Why I keep 'schtum' about Trump

You may have noticed, dear readers, that on the whole, by and large and taken in the round, I have had little to say on not only the most powerful man in the world but also the most extraordinary, that is, Donald Trump.  The reason is simple, I haven't a clue!  I have learned that commentary on current political policies is fraught with danger because, of course, none of us 'plebs' has all the facts at our disposal - let alone the time to analyse them.  Thus, we are reduced to the humbling position of depending on the so-called 'experts' who write for the media  - yeeeeeeees, quite!  Even so, gradually one begins to discern a pattern even in the deeply erratic and confusing world of Trump!  Happily today, Mr. Tim Stanley has an article in The Telegraph which begins to clarify some of what is happening in Washington.

Somewhat to my surprise, when it comes to foreign affairs, Mr. Stanley is fairly approving as he summarises in his opening paragraphs:

Donald Trump’s foreign policy is a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Would literally any other Republican have made a better president? Perhaps.

But Jeb or Ted or little Marco wouldn’t have broken so effectively from the foreign policy consensus of the Obama era as when Trump stood before the United Nations last month and said that America “can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return”. When he said that, he was looking at you, Iran.

I must say that, by and large, when it comes to dealing with the implacable enemies of the West I am happier with the sight of Trump walking down 'Main Street' with his eyes narrowed and his Colt .45 in its holster on his hip!  So much more re-assuring than that glib, deeply dim, 'peace 'n' love' man who was his predecessor.

The fate of the Iran nuclear deal is a good example of how the Trump doctrine differs from Obama’s. At first glance the deal, agreed in 2015, looked marvellous: the world lifted sanctions in exchange for Tehran abandoning a nuclear energy programme that could have been converted to military use.

The UK Foreign Office says that Iran has given up 95 per cent of its uranium stockpile. Despite this, Trump has refused to recertify it and has asked Congress to review it. How can Trump be right and so many brilliant people all over the world be wrong?

Well, I can say with confidence that being more right than our utterly useless Foreign Office is never too difficult!  Mr. Stanley continues:

Obama’s foreign policy was based upon a similar premise of buying peace for a limited time. The Iran deal was predicted to give Tehran access to over $100 billion in frozen assets and allow it to sell oil abroad. The mullahs are now in the money, and, I’m sad to have to tell you, they’ve not given it all to CND.

They’ve expanded their ballistic missiles programme, with some allegedly based upon North Korean design. Last month the Iranians unveiled the new Khorramshahr missile, which can travel 1,250 miles (ie, it can hit Israel) and carry multiple warheads.

Please tell me that you are not surprised!  Anyway, it appears that President Trump - I still shake my head at that title! - is quite prepared to 'call a spade a bloody shovel' and the injection by him of some realism into American foreign policy is to be welcomed.  I urge you to read Mr. Stanley's article.

 

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

Mr. Trump seems to have understood that the external enemies of the West are all Eastern in origin and setting: Russia, Iran, Islam, China and North Korea. The internal enemies of the West are all of Western making: all forms of the Left-cultural Marxism, communism, socialism, atheism, humanism, liberation theology, collectivism etc.

The US is at war on two fronts and so is the rest of the West. How many are willing to fight this two front war seems to be a small number. Calling out enemies, foreign and domestic, seems to make some people uncomfortable. Doing so in plain language just adds more fuel. It bothers me not one bit. I say more and faster-on the home front and foreign front. I'm tired of this getting along with that which can never be gotten along with-foreign or domestic.

[Bob]

David, you keep 'schtum' about Trump because you know your audience. It must have been fun to run across the hack Tim Stanley, who repeats the jibe "little Marco" and digs up mummified cowboy references from the Reagan era, in a major newspaper.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Gen. John Hyten and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others with actual credibility, have all testified Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and it's in the US interest to maintain the agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in charge of monitoring, agrees. As far as the public is concerned, 60% say that the US should keep the agreement, which has not changed since 2016. If the deal is scrapped it could mean the resumption of Iran's nuclear program.

What Trump has actually done is a trademark dishonest and cowardly political move. He's making noises about how tough he is while putting the ball in congress's court.

[missred]

I thoroughly agree, Whiters. It is not getting along, it is putting off the inevitable. Nature abhors a vacuum and that is what our past foreign policy has created. And it hasn't been for just 8 years, or 16, or even 24 years. I believe the US has a responsibility to step up to play the den mother over the "cub scouts". Some kids need a good visit to the wood pile.

[Whitewall]

There are multiple parts of this "Iran Deal" and only one part deals with fissile material. There is also ICBM development and other aspects. While the letter of the agreement can be "verified" in one aspect by credible actors...the entire spirit of the agreement is being violated as work continues without interruption on the other aspects on making nuclear material, weaponizing it and finally working on the delivery systems for a nuclear bomb. No agreement at hand will stop this entire goal of Iran with a nuclear bomb. Just because a part of the deal is verifiable and "in compliance" does not stop the other phases from continuing with an Iranian straight face.

[TheBigHenry]

Robert,

I see it as a two-front war, albeit against the same enemy. The internalized Leftists are the homegrown America-hating moles who would much rather live in Venezuela, Cuba, or even Iran. The only reason they remain in America is their commitment to destroying it. They are a cancer to this great Nation.

[Whitewall]

Henry,
I think we are on the same page pretty much. The Leftist stuff is strictly Western in origin and has its beginning centuries ago with the Reformation...some as you know, say even longer. The external enemy that is Eastern in origin and location is working hand in glove with the worst elements of Leftism. They can be the same enemy at the moment due to what Diplomad calls The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Each sees the other as a temporary ally.

[Bob]

The Iran agreement covers only the development of nuclear weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

[Whitewall]

Allies and race, what can't they do?
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/10/know-thyself.html

[TheBigHenry]

Robert,

Agreed.

[Whitewall]

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2017/10/race-obsession.html

One photo says it.

[JK]

Bob?

I suggest some further reading:

https://www.defenddemocracy.org/content/uploads/documents/Memo_Tzvi_IranComplianceJCPOA.pdf

[Bob]

JK,

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has been described as neocon, is not an unbiased source. Its CEO Mark Dubowitz has long had an axe to grind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dubowitz#Opposition_to_2015_nuclear_deal_with_Iran

He has some points, but I trust the Generals responsible for policy more.