New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman says the White House is using the time it has left to exercise a tougher Iran policy than they expect from Joe Biden.
This is a response to this totally ludicrous, or duplicitous, subtitle from The American Conservative magazine:
"The U.S. is at risk of being buffaloed into a bloody war of regional realignment in the wake of Syria’s collapse."
Trumpites writing for the Koch-funded National Conservative ideologues at The American Conservative (TAC) magazine (hereafter, TNC?), are preemptively shifting blame off Trump for the pending war on Iran, as it is to be escalated from Trump's (and Netanyahu's) earlier "Clandestine War" against Iran, which the NYT revealed late in his previous administration, with Trump's self-admitted intent to maintain his (false) claim not going to war, by not openly going to war, relying on Irregular Warfare instead. What Trump's intent is today is shown in that Trump has put together the most militaristically oriented administration of a sort not seen in the world since 1945 when Traditional Conservative James Burnham's favorites in the war, Nazi Germany, went down to defeat. In Trump's administration, all the dreams of the original founders of the Conservative Movement: Buckley, Burnham, Kendall, and Frank S. Meyer, have been fulfilled in Trump's "Peace Through Strength" program that the aforesaid Traditional Conservatives were first to promote in the 1950s, and ever since.
Here's what the TAC writers wrote, in pertinent part:
TAC: ". . . President-elect Donald Trump now confronts the dangerous distraction of wars he did not start, wars that will bring his administration and his country no strategic benefit. America’s underwriting of Netanyahu’s expanding war in the Middle East will endanger U.S. national security and guarantee that Washington, its armed forces, and the U.S. economy will be hostage to whatever strategic direction Netanyahu decides to take."
Answer: In fact, Trump did start the war against Iran, by tearing up the JCPOA, and clandestine war against Iran, with Netanyahu, as Ronen Bergman discussed above, in 2020.
TAC: "Starting the war sooner, rather than later, is critical for Netanyahu. War with Iran presents Trump with a strategic fait accompli. In case Trump decides to distance the United States from another bloodbath in the Middle East, Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran and Turkey’s potential confrontation with Israel will make disengagement impossible."
Answer: "The Jews are forcing Trump into war," is what these TAC writers are saying in effect, in omitting that the U.S. branch of Israel's own fascists, the National Conservatives headed by Trump/Vance in the U.S., share completely the objectives of their Israeli fascist allies, Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and TAC's very own, Yoram Hazony! Trump/Vance/TAC are clear they share Netanyahu's objectives, as made so clear here in their warmup for the NatCon conference earlier this year which followed this TAC/QI event shortly after, with the same cast of TAC NatCons headlining at each: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqZGRnfa7rQ
TAC: "American policy planners need to understand the larger context in which this is all unfolding—and why a war on Iran will ultimately bring us and our alleged Israeli friends to grief. The principal aim of U.S. foreign policy planners ought to be the adaptation of the American economy and military establishment to the multipolar world and the development of new markets, not new enemies. Washington’s refusal to acknowledge the fundamental shifts in power and wealth lie at the heart of much of the Biden administration’s foreign policy failure.
Answer: How preposterous can TAC get! It's Trump and the NatCons/Traditional Conservatives that are opposed not only to the "multipolar world," but to the "Liberal International Order" itself!
TAC: "It would revitalize such multilateral organizations as the UN Security Council and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. . . . Washington cannot create stability in the Middle East by unconditionally backing Israel’s territorial ambitions."
Answer: "Fu**!!! Trump and the NatCons are part and parcel of the "Greater Israel Project!
TAC: "An American failure to manage its own transition to multipolarity will create more chaos and ignite a major war in the Middle East, not to mention a full blown war with Russia, and, eventually, China. An outlook that prioritizes avoiding conflict, not starting new conflicts, must replace nearly three decades of feckless leadership in foreign affairs. New thinking in defense and foreign policy should rank diplomacy and peaceful cooperation first over the use of military power."
Answer: And that's exactly what Trump denounced Obama for as "weakness": his seeking multipolarity, his prioritizing the avoidance of conflict in the Mideast, particularly with Iran, and ranking diplomacy and peaceful cooperation over the use of military power, though Trump had to be clandestine in his attacks on Iran, as Bergman makes clear.
TAC: "Bonaparte quipped that in war, truth is the first casualty. Nothing has changed since then. Washington is a veritable fountainhead of lies feeding an unending stream of false narratives regarding the true character of the jihadist hordes raging across Syria. For our purposes, however, it is important to note the alignment of powers behind the Islamist factions now pillaging and terrorizing Syria.
"Washington seems blithely oblivious to Syria’s destruction and the emergence of joint Israeli-Turkish hegemony across the Near East. The disintegration of Syria does, however, open up a short window of opportunity for Tel Aviv to attack Iran."
Answer: And that's exactly what Trump and his Cabinet picks are planning to collaborate with Netahyahu on! As can be seen below:
Incoming NSA Waltz makes clear what Trump's intent is here, while explaining Trump's deception campaign of making it appear his policy is to "avoid getting into any new Mideast wars,
BLUF: "Representative Mike Waltz, Trump's selection for national security advisor, has consistently advocated for a more assertive approach toward Iran. Prior to Israel's military action against Iran last month, Waltz proposed targeting Kharg Island, Tehran's crucial oil export facility. In a September interview withJewish Insider, Waltz stated, "The United States needs to pressure Hamas and its allies in Iran. Unilateral pressure on Israel will not lead to a ceasefire."
Pete Hegseth, the prospective defense secretary, has previously advocated for giving Israel autonomy in addressing Iranian nuclear capabilities. "This is an existential threat to them, let them do what they need to do," Hegseth remarked in statements to US media outlets."
"Iranian officials sensed a trap, the allied officials said. Iranian officials believe that such attacks are aimed at luring them to retaliate so that the United States or Israel could respond with a military strike."
Whether it is Trump's Maximum Pressure 1.0, or now 2.0, it is "war," per the DOD's own definition, and per this fellow's when accusing Russia of waging "Modern War": "However, it would be wrong for Europeans to conclude that President Trump wants to withdraw all US forcesfrom Europe. The President simply wants the US military to be NATO’s security guarantor of last resort, not NATO’s “first responder.”
"One reason is the character of the Russian threat. Instead of the massed motor rifle regiments of the Cold War, we’re now seeing disinformation and infiltration by Russian Special Operations Forces (little green men) on the pretext of aiding disaffected Russian minorities in countries like Estonia, Latvia, or Moldava."
From WSJ article below:
BLUF: "While Trump has insisted that he seeks to avoid massive escalation in the Middle East,he told Timein an interview published Thursday that there is a chance the U.S. could go to war with Iran, partly because Tehran plotted to assassinate him.
“Anything can happen,” he said. “It’s a very volatile situation.”
. . .
"The Israeli government also didn’t respond to requests for comment about whether it would pre-emptively attack Iran during the Trump administration. But in November, after holding three calls with Trump, Netanyahu said he and Trump “see eye to eye on the Iranian threat in all its components, and the danger posed by it.”
"Trump weighed the idea of pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program toward the end of his first term, former officials said, shortly after international inspectors revealed Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material had grown. But Trump, after he left office, has since disputed he ever considered military action seriously, claiming senior defense aides developed war plans and pushed him to authorize a strike.
. . .
"Trump aides and confidants supporting military options for his second term said the main idea would be to support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, and even potentially have the U.S. participate in a joint operation. Many current and former Israeli officials say there are huge uncertainties of how successful Israel would be in mounting a solo attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground.
"Still, some of Trump’s allies insist his first months back in office present him with the rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup while the regime is in a weakened position.
“If you were going to actually do something to neutralize the nuclear-weapons program, this would be it,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who speaks regularly with top Trump aides, including some set to enter the new administration."
Trump Team Weighs Options, Including Airstrikes, to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program
Advisers to president-elect, concerned economic pressure isn’t enough to contain Tehran, consider military action
The military-strike option against nuclear facilities is now under more serious review by some members of his transition team, who are weighing the fall of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad—Tehran’s ally—in Syria, the future of U.S. troops in the region, and Israel’s decimation of regime proxy militias Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s weakened regional position and recent revelations of Tehran’s burgeoning nuclear work have turbocharged sensitive internal discussions, transition officials said. All deliberation on the issue, however, remains in the early stages.
Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent calls that he is concerned about an Iranian nuclear breakout on his watch, two people familiar with their conversations said, signaling he is looking for proposals to prevent that outcome. The president-elect wants plans that stop short of igniting a new war, particularly one that could pull in the U.S. military, as strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities have the potential put the U.S. and Iran on a collision course.
Iran has enough highly enriched uranium alone to build four nuclear bombs, making it the only nonnuclear-weapon country to be producing 60% near-weapons-grade fissile material. It would take just a few days to convert that stockpile into weapons-grade nuclear fuel.
A jet fighter lands on the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Arabian Gulf.Photo: U.S. Navy/Reuters
U.S. officials have previously said it could take Iran several months to field a nuclear weapon.
The president-elect’s transition team is devising what it calls a “maximum pressure 2.0” strategy against the regime, people familiar with the planning said, the sequel to his first-term approach centering on strict economic sanctions. This time, the president-elect and his aides are fleshing out military steps that could be central to its anti-Tehran campaign, though still paired with tighter financial penalties.
Two broad options have come up in discussions, including in some talks that have taken place with Trump, four people familiar with the planning said.
One path, described by two people familiar with the plan, involves augmenting military pressure by sending more U.S. forces, warplanes, and ships to the Middle East. The U.S. could also sell advanced weapons to Israel, such as bunker-busting bombs, strengthening its offensive firepower to take Iranian nuclear facilities offline.
The alternative path is to seek to use the threat of military force, especially if paired with U.S.-imposed sanctions, to drive Tehran into accepting a diplomatic resolution. That is the strategy Trump employed with North Korea in his first term, although the diplomacy eventually faltered.
It isn’t clear which option Trump, who has talked about avoiding a third World War and brokering deals with Tehran, would choose. While Trump has insisted that he seeks to avoid massive escalation in the Middle East, he told Time in an interview published Thursday that there is a chance the U.S. could go to war with Iran, partly because Tehran plotted to assassinate him.
“Anything can happen,” he said. “It’s a very volatile situation.”
Some incoming administration officials have yet to fully weigh in on the issue, and Iran-related proposals could shift as cabinet officials get into place, classified information becomes available, and discussions are held with regional allies like Israel. Crucially, Trump rarely delves deep into details about foreign-policy matters until he is presented with finalized options and a decision needs to be made, former Trump administration officials say.
Iran’s United Nations mission didn’t respond to requests for comment. Leaders in Tehran have long denied that they seek to acquire a nuclear weapon.
The Israeli government also didn’t respond to requests for comment about whether it would pre-emptively attack Iran during the Trump administration. But in November, after holding three calls with Trump, Netanyahu said he and Trump “see eye to eye on the Iranian threat in all its components, and the danger posed by it.”
Trump weighed the idea of pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program toward the end of his first term, former officials said, shortly after international inspectors revealed Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material had grown. But Trump, after he left office, has since disputed he ever considered military action seriously, claiming senior defense aides developed war plans and pushed him to authorize a strike.
President-elect Donald Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in July. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Trump aides and confidants supporting military options for his second term said the main idea would be to support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, and even potentially have the U.S. participate in a joint operation. Many current and former Israeli officials say there are huge uncertainties of how successful Israel would be in mounting a solo attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground.
Still, some of Trump’s allies insist his first months back in office present him with the rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup while the regime is in a weakened position.
“If you were going to actually do something to neutralize the nuclear-weapons program, this would be it,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who speaks regularly with top Trump aides, including some set to enter the new administration.
Should Trump reach for a serious military option, he would be breaking with recent U.S. policy, and that of his first presidency.
The Obama administration aimed to settle Iran’s nuclear rise with a multinational deal, culminating in 2015’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which temporarily constrained Tehran’s nuclear work. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that pact and mounted economic pressure on Iran in hopes it would abandon the nuclear program. President Biden sought to revive the 2015 agreement, but Iran ended up walking away, leading his administration to keep many of the Trump-era sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Israel, meanwhile, has for years considered attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities but hasn’t done so, in part, because of U.S. caution against it. The Obama administration in 2012 warned Netanyahu off launching attacks as Iran built its nuclear program before the 2015 nuclear deal. The Biden administration has consistently said it seeks a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear advances.
Discussions of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be different this time around.
“There is strong support for Israel to take military action as they deem in their interests,” said Gabriel Noronha, who worked on Iran policy at the State Department during the first Trump administration. “Iran does not have much room to go before they hit [Israel’s] red lines, and they still seem intent on escalating further.”
Officials on Trump’s transition say they intend to enforce current sanctions and impose new ones, including redesignating the Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization and prohibiting countries that buy Iranian oil from purchasing American energy.
But more needs to be done than increased economic and financial pressure because Iran “is actively trying to kill President Trump,” a person on the transition said. “That certainly influences everybody’s thinking when it comes to what the relationship is out the gate.”
Iran has given the U.S. assurances it wouldn’t assassinate Trump in retaliation for his 2020 order to kill top Iranian paramilitary leader Qassem Soleimani. The killing of Soleimani was the most aggressive military action by the U.S. against Iran in years.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has signaled that he is open to diplomatic talks with the incoming Trump administration. Photo: Iran’s Presidency/Reuters
The incoming administration insists Tehran’s network of proxies can’t be fully countered unless Iran is starved of economic and military resources. “It’s the head of the octopus,” the transition official said. “We’re not going to solve all these issues where they are. We’re going to solve them in how we deal with Tehran.”
Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, appears to be appealing to Trump’s appetite for high-profile agreements. Pezeshkian “is ready to manage tensions with the United States” and “hopes for equal-footed negotiations regarding the nuclear deal—and potentially more,” Javad Zarif, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, wrote in Foreign Affairs last week.
But the diplomatic approach has its pitfalls. Iranian officials say they won’t negotiate with the U.S. under pressure, and they told European officials in Geneva last month that they wouldn’t take any unilateral steps to clip back their nuclear program.
Tehran already has enough fissile material to produce more than 12 nuclear bombs, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate released last week. Although Iran isn’t currently building a bomb, the report said, it is better prepared to do so thanks to research it has carried out in recent months.
Iranian officials have long made it clear their reaction to a strike would be to kick out U.N. inspectors and leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits Tehran to not develop nuclear weapons.
The only country that has ever done that is North Korea, which went on to covertly start producing nuclear weapons—a path Tehran has hinted it could take.
