When US national security
adviser John Bolton demanded military plans to oust the government of Nicolás
Maduro in Venezuela, Trump demurred, reportedly saying Bolton was trying to
pull him “into
a war.” When Bolton demanded “regime change” in Iran and the Pentagon
produced a plan to put 120,000
troops into the region, Trump demurred
again.
“He is not comfortable with
all this ‘regime change’ talk,’ which to his ears echoes the discussion of
removing Iraqi president Saddam Hussein before the 2003 US invasion,” one
unnamed official told The
Washington Post.
When push comes to proverbial
shove, Trump balks at shoving.
When US-backed opposition
leader Juan Guaidó attempted to lead a popular uprising on April 30, Trump did
not lend his voice to the call. As Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
cited the alleged danger of Russian involvement, the US president rubbished
his message, saying Vladimir Putin was “not looking at all to get involved
in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen for
Venezuela.”
The uprising failed, and
Bolton moved on to Iran.
Last week, Bolton warned the
Tehran government that “any attack on United States interests or on those of
our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” On Wednesday, Trump spoke of
negotiations, saying, “I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.”
The White House national
security adviser wants war, but his boss doesn’t want to be a war president.
Trump’s combination of bluster (“bomb the shit out of them”) and anti-war
rhetoric (“Bush lied”) is a political asset he doesn’t want to squander.
Bolton’s job isn’t in any danger, because to Trump, tough talk is good
politics. Insults, threats, sanctions, and covert operations are fine – as long
as they don’t lead to an actual shooting war.
Now, the dynamic has flipped.
The generals [Mattis and McMaster] are gone, replaced by Bolton and Boeing
lobbyist Patrick Shanahan. As Bolton pursues regime change in Venezuela and
Iran, the only restraining force is Trump himself. It’s a thin orange line.
Will it hold?
Some hope it’s a “good cop/bad
cop” routine, designed to get Trump to the global stage of negotiations. But
that is not how Bolton thinks. He has never suggested that any negotiated
settlement between the United States and any adversary is worth pursuing.
When Trump came to office,
official Washington hoped generals like defense secretary James Mattis and
national security adviser H R McMaster would act as the “adults in the room.”
In Washington-speak, the phrase expressed the bipartisan hope that Trump’s
non-interventionist instincts, grounded in domestic politics, would be curbed.
Now, the dynamic has flipped.
The generals are gone, replaced by Bolton and Boeing lobbyist Patrick Shanahan.
As Bolton pursues regime change in Venezuela and Iran, the only restraining
force is Trump himself.
It’s a thin orange line. Will
it hold?
Trump’s Obama-like
determination to stay out of wars shouldn’t be underestimated. Hillary Clinton,
who advocated strongly for Timber Sycamore, the Central Intelligence
Agency’s US$1
billion covert arms transfer program, would never have abruptly withdrawn
2,000 US troops from Syria, as Trump did in December.
While then-president Barack
Obama refused direct US involvement in Syria, he did acquiesce to Timber
Sycamore. The goal was to aid the “moderate” rebels, who, unfortunately, did
not exist. The program flooded the country with weapons, many of which wound up
in the hands of al-Qaeda and its offshoots, funded by US allies in the Persian
Gulf.
Trump ended Timber
Sycamore in the summer of 2017. His withdrawal order in December 2018 not only
triggered Mattis’ resignation, it also deprived Bolton of real estate from
which he planned to confront Iran. Bolton has been trying to walk back Trump’s
order ever since, with some success. Approximately 400 US troops remain in the
country.
On Venezuela, it was Trump who
started talk of a “military
option” in August 2017 before Bolton had even joined his administration.
Bolton escalated the confrontation, with the help of Pompeo, repeatedly saying
“Maduro must go” and that his “time is up.” Trump, pondering the reality that
US military intervention can only undermine the goal of ousting Maduro,
now resists the option he put on the table.
The problem for the war-wary
Trump is threefold.
First, Bolton is, objectively
speaking, a warmonger. He has favored attacking Iran and North Korea, just as
he favored attacking Iraq in 2003. The disastrous consequences of that invasion
have had no effect on his impermeable thinking. He doesn’t want any advice on
his schemes, and he doesn’t get any. If the policy doesn’t work, he changes the
subject, not directions.
Second, because Bolton’s
policies are developed in private, without the usual input from other sectors
of the government, especially the military, they are under-informed and
unsustainable. In Venezuela, Bolton failed to understand the political
realities in the South American country, leaving talk of military intervention
as the only face-saving option.
Third, and most important,
Trump’s regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are also seeking to goad the
US into taking action against Iran, their regional rival.
Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu sought authority to attack Iran in 2011, only to be thwarted
by the opposition of Obama and his own security cabinet. Now Obama is gone and
Trump has given Netanyahu everything he wanted: an embassy in Jerusalem and
recognition of the Golan Heights. Why not a unilateral attack on Iran to
degrade its infrastructure?
Saudi Arabia is openly calling
for war. After four oil tankers last week suffered damage from some kind of
attack, the United States and Saudi Arabia blamed Iran.
Why? The New York Times reported that
“Israeli intelligence had warned the United States in recent days of what it
said was Iran’s intention to strike Saudi vessels.” The Times said the
information came from a “senior Middle Eastern intelligence official.”
An Iranian parliamentary
spokesman described the attacks as “Israeli
mischief.” To date, there is no conclusive evidence about who was
responsible.
Nonetheless, the Arab News, a
Saudi outlet owned by the brother of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), is
now calling for “surgical strikes”
on Iran.
It is one thing for Trump to
rebuke Bolton privately. If and when Netanyahu and MBS ask for war, Trump
will have more difficulty saying no – which is what Bolton is counting on.
It is no exaggeration to say
Bolton is the
most dangerous man in the world. It is a title he will only lose if Trump
wants it.
This article was produced by
the Deep
State, a project of the Independent Media Institute, which provided it
to Asia Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment