Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Iran: where Bolton and Pompeo get their payoff for playing dead

Monday's news that our tweeting President has turned his fire on Iran makes perfect sense.

“To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!” Trump tweeted.

I'd been wondering why renowned war hawks like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton were willing to work for President Appeaser.

Now it seems clear: if they pretend the man in the White House is capable of carrying out a foreign policy, especially in Russia, perhaps he'll give them the war they really want. For reasons that have always seemed obscure to me, the U.S. establishment has long lusted after using our military might to overthrow the government of Iran. Sure, the Iranian government is genuinely horrible to those of its own citizens, especially women, who want to move beyond theocracy. But that's not what the war fever is about. Maybe they really think they can "seize the oil." Or are they still bent out of shape because Iranians held some U.S. diplomats hostage 40 years ago? Or are they vaguely guilty that, when Iranians elected a free and fair government of their own, they sent the C.I.A. to oust it?

For sure, governments around the world are going to know how to interpret Trump's fawning over Putin and cozying up to Kim Jung Un -- it's safer to have nukes than not to have them.

7 comments:

Rain Trueax said...

Well, remember how it began with North Korea, same belligerence. Next thing we know, Trump will be buddy buddy with their leaders lol. With Trump, a person never really knows what it's about. But I don't think Obama did us any favors with the Iran deal over nukes and all that money secretly given to them with only at most a 10 year delay in their nuclear program. Obama knew they were funding terrorist organizations and constantly threaten Israel; so hard to say what he was thinking. I know the EU went along with it (not sure if they knew about the money which involved some banking shenanigans to also give them back the money that had been banked in the West). Sad as they were a people with a lot going for them and then the Shah used his brutal techniques, made them welcome a religious despot for a leader, and their freedoms, for women at least, were gone. 'Reading Lolita in Tehran' is a good example of why their educated citizens welcomed the Ayatollah and what happened as a result. But then, for me, the whole Middle East including Libya in Africa, is a concern.

janinsanfran said...

Dear Rain -- you are aware the idea Obama gave money to Iran is hoax, aren't you? Here's <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-bribed-iran-400-million-to-release-u-s-prisoners/>Snopes</a> explaining where the fable came from.

Rain Trueax said...

the issue there is that it wasn't to pay a ransom-- not that they didn't give them money secretly until it later got revealed Money and Iran. The bank thing was a separate deal where it is said they went to our banks who said, because of sanctions, they couldn't change the funds into dollars. They then went to Dubai and got it done, thereby legally avoiding the sanctions. bank exchange???.

Like so much today, we get two sides and have to choose which one to believe. Where I don't see Obama as a hero, I am able to see he might've gone outside the rules to get done a deal he wanted. That doesn't make him necessarily a bad guy-- just a typical politician. Think back to Iran Contra and how much damage it did. Can we still get the whole story and truth on it?

Rain Trueax said...

Not Dubai lol but oman and I am not going to go to the trouble of making those links again ;)

janinsanfran said...

It seems to me that Lawrence Walsh dug out the truth about Iran-Contra at the time -- the only impediment to full knowledge was George HW Bush pardoning the principle figures. (Possibly to cover his own participation.) Guess we differ on this too. Thing is, some things are simply true, not partisan. Conspiracy theories are Kool-Aid.

Rain Trueax said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rain Trueax said...

I don't tend to believe all conspiracies are kool-aid. Look at history and you see them. The problem today is separating out all the information as to which is true or relevant. Did you take the time to watch Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States with a lot of film? What we think is going on often is not and are there powers behind what does happen or is it all happenstance? Do the Bilderbergs control anything or everything? Go back to East Indies Company and sometimes what we think is real is anything but.

My opinion on George Bush, the first and so much definitely falls under the category of conspiracy like the day the hostages were released just as Reagan was being inaugurated. Nobody talks about what that was really all about but as a conspiracy believer, I think his veep made sure they were not released to keep Carter from winning and the irony of their release was the Iranian Mullahs said as much with that release. I think Iran Contra damaged far more than a few guns with its encouragement of drugs into the US to make money to pay for the operation. Do I have proof of any of it? Not at all. It's though what I think happened. Maybe as a fiction writer, I tend to look at things differently, but I think much of what we think is going on is subterfuge and meant to distract us from what really is happening. So call me a nut.

Related Posts with Thumbnails