I believe Trump was angling for the Peace Prize, again using Ukraine as the proxy. He is slowly learning, like Macron learned, that Russia is willing to negotiate, with a serious party. Putin can't be bluffed. Not again.
Not even a month ago Tulsi testified before Congress that Iran wasn't trying to build a bomb.
I am pretty sure that if Iran decides it needs nukes, Pakistan or North Korea will provide the expertise.
According to FOX, we should bomb Iran, now. Apparently FOX has different intelligence sources, probably the death merchant funded, ISW.
As for tariffs. They are trade negotiating tools with every nation except China and the EU.
It is my opinion that Trump likes Zi and detests the Eurocrats. He wants at least some reshoring from China to the US and will gladly sink the EU's economy if possible.
About a peace prize, I agree with you. It's the kind of thing that would flatter his ego tremedously. I agree, Putin can't be bluffed or fooled again, not again. I think it would be extremely foolish of the Russians to go for Witkoff's plan his presented today 25/4; that's why I don't think they will. And the Uk won't either. So now what does Trump do ; walk away? Some big decisions coming up for Trump, probably for next week.
About Iran the situation is really not clear at all. So much going on under the surface. Let's see how the latest negotiations go; Witkoff is off now to Oman.
There isn't a chance that Russia is accepting anything less than it's minimalist terms where to begin negotiating. Fortunately, the Banderan Kapo Zelenski publicly torpedoed the latest Corn Flake & Co ridiculous proposal so Putin didn't need to.
I really don't understand why there needs to be any sort of talks between us and Iran. Everyone in Trump's regime knows full well that Iran isn't trying to build nukes.
If I had to pick a Secretary of State, Rubio wouldn't have made it in the top 50. I voted for him in 2010 on the assumption he was an imperfect conservative, not a neo-con and a neo-lib. Didn't take him long to prove me wrong.
Regarding Iran, what Scott Ritter is saying, for instance, is that though there is no bomb, the enrichement level of 60% could allow the building of a bomb in a week... Let's see next steps.
Yes, indeed. I guess the JCPOA confirmed such inspections (IAEA and others) and even extended it, but Trump left that treaty that US was bound to (part of international law that US should abide by, because voted through the UNSC).
Amyway, regarding Iran, two more interesting elements that makes me worried:
1) Curt Weldon in his recent interview with Tucker C, claimed that IRGC and the Iranian intelligence has always had deep connctions with their US counterparts since the time of the Shah. And Ben Laden was located in Iran (protected at US request?) after the 2001 attack on Afganistan by the US and parts of the US intelligence community knew this. Suleimani's murder by Trump was related to this apparently. Don't know if I believe Weldon, but this needs to be noted though (Weldon is a retired congressman after all...).
2) Scott Ritter claimed that since Israel managed to kill in Tehran Haniyeh, from inside Iran, hours after the new President of Iran was inaugurated, shows a deep infiltration of Mossad in Iran. He has a point...
All this could mean the US and Israel are far more optimistic about the possibility of success of an attack on Iran. Next days are weeks are going to be very interesting...
There is always uncertainty ahead. There are always momentous decisions being made. You see some as affecting you personally so they loom large in your consciousness. Other equally dramatic upsets don't affect you personally so they don't count. The middle east...omg! Sudan, Ethiopia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagano Khabarakh ....who cares?
Indeed, but this is politically engendered uncertainty, not of the natural kind due to evolving society and de facto unknown future. Also, this uncertainty now depends on one man, not the systemic or organic uncertainty. Of course there are other cases as you mention: I don't pretend to be exhaustive, but I think I am mentioning the most important ones and also the cases you mention are not awaiting a crucial decision from Trump.
You ascribe too much authority to President Trump. All he can do is accelerate or decelerate processes already in place. What is different about what President Trump does is he makes clear what he thinks at any given moment in the ongoing chain of events.
He flaunts that he is indifferent to much of the received wisdom accepted by the establishment. He fails to adhere to apparent eternal verities if they interfere with what he wants.
He is the symptom not the cause of much of what concerns you. He just lays the issues out in dramatic terms. He is doing what he was voted in to do. Those voters wouldn't want him to take such actions if they didn't sense something was wrong *for them*.
I agree with you partially. Indeed he is not alone and there are processes, and I disregarded that on purpose for this article.
On the other hand, ultimately in these three cases of Ukraine, Iran and Tariffs, it's all leading up to quite binary decisions which Trump and no onecelse will have to take. After all, it's foreign policy, its unconstitutional, and it's wrong headed strategy: that is why Trump is now in this position on these questions. Just like Bush with Iraq or Truman with Hiroshima. As some president said, the "buck stops with me".
But that is the whole point. What happens in any of the areas you mentioned is not binary.
Russia will overwhelm Ukraine in pursuit of its goals regardless of anything Trump says or does. He won't be allowed to bring in conscription so as to send in a half million U.S. troops into the Ukrainian theater and anything short of that won't deter Russia.
The Ayotollah has already said many times that the use of nuclear weapons is a grievous moral sin. Iran will never develop nukes and a system to deploy them effectively. Not because of Trump but because they don't want to.
Trump cannot make the tariffs that he is talking about stick and everyone knows it. Of course everyone including Trump himself is milking the talk for all that it can achieve. EG: it has turned the current ongoing Canadian elections upside down, turning the most likely loser into the most likely winner. The tariffs were a political god send for the most likely Canadian governing party coming into office.
However, Trump's own party in Congress and some states are starting to move to not only block any such tariff structures but to go so far as to get him to stop talking about them.
I believe Trump was angling for the Peace Prize, again using Ukraine as the proxy. He is slowly learning, like Macron learned, that Russia is willing to negotiate, with a serious party. Putin can't be bluffed. Not again.
