by Pepe Escobar, posted with permission and first posted at Asia Times
One year ago, the Raging Twenties started with a murder.
The assassination of Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi militia, by laser-guided Hellfire missiles launched from two MQ-9 Reaper drones, was an act of war.
Not only the drone strike at Baghdad airport, directly ordered by President Trump, was unilateral, unprovoked and illegal: it was engineered as a stark provocation, to detonate an Iranian reaction that would then be countered by American “self-defense”, packaged as “deterrence”. Call it a perverse form of double down, reversed false flag.
The imperial Mighty Wurlitzer spun it as a “targeted killing”, a pre-emptive op squashing Soleimani’s alleged planning of “imminent attacks” against US diplomats and troops.
False. No evidence whatsoever. And then, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, in front of his Parliament, offered the ultimate context: Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission, on a regular flight between Damascus and Baghdad, involved in complex negotiations between Tehran and Riyadh, with the Iraqi Prime Minister as mediator, at the request of President Trump.
So the imperial machine – in complete mockery of international law – assassinated a de facto diplomatic envoy.
The three top factions who pushed for Soleimani’s assassination were US neo-cons – supremely ignorant of Southwest Asia’s history, culture and politics – and the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, who ardently believe their interests are advanced every time Iran is attacked. Trump could not possibly see The Big Picture and its dire ramifications: only what his major Israeli-firster donor Sheldon Adelson dictates, and what Jared of Arabia Kushner whispered in his ear, remote-controlled by his close pal Muhammad bin Salman (MbS).
The armor of American “prestige”
The measured Iranian response to Soleimani’s assassination was carefully calibrated to not detonate vengeful imperial “deterrence”:
precision missile strikes on the American-controlled Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq. The Pentagon received advance warning.
Predictably, the run-up towards the first anniversary of Soleimani’s assassination had to degenerate into intimations of US-Iran once again on the brink of war.
So it’s enlightening to examine what the Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Division, Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1399/10/13/2423366/ told Lebanon’s Al Manar network: “The US and the Zionist regime [Israel] have not brought security to any place and if something happens here (in the region) and a war breaks out, we will make no distinction between the US bases and the countries hosting them.”
Hajizadeh, expanding on the precision missile strikes a year ago, added, “We were prepared for the Americans’ response and all our missile power was fully on alert. If they had given a response, we would have hit all of their bases from Jordan to Iraq and the Persian Gulf and even their warships in the Indian Ocean.”
The precision missile strikes on Ain al-Assad, a year ago, represented a middle-rank power, enfeebled by sanctions, and facing a huge economic/financial crisis, responding to an attack by targeting imperial assets that are part of the Empire of Bases. That was a global first – unheard of since the end of WWII. It was clearly interpreted across vast swathes of the Global South as fatally piercing the decades-old hegemonic armor of American” prestige”.
So Tehran was not exactly impressed by two nuclear-capable B-52s recently flying over the Persian Gulf; or the US Navy announcing the arrival of the nuclear-powered, missile loaded USS Georgia in the Persian Gulf last week.
These deployments were spun as a response to an evidence-free claim that Tehran was behind a 21-rocket attack against the sprawling American embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone.
The (unexploded) 107mm caliber rockets – by the way marked in English, not Farsi – can be easily bought in some underground Baghdad souk by virtually anybody, as I have seen for myself in Iraq since the mid-2000s.
That certainly does not qualify as a casus belli – or “self-defense” merging with “deterrence”. The Centcom justification actually sounds like a Monty Python sketch: an attack “…almost certainly conducted by an Iranian-backed rogue militia group.” Note that “almost certainly” is code for “we have no idea who did it”.
How to fight the – real – war on terror
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif did take the trouble (see attached tweet) to warn Trump he was being set up for a fake casus belli – and blowback would be inevitable. That’s a case of Iranian diplomacy being perfectly aligned with the IRGC: after all, the whole post-Soleimani strategy comes straight from Ayatollah Khamenei.
And that leads to the IRGC’s Hajizadeh once again establishing the Iranian red line in terms of the Islamic Republic’s defense: “We will not negotiate about the missile power with anyone” – pre-empting any move to incorporate missile reduction into a possible Washington return to the JCPOA. Hajizadeh has also emphasized that Tehran has restricted the range of its missiles to 2,000 km.
My friend Elijah Magnier, arguably the top war correspondent across Southwest Asia in the past four decades, has neatly detailed the importance of Soleimani.
Everyone not only along the Axis of Resistance – Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Hezbollah – but across vast swathes of the Global South is firmly aware of how Soleimani led the fight against ISIS/Daesh in Iraq from 2014 to 2015, and how he was instrumental in retaking Tikrit in 2015.
Zeinab Soleimani, the impressive General’s daughter, has profiled the man, and the sentiments he inspired. And Hezbollah’s secretary-general Sayed Nasrallah, in an extraordinary interview, stressed Soleimani’s “great humility”, even “with the common people, the simple people.”
Nasrallah tells a story that is essential to place Soleimani’s modus operandi in the real – not fictional – war on terror, and deserves to be quoted in full:
“At that time, Hajj Qassem traveled from Baghdad airport to Damascus airport, from where he came (directly) to Beirut, in the southern suburbs. He arrived to me at midnight. I remember very well what he said to me: “At dawn you must have provided me with 120 (Hezbollah) operation commanders.” I replied “But Hajj, it’s midnight, how can I provide you with 120 commanders?” He told me that there was no other solution if we wanted to fight (effectively) against ISIS, to defend the Iraqi people, our holy places [5 of the 12 Imams of Twelver Shi’ism have their mausoleums in Iraq], our Hawzas [Islamic seminars], and everything that existed in Iraq. There was no choice. “I don’t need fighters. I need operational commanders [to supervise the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units, PMU].” This is why in my speech [about Soleimani’s assassination], I said that during the 22 years or so of our relationship with Hajj Qassem Soleimani, he never asked us for anything. He never asked us for anything, not even for Iran. Yes, he only asked us once, and that was for Iraq, when he asked us for these (120) operations commanders. So he stayed with me, and we started contacting our (Hezbollah) brothers one by one. We were able to bring in nearly 60 operational commanders, including some brothers who were on the front lines in Syria, and whom we sent to Damascus airport [to wait for Soleimani], and others who were in Lebanon, and that we woke up from their sleep and brought in [immediately] from their house as the Hajj said he wanted to take them with him on the plane that would bring him back to Damascus after the dawn prayer. And indeed, after praying the dawn prayer together, they flew to Damascus with him, and Hajj Qassem traveled from Damascus to Baghdad with 50 to 60 Lebanese Hezbollah commanders, with whom he went to the front lines in Iraq. He said he didn’t need fighters, because thank God there were plenty of volunteers in Iraq. But he needed [battle-hardened] commanders to lead these fighters, train them, pass on experience and expertise to them, etc. And he didn’t leave until he took my pledge that within two or three days I would have sent him the remaining 60 commanders.”
Orientalism, all over again
A former commander under Soleimani that I met in Iran in 2018 had promised me and my colleague Sebastiano Caputo that he would try to arrange an interview with the Maj Gen – who never spoke to foreign media. We had no reason to doubt our interlocutor – so until the last Baghdad minute we were in this selective waiting list.
As for Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killed side by side with Soleimani in the Baghdad drone strike, I was part of a small group who spent an afternoon with him in a safe house inside – not outside – Baghdad’s Green Zone in November 2017. My full report is here.
Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran, reflecting on the assassination, told me, “the most important thing is that the Western view on the situation is very Orientalist. They assume that Iran has no real structures and that everything is dependent on individuals. In the West an assassination doesn’t destroy an administration, company, or organization. Ayatollah Khomeini passed away and they said the revolution was finished. But the constitutional process produced a new leader within hours. The rest is history.”
This may go a long way to explain Soleimani geopolitics. He may have been a revolutionary superstar – many across the Global South see him as the Che Guevara of Southwest Asia – but he was most of all a quite articulated cog of a very articulated machine.
The adjunct President of the Iranian Parliament, Hossein Amirabdollahian, told Iranian network Shabake Khabar that Soleimani, two years before the assassination, had already envisaged an inevitable “normalization” between Israel and Persian Gulf monarchies.
At the same time he was also very much aware of the Arab League 2002 position – shared, among others, by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon: a “normalization” cannot even begin to be discussed without an independent – and viable – Palestinian state under 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as capital.
Now everyone knows this dream is dead, if not completely buried. What remains is the usual, dreary slog: the American assassination of Soleimani, the Israeli assassination of top Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the relentless, relatively low-intensity Israeli warfare against Iran fully supported by the Beltway, Washington’s illegal occupation of parts of northeast Syria to grab some oil, the perpetual drive for regime change in Damascus, the non-stop demonization of Hezbollah.
Beyond the Hellfire
Tehran has made it very clear that a return to at least a measure of mutual respect between US-Iran involves Washington rejoining the JCPOA with no preconditions, and the end of illegal, unilateral Trump administration sanctions. These parameters are non-negotiable.
Nasrallah, for his part, in a speech in Beirut on Sunday, stressed,
“one of the main outcomes of the assassination of General Soleimani and al-Muhandis is the calls made for the expulsion of US forces from the region. Such calls had not been made prior to the assassination. The martyrdom of the resistance leaders set US troops on the track of leaving Iraq.”
This may be wishful thinking, because the military-industrial-security complex will never willingly abandon a key hub of the Empire of Bases.
More important is the fact that the post-Soleimani environment transcends Soleimani.
The Axis of Resistance – Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah – instead of collapsing, will keep getting reinforced.
Internally, and still under “maximum pressure” sanctions, Iran and Russia will be cooperating to produce Covid-19 vaccines, and the Pasteur Institute of Iran will co-produce a vaccine with a Cuban company.
Iran is increasingly solidified as the key node of the New Silk Roads in Southwest Asia: the Iran-China strategic partnership is constantly revitalized by FMs Zarif and Wang Yi, and that includes Beijing turbo-charging its geoeconomic investment in South Pars – the largest gas field on the planet.
Iran, Russia and China will be involved in the reconstruction of Syria – which will also include, eventually, a New Silk Road branch: the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Eastern Mediterranean railway.
All that is an interlinked, ongoing process no Hellfires are able to burn.
I think Pepe that the US has little appetite for external adventures at this time as they are self destructing at home. Some in power are obviously asking the question: should I start a war and will that save me? They are being advsed … not at this time. Also the cost of defense is huge … mind you the average of the top US politicians is such that there is little to lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0szzAiwsfE
War scenarios are a direct function of $usd reserve currency status risk. Period.
I agree with Anonymous.
Btw, USD started off the year very badly. This could could make the US more trigger-happy…
Normally I support the demise of the USD, it’s just that Armageddon and arrival of the Antichrist are predicted to take place when the world is on a gold standard (end-times eschatology according to Sheik Imran Hosein).
I wouldn’t place all my eggs in Imran Hossein’s eschatalogical basket. There are no facts in eschatology, just blurry predictions that could fit many timelines
the only “usefulness” left to the whole country is to go & “defend” abroad the Judeo-Zionist money, aka the US Dollar. hence, the Himalayas of allocations to the military.
“The (unexploded) 107mm caliber rockets – by the way marked in English, not Farsi – can be easily bought in some underground Baghdad souk by virtually anybody, as I have seen for myself in Iraq since the mid-2000s.”
The photos that were posted on Twitter of the rockets were manipulated. You can easily tell by enlarging the area with of the lettering and see the noticeable pixelation difference. It’s so bad you can’t call it anything else but a hack Photoshop cut and paste job.
When shall we see assassinations directed at leaders of the USA and Israel? When shall we see action being INITIATED by victims of Western terror and intimidation? When shall the West be served some of its own medicine? Are the defences of Israel and the USA so impregnable? Or is it “turn the other cheek” syndrome?
The perpetrators of Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 don’t count, for obvious reasons – they were homegrown.
David,
You wrote:
I think that when the Empire falls it will be the “homegrown” that bring it about.
The election of Joe Biden was engineered by the media and the intelligence community. That shows that the people who run the Empire are completely out of touch with the incredible level of anger in the country.
Inevitably, there will be a spark. Then the Empire will be history.
Just like with the Soviet Union, people will be shocked at how quickly it went down.
Yeah but right now its still growing, the democrats are going to win here in GA by a couple votes, but its a city vs country divide.
The cities see themselves dying off and w/o control of the system to funnel funding to the dying environment, they would be a slaughter just waiting to happen, plus the kids want their $2000 and they know the democrats will deliver.
No other artists can paint a geo-political pictures so colorful than Pepe. Always amazing to read.
The assassination of Maj Gen Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi militia, by laser-guided Hellfire missiles launched from two MQ-9 Reaper drones, was an act of war.
The final nail in Trump’s coffin posing as a “peace-loving, America first” president. Good riddance to the scum bag, even allowing for the fact that Bidet will be no better, and very likely even worse. Lesser of two evils is not a thing to aspire to.
@John Hagan
Do note that lame duck Trump presents a prime opportunity to start a fire and blame it all on outgoing Trump. Another adventurous war is extremely inadvisable for all but the warmongers including those in Israel and Riyadh, but the next 2 weeks remains a priceless opportunity.
The assassination was more than an act of war–it was a supremely evil deed of great power, this killing of a man under the flag of truce. There are levels of evil…note what Christ said about peacemakers in his Beatitudes… People seem to throw the word “evil” around lightly but when I saw this act I knew deep in my bones that the USA’s reserve of “crown thy Good with Brotherhood” had been totally evaporated and that my country was doomed, truly doomed, from that moment onwards.
And so 2020 and 2021 has come to pass. Zeinab was interviewed by RT briefly during which she said something with quiet indignation, and this in reference to Fakhrizadah’s murder, ” What gives them the right to come into our country and kill us at will?” or words to that effect.
Yes, indeed. OK, South Korea, will you depend on Papa Bear save your miserable, cowardly hide this time or will you throw off your shackles, make a peace deal with N. Korea and act in the interests of your own people
for a change?
only time will tell.
Link with no own blurb. (s)
—————
What to make of this?
https://www.voltairenet.org/article211896.html
Meyssan has excellent information, his resources are deep and wide. His conclusions often seem far-fetched, but he understands all the ME dynamics as well as anyone.
He lives in Syria. So his ear is to the ground.
When Soleimani was killed, I wrote the Iranian authorities (Rouhani) were part of the conspiracy.
It was a great benefit to remove him from the real #2 spot in Iran.
Meyssan adds all the economic reasons Rouhani would be happy over the General’s end.
This is what I make of Meyssan’s article. It is 95% spot on.
What I often write, facts matter. Meyssan has a lot of facts that support his theory.
I remember reading a comment about the ‘convenience’ of killing Soleimani at the time — it was probably yours! This is why I read this article by Thierry Meyssan with atention, now. He is indeed an excellent analyst and knows very well what is happening there.
‘Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran: They assume that Iran has no real structures and that everything is dependent on individuals.’
A very insightful comment.
An inherent characteristic of authoritarian leaders is to overvalue the rôle of the individual (themselves) while undervaluing the role of systems (i.e. everyone else who, organized in a systems framework, actually make society function). After all that is how they justify the outrageous incomes of business leaders, artists, sports stars and politicians (i.e. themselves and those who serve them).
Overvaluing the individual and undervaluing the rôle of systems is at the root of the failure of most of the U.S.’ (and the West’s) policies in international affairs over the past 20 years.
A good example is the mess that the U.S. made in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. They had initially planned to redevelop Iraq in the image of the U.S. as an example for the other Middle-East countries to follow. They assumed that if they removed the Baath party from the administration, other, U.S. friendly, leaders would rise and take over, and, by following U.S. examples, they would create a modern ‘American’ society in Iraq. What they failed to appreciate was that, when they removed the Baath civil service, they also destroyed the systems that made the society function. When the systems were destroyed the result was anarchy, which is still by and large the situation today. It will take many decades, if ever, to replace the systems that were, in ignorance, destroyed in a few days.
Likewise, the failure to appreciate systems is at he root of the societal degradation that today is on display across the West, and particularly in the U.S. The remarkable achievements of modern, wealthy Western societies, during the 20th century, was largely based on the democratic and social institutions developed in the U.S. after the ‘Great Depression’, and spread throughout Europe after WW2. However the takeover of U.S. and British politics by the authoritarian ‘Global Elites’, starting with Reagan and Thatcher at the onset of the 1980s marked the beginning of decay in the West. By assigning all value to the leaders, and centralizing authority with objective of enriching the leaders while ignoring the well-being of society as a whole, they have undermined the systems that made their societies wealthy and powerful. One only has to look at the condition of the transportation systems, education systems, health systems, industry and finally the electoral systems to see the rot. As the systems that made their societies great have degraded, so the well-being, wealth and power of their societies has diminshied in parallel.
Authoritarianism is the Achilles Heel of the ‘Global Elites’. The authoritarian nature of the ‘Great Reset’, the ‘Globalist’ project of ‘Global Governance’, and of the ‘Global Elites’ themselves will ensure their failure. Russia, China and Iran, won’t need to defeat the ‘Globalists’, they’re collapsing on their own.
Professor Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran, reflecting on the assassination, told me, the most important thing is that the Western view on the situation is very Orientalist’. Quite so, now we’re back to Montesquieu, the grand theorist of Oriental Despotism, the companion theory to the separation of powers that marks the quintessence of a presumed ontological difference between Free Europeans and the supposed stunted beings of Asiatic despotisms. As Professor Marandi says (and underscored by the insightful posting of dh-mt above) what’s asserted is ‘no structure’. It might be worth pausing here to note that Montesquieu first developed his doctrine of ‘oriental despotism’ in the Persian Letters, first published in 1719 (I think), a ‘risque’ novella published by the notorious libertine nearly 30 years prior to the grand tome ‘Spirit of Laws’ which came out in 1747. But the fundamental ideas that are fleshed out on the later work are well developed in the ‘Letters’. The leading theoretical idea of both works is none other than this ‘oriental despotism’. Montesquieu characterised this regime as the rule of ‘the one man’, a totalising despotism that reaches into every nook and cranny of the smooth space (Deleuze invented nothing) of the orient (this is in contrast to the political geography of Europe with all these mountain ranges and rivers to segment the space against the prospects of imperial adventures, a space naturally fostering localised freedoms). So Oriental monarchies are total, but vulnerable to the ‘well known’ irrational emotionalism of orientals who might at any time overthrow the throne in a fit of passionate excess. So then, what the monarch needs is some structure to insulate the throne from the passions of the crowd – like they have in Europe. This is the structure indicated. It’s really about class. Ok, interesting point: there are no structures in the Orient. What Montesquieu is saying is that there’s no privileged landed class in the Asiatic monarchies known to the wits of the salons of the time. And why would he say something like that? Answer: because everybody was talking about China where there was no landed aristocracy like Europe but instead they had a non hereditary aristocracy chosen on the basis of merit by way of the examination system. This was the talk of all the Jesuit educated philosophes who flocked to the fashionable salons of the day. From the later days of the reign of the Sun King throughout the time of his grandson the Fifteenth, the leading wits spoke of China above all. Enlightenment means China, pure and simple. Now put yourself in Montesquieu’s shoes. He was the leading figure of the landed nobility of the sword whose brief was to lead the charge against the Bourbons claims to royal authority on behalf of the ancient feudal ‘nobility’. But not so noble, not since the talk of China started to make the rounds. Now it was becoming clear that what they called ‘aristocracy’ was really oligarchy, and barbaric at that, and that the true meaning of aristocracy was to be found only in China. So this is like a gentile slap in the face, no? As one of the Straussians (sorry, I forget) said: ‘Montesquieu was out to destroy the China myth’. He does this, first of all in theory, by dividing the fundamental forms of monarchy. Traditionally there were monarchies and republics. After Montesquieu monarchies are divided between (bad) oriental despotisms and (good) monarchies properly speaking, or as we have come to say ‘constitutional monarchies’ like the English instituted after 1688. This is what Montesquieu wanted, and ‘English settlement’ – as distinct from any sort of revolutionary development that would head in the direction of the Chinese system. Here it is well to note: Montesquieu’s mortal enemy is the great Sinophile, Voltaire, the original ‘dangerous individual’. There’s so much more to say about all this but for the present this question of structure that comes up reflects the inherited idiocies of Thinktankistan. Proceeding with this (oligarchic) class conceived ‘lack of structure’ orientalist theory provides the paid opportunists of the Beltway and beyond with shoddy advise to the effect that the oriental despot in question is an easy mark for the right colour revolution gambits. Thus orientalist conceptions are systematically blind to the real structures that are the subject matter of Pepe’s essay. There are two that are especially noteworthy. In China there is a recently emerged Party aristocracy that has come up through the recently revived examination systems – re Godfrey Roberts. In Iran a different aristocracy has arisen formed from a Shiite religious order founded on an old theology which addresses longstanding questions of justice including an ancient jurisprudential tradition. Last point: some will object to my use of the term ‘aristocracy’. But that is the right term that distinguishes what is virtuous and public spirited from what is not, namely oligarchy. But again, there’s much to say about all this. To my patient reader: thanking you – as we say here in Aus.
Maj. Gen Qassem Soleimani still sets my heart aflutter. A magnificent man. Charismatic even with his back to camera, as in the photo accompanying the Elijah J. Magnier eulogy. His Matryrdom is a consolation for Muslims and for those of us who loved him and are not of the Islamic faith.
Soleimani duly earned the people’s adulation. Not so the political characters of the Iranian “regime”, Messrs Rouhani and Zarif. Pepe, your article is a good companion piece to Thierry Meyssan’s latest essay to mark this assassination anniversary.
http do://www.voltairenet.org/article211896.html
It seems to be only Meyssan who cites Rouhani’s involvement with the Israelis in the Iran/contras affair. Is this an instance of “the unspeakable”?
Peace be upon you.
I always liked Pepe and his pretty unique style of writing. But slowly it deems to me that he’s just a good story teller of our times who most often just stays on the surface of things, but never goes to the real roots. Meyssan happens to achieve this sometimes. The West, and especially the US wants to go down. Its all orchestrated. Covid and Amen and Awoman crap and you name it whatever else bullshit it is being pulled off. Education is nothing more than a joke. Asia will rise, the West will go down. That’s how its wanted, that’s how it will become. People are mere sheep.
As many people here happened to notice, and talk about Meyssan´s article, I wonder why Meyssan takes out this article precisely now…when rumor has Trump could unleash a war on Iran to keep on power…
Meyssan has been openly pro-Trump, as has been the crowd here now esgrimming his article..
He also writes about Ahmadineyah,,who, at firstt moments of Trump grabbing power, wrote an astonishingly ( by his personal usual traits..) kind letter to The Donald…
Iran, as happens with many countries, has amongst its elites and managerial class different degrees of national present ideologies. That there they have managed to achieve a balance of forces amongst the “bazaaris” ( who could well be represented by Rouhani…), the patriotic revolutionaries now leading the IRGC, the religious leadership, and the minorities present also in that country, is reflected in the stability they have managed to mantain in spite of the harsh sanctions and continuous attacks and provocations by the Axis of Evil.
The same balance of forces and interests has been well understood by Putin in Russia, btw…This is why the head of state, as widely understood by Assad in Syria, can not but be a secular figure, as otherwise will create an imbalance, or an impression of iy, in the govenrment.
That Iran has been throughout its history helped in its wars by foreign powers is not a discovery by intelligence operatives who enjoy deep connections, but of public domain…Where was Khomeini refuged till he returned to Iran in the heights of the Islamic Revolution? When I visited Iran I was told a say there on that “in the sleeves of the clerics, they are the English”…
I think we can conclude that in spite of only being able to travel to Russia in a sealed train payed by German money ( as he was poor of solemnity..), Lenin, in the end, through the revolution he inspired and fought along his peers in exile and inside Russia, mostly benefitted the Russian people, and by extension ( through the presure it exerted the USSR by comparisson as welfare state with the West, especially after WWII ) the majority of working masses around the world. hence Western powers started the Cold War until the USSR was dismantled by connivence of foreign powers with traitors inside the Soviet system.
Meyssan knows Trump, somewhat, from a distance, reading information in a unique way.
But this is what Trump has indicated in four years.
No Wars.
He just said it the night before last in Georgia. No Trump Wars.
I doubt he will start anything.
He likes to Show Force and thus, reordered the JCS to put the aircraft carrier task force back in the Persian Gulf.
That’s not a signal to start a war. Or allow a war to start.
It restricts the JCS, CENTCOM, the IDF to start a war.
War against Iran will be a massive cruise missile attack, massive swarms of armed drones and ballistic missiles.
It won’t be a carrier led attack. The carriers will be 1000 miles away if the US attacked Iran.
So, all the signals are No War.
Would Trump authorize a strike against a nuclear weapons site? Yes.
However, the JCS would want to check with the incoming Biden people first.
Trump, unless the US is attacked before Jan. 20, noon, is basically powerless. He can defend, but not start anything. It’s a Lame Duck Presidency right now.
He has been couped by the fraudulent election. Regime Change 101, classic take down.