciprocate on this occasion as a convenient **off-ramp** from their present path. But no one will place a betting marker on that option.
No, the likely next event will be another covert Iranian kinetic strike on a ship or ships near the Gulf of Oman (peaceful merchant types most like), stirring the pot to a boil — or perhaps another “Houthi” missile (recall too that the “Houthis” shot down an American MQ-9 Reaper in the Red Sea off Yemen a scant two weeks ago), flung into Saudi territory, possibly killing more people, or shot into the Gulf of Aden at either merchant or military shipping. I believe the Iranians seriously intend to trouble any normal conduct of commerce in that region and they will not cease until they have significantly done so.
}}}} The NYT is a perfidious rag.
I lean more towards “ambulatory humaniform containers of excreta” myself, but, yeah, yours works, too…
😛
To me, the really obnoxious thing is the insanity of their “take” on it.
“This just shows what an insane war-mongering lunatic he really really is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right. He was ON THE VERGE OF AN ATTACK, was completely spooledup and ready to go, following an attack on US property and sovereignty… And stepped back….
And that, to you, is “war mongering”???
How can ANYONE listen to these idiots and take them seriously?
Hopefully not. An inspection regime similar to JCPOA but with a full confession, and aborting in progress state-sponsorship of international terrorism.
Roy Nathanson:
Trump has used military force against Syria.
And here he is saying to Iran that he will use force if they kill an American with some sort of attack.
When he first burst on the scene on FOX, I used to think that the viewpoint and ideas being highlighted and explored by Glenn Beck were not only interesting but needed, and very worthwhile.
But then, to quote Mae West, Beck “drifted,” started to take–based on his prior viewpoint and statements–uncharacteristically odd positions, said odd and radically different things, sounded–to use a term much in use these days–more and more “unhinged,” became discredited in my eyes, until I finally stopped watching and listening to him.
Well, I’m afraid that the same sort of “drift” is starting to occur in the case of Tucker Carlson, whose hatred of National Security Advisor John Bolton is starting to decrease my confidence in Carlson’s viewpoint, ideas, and analyses, as last night Carlson heatedly–all but frothing at the mouth–called Bolton a “bureaucratic tapeworm,” and went on from there.
Carlson’s fixation on Bolton, his personal attacks against Bolton, and Carlson’s evidently volcanic hatred of Bolton is, it seems to me, starting to make me wonder about Carlson’s ability to make calm, objective, and reasoned judgments about other issues, and whether Carslon’s intense, apparently uncontrollable personal animus isn’t warping Carlson’s analytical abilities.
Actually, last night Carlson played a clip of Bolton being interviewed by Carlson, in which Carlson scoffed at Bolton’s ability to Bolton’s face, and Bolton laughingly returned the favor.
Is that incident (and perhaps other similar confrontations over the years) what this is all about?
I’m starting to edge away from Carlson a little.
Vox has an informative timeline on what’s been happening with Iran over the last year:
I didn’t know this had happened, for instance:
or this:
Ann on June 22, 2019 at 8:19 pm said:
Vox has an informative timeline on what’s been happening with Iran over the last year:
* * *
As to the post itself:
US-Iran standoff: a timeline
The dangerous escalation of tensions from Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal to the downing of a US military drone.
By Jen Kirbyjen.kirby@vox.com Jun 21, 2019, 4:40pm EDT
* * *
Since there was no tension between the Mullahs and Obama, It is not hard to escalate from zero.
I had seen those events at the time they happened, and the rest of the timeline matches the news as I know it.
I’ve looked at Vox a couple of times lately, and although it certainly spins left, it’s not a sewer drain like some other sites.
Which may or may not be a problem..
As Snow said about Carlson: if you find a source to be credible, you tend to stick with it until it proves otherwise, which may be some time past its actual credibility fall-off.
So, conversely, finding Vox credible in part tends to give the spun portion more credibility as well.
Snow on Pine: “I’m starting to edge away from Carlson a little.”
Tucker is verging on being an isolationist. He is right to question the results of the Global War On Terror (GWOT). But he seems to believe we didn’t need to do anything to defend ourselves from Islamic terror or care about the extent of Iran’s funding of terrorist activities against Israel and the U.S. Has he not seen the videos of huge crowds in Iran chanting Death to America, the Great Satan? You would think not from the way he opposes doing anything militarily in the Middle East and especially Iran. He blames the “Neocons” (Kristol, Stephenson, Bolton, etc.) for the poor results of the GWOT to date. I think it’s okay to question the strategy of the GWOT because it hasn’t achieved the results we need or hoped for. To completely back away from military options because of the disappointing results of the war effort so far is not the right answer. Looking for a more effective way to prosecute the GWOT is what is needed. IMO, a lot of the blame for poor results can be laid on the doorstep of the Pentagon and the Congress because they keep thinking in terms of conventional warfare and have failed to understand the nature of Islam, especially Wahhabism.
Anyway, no opinion show host has all the answers or is right all the time. Carlson has his moments, but he also has opinions I don’t agree with. We all have to think for ourselves and not let ourselves get carried away with Fox or any other network’s opinion shows.
J.J.—From what Carlson is saying each night, it is becoming more and more clear that Carlson’s preferred strategy is one of Isolationism.
The problem is, tempting as it is, the strategy of forting up, of withdrawing from a messy and violent world, just doesn’t work.
In today’s world of commonplace international travel, expanding land and sea transportation routes, and widely available, relatively quick modes of transportation, ICBMs, satellites, computers, and the Internet—the constant movement of ideas, people, and things—we are no longer isolated from and protected against events outside our country by the barrier the oceans provide, by the vastness of our territory, or—as we’ve seen in recent days—by our borders; those days are long over.
Becoming, in effect, a hedgehog, or a turtle is no longer an option.
In the interests of our survival as a nation, we have to be— however reluctantly—involved in the World, so as to be able to take note of events that might effect us that are occurring “out there.”
Depending on what is happening “out there,” sometimes we are forced by events to step in to counter those developments, as the saying goes,”over there, before we have to counter them here, on our soil. “
Have our efforts to counter hostile forces and actions always worked out well?
Obviously not.
But that doesn’t mean we can just pull back from playing the “great game,” because such a retreat behind our walls has no real chance of assuring our safety.
To quote Trotsky, “You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you.”
Very well said, Snow on Pine,
Cont’d–
Carlson’s position seems to be that, as the preeminent military and economic power in the world, we should just shrug off these attacks by Iran and others—these comparative pinpricks—which we don’t really need to respond to, especially with military force.
The problem is, we now live in an age in which advances in technology have ushered in the age of “asymmetric warfare”; an age in which a handful of tech, computer, or biology savvy guys in a garage, basement, or abandoned factory somewhere can develop destructive computer programs, chemical, or biological weapons, perhaps even dirty bombs to spread nuclear materials, which can to some—perhaps to a great—extent, negate our overwhelming superiority in manpower and equipment.
Our superiority no longer provides the protection it once did.
(We also face the additional problem that, given all of the “cutouts” available, given all of the possible ways to disguise just who or what “state actor” might be behind such attacks, given the sophistication and the effectiveness of “disinformation” operations to spread false information, confusion, and doubt, it may be very hard to pinpoint the actual culprit behind such attacks mounted ostensibly by just a few “rogue” individuals, and/or to convince others of the accuracy of our accusations.)
Thus, we are now forced to be on constant guard, to develop extremely sophisticated surveillance and analytical systems, and to respond to, and to often use military power to respond to, virtually each and every one of such attacks, in the hope of discouraging more, and perhaps much more effective attacks in the future.
Trump is a deal maker. He’s not pushing the Iranians into a corner. He’s saying, “I’m giving you guys an out. If you take it, fine. If you don’t, it’s not on me.”
If the mullahs take him up on that, good. If they don’t, and he blasts them, no one, not even the French, not even the Russians, can say he acted imperiously.