The Kerfuffle War - Trumps Iran De-escalation Succeeds by Joaquin Flores!
(2020-01-09 at 19:08:56 )

The Kerfuffle War - Trumps Iran De-escalation Succeeds by Joaquin Flores

Just like that, it was over. General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called it "a kerfuffle". A letter was sent to their Iraqi peers that the United States was repositioning troops out of Iraq in accordance with legislation from Iraq ending the United States military presence in the war-torn country, and suddenly then it was retracted by higher-ups. Running interference, Mark Esper backed Milley and said it was "an honest mistake". It all went down within a day of the irrational assassination of Irans General Soleimani.

The immediate termination of Chewning and Sweeney, at the same time as the assassination of Soleimani and Irans response raises some big questions. In the near future it will be of critical importance to get to the bottom of any possible relationship that Esper and his subordinates Chewning and Sweeney - who both served as Defense Secretary Espers Chiefs of Staff - had to the assassination of General Soleimani. The assassination and any number of possible Iranian responses, can push the United States into a broad and open military conflict with Iran. Such a war would also be Donald Trumps undoing.

We might otherwise be led to believe that Mr. Chewning and Mr. Sweeneys sudden departure has something to do with Ukraine and the recent release of unredacted emails relating to L3Harris Technologies and funding in Ukraine.

These of course also relate to the case against Donald Trump and any possible impeachment. But the timing and symbolism of these as concurrent with the provocation against Iran and the blowback, as well as Mr. Espers backing of the "Kerfuffle theory", lends strong credence to an Iran connection.

The connection to impeachment cannot be denied, but the necessity of uncovering its potential relation to Iran is tremendously important because it directly relates to larger constitutional and practical questions of the presidents ability to have a Department of Defense that works either for or against United States strategy as formulated and executed by its democratically elected leadership, as opposed to its permanent bureaucratic administration. This is what Donald Trump and his supporters quite rightfully refer to as the "Deep State".

Were elements in the defense department working towards a heightened brinksmanship that the president did not really want? It would be far from the first time in history that such was the case.

Because the proverbial excrement rolls down-hill, was Mr. Esper involved in ordering General Soleimanis assassination which Donald Trump was not informed of until it was too late, or until after? Mr. Chewning and Mr. Sweeneys fate may be understood here. The "kerfuffle" which was the withdrawal statement would then be a simple ruse to distract from the actual reasons that Mr. Chewning and Mr. Sweeney were terminated - acting without orders, insubordination, and even treason.

Donald Trumps Balancing Policy on Iran and the United States of Americas leadership crisis

One undeniable point is that a war with Iran works entirely against Donald Trumps middle-east policy and his prospects for re-election.

What the Donald Trump administration seeks most now is a de-escalation with Iran. Given that Donald Trump has fueled a rumor mill including the possible ending of sanctions if Iran does not respond, or that there will be no further attacks if Irans response is "reasonable", all exists in the unspoken framework that Donald Trump inherently recognizes the "guilt" of the United States in its irrational act, while it is nevertheless politically impossible to frame it overtly as such.

Impeachment against Donald Trump has now been used several times to push him to act aggressively in the middle-east, contrary to his policy and self-interest. On all the "impeachment threat - then strike" occasions, Donald Trump ordered strikes on predictable targets - targets so predictable and oddly executed, that Syrian and Iranian forces barely felt them. There appears to be at the very least an "unspoken communication" at play, where strikes are made to assuage political needs but not to inflict serious damage. If Donald Trump really wanted an excuse to strike Iran, he has had it before.

There was precisely such an opportunity when subversives in government hatched a plan to push Donald Trump into a war with Iran, when two planes were sent to violate Iranian airspace - one manned, the other unmanned - flying in close proximity. This created the chance that Irans downing of either plane could be used as a pretext for a major war-creating strike on Iran.

Despite Donald Trumps acting reasonably, government actors and media attempted to create a sensation where Donald Trump was ridiculed for "calling off" a planned retaliation in the aftermath of the downed drone.

The same liberal media and Democratic Party establishment that attacked Donald Trumps de-escalation then from a hawkish perspective, today manifest as doves who suddenly oppose Donald Trumps reckless hawkishness.

Here, in the aftermath of the drone incident, a Donald Trump policy was formulated - and it is a policy that figures prominently in de-escalation in the aftermath of the assassination of General Soleimani and Irans measured response.

The policy is this - if Iran kills Americans, then the United States escalates. If the United States does something provocative, then Iran is actually allowed to respond militarily, so long as United States of American personnel are not killed.

Irans striking of the al-Asad airbase was predictable. That Donald Trump has decided to officially declare that there were no United States casualties has indicated his real stance.

In all reality, the predictability of the target was such that United States of American soldiers would have been repositioned out of that base, so that Iran could assuage its own popular-democratic needs in terms of legitimacy, without forcing the United States to respond again further.

Between an AIPAC rock and an Anti-War Hard-spot

A war with Iran would push the anti-war sentiments of independent voters away from Donald Trump, and towards a more revitalized and mobilized Democrat Party anti-war base. Donald Trump needs an anti-war base to be re-elected, and war with Iran pushes that base towards nearly any Democrat candidate.

At the same time, Donald Trump also needs the continued support from Americas Christian Zionist evangelical "Israel Firsters", as well as the infamous AIPAC, not only to be re-elected, but to maintain the support in the senate against impeachment.

That conflict between Donald Trumps two greatest populist strengths - between Trumps anti-war base and his Christian Zionist base - largely defines his weakest political spot. That is why it is the best place to attack him.

Donald Trump for his part, has a frenemy relationship with AIPAC, and has worked hard to build his profile with Christian Zionist voters even to the extent that this might limit AIPACs influence on them. He has purchased a lot of AIPAC support along the way by tearing up the JCPOA and recognizing the Golan Heights and Jerusalem as Israels capital. This is capital he will have to spend to maintain support in the Senate.

All together this means that while Donald Trump may or may not have personally sought the assassination of General Soleimani, he must take credit for it for any number of reasons.

In brief, these relate again to the Zionist base and AIPAC, as well as needing to appear in control of the very country that he is nominally the president of. When Donald Trump refused to go to war over the downing of the un-manned drone, the liberal media monopoly accused him of being soft on Iran and indecisive.

Israel for its part is not tremendously happy with either of the two competing United States policies. They have been pushing a "bomb Iran" line for years, so that Israels conquest of Iraq may come to be. They are also not happy that the United States presence in the region will come to an end. Donald Trump may or may not have green-lit General Soleimanis assassination, but in either even its result will be the purchase of political capital that he can use towards ending the anti-ISIS campaign in Iraq. The reality is that the United States is being pushed out either way. General Soleimanis assassination has only strengthened that resolve.

Simultaneously, the anti-war sentiment in the United States is one that both led to Donald Trumps election and can lead to Donald Trumps undoing. Americans love sabre rattling and posturing. They also hate war.

To wit, in the immediate aftermath of the Soleimani assassination, the well-known American communist group - the PSL - and its anti-war front organization "ANSWER" have already received incredible donations from deep-pocketed Democrat Party sponsors at the local party level, to stage the first significant anti-war demonstration since the Bush presidency.

While PSL-ANSWER members and activists have been laudable in their consistent opposition to all American wars for capital and empire, they only seem to magically receive the funds for permits, advertising, organizing, and staging anti-war marches when a Republican is president.

The secondary slogan of these mobilizations was "Dump Trump". "Dump Obama" was never a slogan seen at the non-existent mass mobilizations against the Libyan, Ukrainian, and Syrian wars. Donald Trumps refusal to take the Democrat-laid war bait, means he can pull off an end-run around the Democrat and deep-state plot.

Democrats also do not want war with Iran, they only want that Donald Trump loses the anti-war vote. They can force him into these compromised positions by coordinating with the "permanent administrative military-intelligence bureaucracy", by coordinating with AIPAC.

The Democrats plan is therefore pretty simple: use impeachment to force him to strike at Iran (or get Donald Trump to take credit for a strike that the deep-state pulled off), and then use that entanglement to tank his re-election prospects.

Then Democrats ride in on an anti-war ticket, restart JCPOA, and move towards integrating Iranian elites into the EU economy.

Israel could ultimately guarantee its piece of Iraq and its Greek pipeline deal in due course, with a reformed and EU friendly Iran, ready to make major compromises with Israel.

Maybe this is what Joe Biden means by "restorationist" - restoring the traditional left-right political divide which has empowered the Atlanticist status quo.

A Backroom deal? Irans Measured Response and Trumps face-saving

The successful attack on the United States al-Asad airbase in Iraq was characterized by Irans Supreme Leader Khamenei has characterized as a "slap".

Interestingly, Mr. Khameneis language used is strategic, and uses a sleight of hand to take the steam from possible opponents. It is clear that Mr. Khamenei has said today that while the attack on the airbase is just a slap, and that Irans full response will come in the future, he has in fact set up that the solution will be political and diplomatic. He did so in a creative way which appeals to hardliners, saying that any solution could not simply be political and diplomatic, but rather more than this. This sort of double-speak does not reflect any moral lapsus, but is necessary for Irans greater geopolitical aims and serves the greater good.

De-escalation requires that both parties save face, and can come away with tangible minor victories and agree that the real underlying dispute is resolved in the future.

This reluctance to engage militarily is beyond the mere politics of justifying American casualties, but points to broader considerations of United States power projection in the region in the aftermath of the failure of the Obama administration policy of overthrowing the government of Syria.

To understand the events at play requires a multi-dimensional and realist understanding of motivations and relationships, and how relationships work at the level of statecraft. And so in a way that would be popularly understood - as in Game of Thrones - just because you are invited to the banquet or receive a high-honored appointment, does not mean that are you indispensable or even a friend.

Donald Trumps "GoT" relationship with Israel and even his own cabinet, needless to say any number of Pentagon bosses, is precisely this. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo are such frenemies, as have been any number of "here today, gone tomorrow" members of the Trump administration, more or less foisted and forced upon the chief executive by Donald Trumps opponents in the permanent administration and his partisan opposition, and within the Republican Party itself.

Did Donald Trump make a backroom deal with Iran? Probably not - there was a high public dimension to Donald Trumps offers, and a recent history where an unspoken language was developed. Iran has demonstrated a high level of intelligence, restraint, intuition, and strategic thinking in its several thousand year-old civilization. There is no reason to think that they would not have understood and inferred everything explained in this article, and much more, without needing a direct conversation with Donald Trump which no doubt would have led to yet another impeachment fandango.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.