Since the 2016 election of Trump, 45th President of the United States, a component to his winning campaign is the allegation that the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), adopted by all participating nations of the United Nations Security Council in 2015, is a poorly negotiated agreement principally for reason that it would cease to curtail Iran from re-instituting its former nuclear weapons development, deemed to have ended as earlier as 2009, in fifteen years from date of its coming into effect.
Now, several months since his inauguration, during which period saw the hiring and firing of several senior members of his cabinet, Trump has strategically or otherwise, surrounded himself with well know Neocons such as John Robert Bolton, an American politician and attorney who is now National Security Advisor of the United States as of April 9, 2018. Bolton served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and widely known for his hawkish war posturing during the uptake to the attack on Iraq in 2003. And most recently, to replace fired Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, Trump has appointed Michael R. Pompeo, an American politician, lawyer, and former army officer to serve as the 70th United States Secretary of State. Previous to this appointment, he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The point of this essay is to highlight the political posturing and strategies being put into the public space by the media in preparation for President Trump’s decision to the future of the JCPOA, scheduled for on or before May 12, 2018, however, it is relevant to point out, at the present moment, the Trump presidency, and his administration’s credibility, is being challenged on the following three, widely publicized fronts:
- First, domestically, is Special counsel, Robert Mueller’s and F.B.I.’s investigations related to purported Russian interference in his election campaign and more; and, the allegations related to a sexual affair with porn-star Stormy Daniels.
- