“I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars,” proclaimed President-elect Trump in his November 6 victory message.
*Bolstering the US’ posture of deterrence is the most critical prerequisite for stopping/minimizing wars and terrorism. The US’ posture of deterrence is reflected by the size and structure of the US’ defense budget, avoiding appeasement of rogue entities, and dwelling on reality (as frustrating as it is) rather than alternate reality.
*The US’ posture of deterrence has been undermined by the State Department, which was evicted from the center stage of foreign policy formulations during President Trump’s first term. Trump opposes Foggy Bottom’s multilateral/cosmopolitan state of mind, which prefers a coordinated policy with the UN, international organizations and Europe, rather than a unilateral, independent US national security and foreign policy. The State Department has also subordinated Middle East reality to its own alternate reality, which has led to its systematic failure in the Middle East (e.g., the 1978-9 stabbing the Shah in the back, and facilitating the Ayatollahs’ rise to power; the embrace of Saddam Hussein until his 1990 invasion of Kuwait; the 1993 cuddling of Arafat and ushering him to the Nobel Peace Prize; the 2009 betrayal of the pro-US Mubarak and the courting of the anti-US Moslem Brotherhood; the 2010 reference to the Arab Tsunami on the Arab Street, as if it were an Arab Spring and Facebook Revolution; the 2011 military offensive on Qadhafi, which transformed Libya into a major arena of anti-US Islamic terrorism; and pressuring Israel to conclude a series of accords with – and refrain from demolishing – Hamas, which bolstered Hamas’ terrorism and led to the October 7 atrocities).
*The US’ posture of deterrence has been severely undermined by the State Department’s policy toward Iran’s Ayatollahs regime, which has been transformed – since the February 1979 toppling of the Shah – from “the American Policeman of the Gulf” to an arch anti-US venomous octopus, stretching its tentacles from the Persian Gulf through the Middle East and Africa into Latin America and the US soil. The Ayatollahs have become the major global epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism and drug trafficking, threatening the US homeland and the survival of all pro-US Arab regimes, especially the Arab oil producers. The Ayatollahs aspire to control 48% of global oil reserves and key routes of global trade, which would deal a major blow to Western economy.
*The US’ posture of deterrence has been severely undermined by the delusion that the diplomatic option/negotiation, supplemented with mega-billion-dollar-gestures could induce the Ayatollahs to abandon their 1,400-year-old fanatical vision, conduct good faith negotiations and accept peaceful coexistence. The architects of the diplomatic option have ignored the fact that rogue regimes bite the hands that feed them, as documented by the Ayatollahs, who took over the US Embassy – a few months following the US support in toppling the Shah - held 50 American hostages for 444 days, and emerged as a leading threat to the US, globally and domestically.
*Thus, the 45-year-old diplomatic option has dramatically bolstered the capabilities of Iran’s Ayatollahs as the chief epicenter of global anti-US terrorism, drug trafficking, proliferation of advance military systems and mega-billion-dollars of money laundering. Just like the Moslem Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO/PA, Iran’s Ayatollahs have been driven by a fanatical vision, which transcends monetary considerations. Moreover, this vision has been codified by their Constitution, education system and mosque sermons.
*The Ayatollahs’ fanatical vision mandates the elimination of enemies, such as the “apostate” Sunni regimes, the “infidel” West, the “Great American Satan,” and the “illegitimate” Zionist entity, which they view as the US’ vanguard in the Middle East.
*The Ayatollahs consider negotiation as a means to advance their anti-US vision, and not as a means to advance reconciliation with the US.
*Therefore, the Ayatollahs should not be partners to negotiation, but a target for regime-change. The potential cost of regime-change would be dwarfed by the cost of facing a nuclear Iran.
*At the same time, a series of peace accords ended the state of war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and South Sudan, because – unlike the Ayatollahs, Hamas, the PLO/PA and Hezbollah - the national vision/aspiration of each Arab country does not mandate the elimination of Israel. In fact, the Saudi “Vision 2030” considers Israel as a partner, militarily, technologically and agriculturally.
*President Trump’s first term featured “maximum pressure” economic sanctions, which crippled the Ayatollahs’ economy, and constrained their capability to bolster terrorism and wars. However, as demonstrated by the 2021 suspension and softening of the sanctions, economic sanctions are reversible by a succeeding President. They reduce/delay the wrath of war and terrorism, but do not eliminate the threat.
*On the other hand, regime-change is irreversible, eliminates the threat, and cannot be restored by a succeeding President. Furthermore, it would significantly bolster the US’ strategic stature (including in Latin America, the US’ soft underbelly), by removing the Ayatollahs’ machete from the throats of all pro-US Arab regimes, eliminate the chief supporter of global Islamic terrorism, and induce Saudi Arabia and Oman (and possibly Kuwait, Indonesia and additional Moslem countries) to join the Abraham Accords.
*The Abraham Accords were conceived by ignoring the State Department’s preoccupation with the Palestinian issue and focussing on the national interests of the individual Arab country, as was done with Israel’s prior peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Contrary to the State Department’s conventional wisdom – which produced a litany of peace proposals that failed to produce peace - the Abraham Accords came to fruition, because they bypassed the Palestinian issue, denying the Palestinians a veto power over the peace process. The Abraham Accords validate that the State Department has been wrong to assume that the Palestinian issue is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the crown-jewel of the Arabs and a root cause of Middle East turmoil.
*While the State Department has been obsessed with a proposed Palestinian state, all pro-US Arab countries have limited their support of the proposed Palestinian state to talk, while their walk has been indifferent-to-negative. Arab leaders pay more attention to the Palestinian rogue walk than to the Palestinian moderate talk. Therefore, they consider the Palestinians as a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism and treachery, due to Palestinian terrorism against their hosts in Egypt (1950s), Syria (1960s), Jordan (1968-70), Lebanon (1970-82) and Kuwait (1990). In addition, they are aware of the Palestinian collaboration with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Bloc, Ayatollah Khomeini, international terror organizations, Moslem Brotherhood terrorists, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and China. Therefore, they have concluded that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would add fuel to the Middle East fire, toppling the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, transforming Jordan into an arena of anti-US Islamic terrorism, triggering rogue ripple effects in the Arabian Peninsula (as well as in the US), threatening every oil-producing Arab regime and Egypt. This would be a bonanza for the Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a blow to the US economy and homeland security.
*On the other hand, Israel has emerged as a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US, and a leading innovation center for the US commercial and defense high-tech sectors (e.g., 250 US high tech giants operate research and development centers in Israel). Israel is the “Triple-A-Store” of the US defense and aerospace industries (increasing US export), and the leading battle-tested laboratory of the US defense industries (saving many years of research and development), Armed Forces (enhancing battle tactics), the intelligence community, counter-terrorism agencies and the FBI. Israel has been the largest US aircraft carrier (as stated by General Alexander Haig, a former NATO Supreme Commander and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, a former Chief of Naval Operations), which does not require Americans on board, deployed in a critical area between the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, sparing the US the need to manufacture and deploy (to the Middle East) a few more real aircraft carriers along with a few ground divisions, which would cost the US taxpayer $15-$20BN annually.
No comments:
Post a Comment