Hitting Iran and withdrawing from West Asia are two concurrent goals: “hawks” slow Trump’s momentum

Washington’s issuance of contradictory positions and statements on its foreign policy, which has become a regular occurrence since Donald Trump became president of the decaying US empire. The information “leaked”, through the newspaper “New York Times”, on the question of the US president to his most prominent collaborators about the possibility of attacking nuclear facilities in Iran, after a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency pointing out the The latter’s increase in its storage of nuclear materials, which occurred after another according to the acceleration of the withdrawal of forces. The American woman from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria before Trump leaves the White House. The aforementioned article revealed that attendees, including hardline Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and Joint Chiefs of Staff commander Mark Milley, had dissuaded the president of the idea, fearing that such an attack would lead to open war with the Islamic Republic. . However, according to the article, some officials indicated that the US president had discussed with a small group of his aides concerned about national security options to launch attacks against other Iranian sites or against Tehran’s allies, including several Iraqi organizations. , without clarifying the outcome of these deliberations.

This data reflects Trump’s enthusiasm to implement his promises to his loyal base, to begin returning soldiers home. An eagerness goes hand in hand with the insistence on demonstrating the extremes of militancy with Iran, seeking to prevent it from exploiting the vacuum created by the decline of the US military presence in the Middle East to its benefit. The arrogance of Trump and his team may unite the two options, despite the dire consequences that can result from the latter in particular, throughout the region. It goes without saying that these attacks will not provide the United States and its allies with the ability to halt the development of Iran and its allies’ military and missile capabilities, which is at the core of the conflict between them and themselves.

It was no secret that the US military leadership was opposed to a large-scale military operation against Iran.

It is no secret that the US military leadership opposes a large-scale military operation against Iran, which is advancing towards a new great war, after which it was “stung by its fire” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose strategic repercussions on America’s international site are no less than its exorbitant human and material costs. The “war on terror” and the protracted “dissolution” of the US military provided a tremendous strategic opportunity for China and Russia, at the same time, to accelerate their transformation into two international powers competing with the United States. The National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy issued by the Trump administration in early 2018, in which former Defense Secretary James Mattis played a key role in drafting, reflected the conviction of the US military leadership that it must be given priority to facing “international competitors” at the expense of fighting “terrorism”. “Or the aspirations of moderate regional powers. Any war with Iran means getting involved in a regional conflict whose costs and effects are difficult to predict and opening up new opportunities for international competitors to strengthen and expand their spheres of influence. But what’s new in the New York Times article is the Pence-Pompeo duo joining in on warnings of a war with Iran. The ideological dimension – not the electoral one – is the one that dominates the agenda of the two men, as evidenced by the series of positions they took and the policies that Trump urged to adopt, specifically against the Islamic Republic, throughout his presidency. Have your convictions changed due to in-depth discussions with the US military leadership about the costs involved in such a war and about the ability of international competitors to exploit it to achieve more of their goals? This is the possible explanation for the notable turmoil in his position, in light of a complete and confirmed consensus among American elites that addressing the Chinese rise is a priority. This priority was not absent from Pompeo’s mind, for example, given the statements and opinions he made as foreign minister, including his call on the Chinese people to overthrow their “communist” regime, but it emerged as one of the poles of the group. that incites to “deal” harshly and forcefully with the Iranian challenge before dedicating himself completely to the battle. With China. In other words, prevent Iran and its allies from filling the void, or part of it, resulting from the partial US withdrawal from the Middle East. Israel’s alliance with some Gulf regimes under the name of “normalization” under the supervision of the United States was at the forefront of its stated goals of confronting Iran’s regional role. However, the other side of this confrontation, which is limiting the growth of its military and missile capabilities, is what the US administration has been unable to implement despite its “maximum pressure” and “hybrid warfare.” The former National Security adviser and one of the official spokesmen of the ideological-ideological current in the administration, John Bolton, declared on all available occasions the need to “bomb Iran” to resolve the conflict with him, and Pompeo did not shy away from this trend. If the information in the American newspaper is correct, the latter can retract this opinion, perhaps fearing that he, and those who accompany him, will be accused by the rest of the elite and the American public opinion, of implicating their country in a new disaster that benefited his most dangerous enemies. As for Trump, who did not follow the recommendations of his advisers in a direct and open clash with Iran for electoral considerations before any other calculation during his presidency, his hatred for not accepting a “deal” with him, added to his legendary lack of experience, most likely explains your perception that nuclear facilities can be targeted. In Iran, without a shaky response. What currently governs his behavior is to “leave his mark” on the international situation before leaving the White House, and to complicate the tasks of the next administration as much as possible.
He does not want history to record that he withdrew from the Middle East and left room for the expansion of the influence of Iran and its allies, as many have said about George W. Bush and his war against Iraq, which he presented “on a plate silver “, according to his expression. And since the aides, including the most extreme, end up with a major blow that leads to war, what is available, perhaps, is compensation with localized but painful attacks, so as not to portray the return of the American invaders to their homes as a defeat. If it was too early to know how parts of the resistance axis dealt with such attacks, if they did take place, then history will record that the craziest and most arrogant American administrations were unable to stop the improvement of their military and missile capabilities, the core of the escalating confrontation with him in recent years.

---

The Pentagon: we will leave West Asia in May

The White House National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, announced yesterday that the outgoing US President, Donald Trump, expects the return of all US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq by next May. An announcement that angered Democrats in the US Senate as they refused an “anarchic withdrawal” from West Asia as it would “endanger the remaining forces in the two countries.”
O’Brien’s statement to reporters came after the Pentagon announced that the number of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would be reduced to 2,500 by January 15, 2021, five days before Trump left office, which highlights the potential for the US president to make Effective foreign decisions will be imposed on the next administration. Acting US Defense Secretary Christopher Miller stated that he informed Congress of this decision and that he had contacted leaders in Baghdad and Kabul to inform them of the decision. In the same context, the Reuters news agency quoted US officials as saying that Trump could also take steps to withdraw all US forces from Somalia, as part of a plan to reduce the US military presence abroad.
(News)

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here