Not even a month ago Tulsi testified before Congress that Iran wasn't trying to build a bomb.
I am pretty sure that if Iran decides it needs nukes, Pakistan or North Korea will provide the expertise.
According to FOX, we should bomb Iran, now. Apparently FOX has different intelligence sources, probably the death merchant funded, ISW.
As for tariffs. They are trade negotiating tools with every nation except China and the EU.
It is my opinion that Trump likes Zi and detests the Eurocrats. He wants at least some reshoring from China to the US and will gladly sink the EU's economy if possible.
About a peace prize, I agree with you. It's the kind of thing that would flatter his ego tremedously. I agree, Putin can't be bluffed or fooled again, not again. I think it would be extremely foolish of the Russians to go for Witkoff's plan his presented today 25/4; that's why I don't think they will. And the Uk won't either. So now what does Trump do ; walk away? Some big decisions coming up for Trump, probably for next week.
About Iran the situation is really not clear at all. So much going on under the surface. Let's see how the latest negotiations go; Witkoff is off now to Oman.
There isn't a chance that Russia is accepting anything less than it's minimalist terms where to begin negotiating. Fortunately, the Banderan Kapo Zelenski publicly torpedoed the latest Corn Flake & Co ridiculous proposal so Putin didn't need to.
I really don't understand why there needs to be any sort of talks between us and Iran. Everyone in Trump's regime knows full well that Iran isn't trying to build nukes.
If I had to pick a Secretary of State, Rubio wouldn't have made it in the top 50. I voted for him in 2010 on the assumption he was an imperfect conservative, not a neo-con and a neo-lib. Didn't take him long to prove me wrong.
Yes, fully agree regarding Russia.
Regarding Iran, what Scott Ritter is saying, for instance, is that though there is no bomb, the enrichement level of 60% could allow the building of a bomb in a week... Let's see next steps.
Since Iran is a signatory to the NPT it allows regular inspections?
Also, Russia doesn't want a nuked-up Iran and I believe is the supplier of Iran's machinery.
Yes, indeed. I guess the JCPOA confirmed such inspections (IAEA and others) and even extended it, but Trump left that treaty that US was bound to (part of international law that US should abide by, because voted through the UNSC).
Amyway, regarding Iran, two more interesting elements that makes me worried:
1) Curt Weldon in his recent interview with Tucker C, claimed that IRGC and the Iranian intelligence has always had deep connctions with their US counterparts since the time of the Shah. And Ben Laden was located in Iran (protected at US request?) after the 2001 attack on Afganistan by the US and parts of the US intelligence community knew this. Suleimani's murder by Trump was related to this apparently. Don't know if I believe Weldon, but this needs to be noted though (Weldon is a retired congressman after all...).
2) Scott Ritter claimed that since Israel managed to kill in Tehran Haniyeh, from inside Iran, hours after the new President of Iran was inaugurated, shows a deep infiltration of Mossad in Iran. He has a point...
All this could mean the US and Israel are far more optimistic about the possibility of success of an attack on Iran. Next days are weeks are going to be very interesting...
Neo-cons in the US and Israel are always optimistic about bombings.
I guess I need to watch the interview.
Thanks
There is always uncertainty ahead. There are always momentous decisions being made. You see some as affecting you personally so they loom large in your consciousness. Other equally dramatic upsets don't affect you personally so they don't count. The middle east...omg! Sudan, Ethiopia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagano Khabarakh ....who cares?
Indeed, but this is politically engendered uncertainty, not of the natural kind due to evolving society and de facto unknown future. Also, this uncertainty now depends on one man, not the systemic or organic uncertainty. Of course there are other cases as you mention: I don't pretend to be exhaustive, but I think I am mentioning the most important ones and also the cases you mention are not awaiting a crucial decision from Trump.
You ascribe too much authority to President Trump. All he can do is accelerate or decelerate processes already in place. What is different about what President Trump does is he makes clear what he thinks at any given moment in the ongoing chain of events.
He flaunts that he is indifferent to much of the received wisdom accepted by the establishment. He fails to adhere to apparent eternal verities if they interfere with what he wants.
He is the symptom not the cause of much of what concerns you. He just lays the issues out in dramatic terms. He is doing what he was voted in to do. Those voters wouldn't want him to take such actions if they didn't sense something was wrong *for them*.
I agree with you partially. Indeed he is not alone and there are processes, and I disregarded that on purpose for this article.
On the other hand, ultimately in these three cases of Ukraine, Iran and Tariffs, it's all leading up to quite binary decisions which Trump and no onecelse will have to take. After all, it's foreign policy, its unconstitutional, and it's wrong headed strategy: that is why Trump is now in this position on these questions. Just like Bush with Iraq or Truman with Hiroshima. As some president said, the "buck stops with me".
But that is the whole point. What happens in any of the areas you mentioned is not binary.
Russia will overwhelm Ukraine in pursuit of its goals regardless of anything Trump says or does. He won't be allowed to bring in conscription so as to send in a half million U.S. troops into the Ukrainian theater and anything short of that won't deter Russia.
The Ayotollah has already said many times that the use of nuclear weapons is a grievous moral sin. Iran will never develop nukes and a system to deploy them effectively. Not because of Trump but because they don't want to.
Trump cannot make the tariffs that he is talking about stick and everyone knows it. Of course everyone including Trump himself is milking the talk for all that it can achieve. EG: it has turned the current ongoing Canadian elections upside down, turning the most likely loser into the most likely winner. The tariffs were a political god send for the most likely Canadian governing party coming into office.
However, Trump's own party in Congress and some states are starting to move to not only block any such tariff structures but to go so far as to get him to stop talking about them.
Yes, right you are. Just let us not minimize the role of Trump himself in the unfolding chaos. That is the point also of my piece above.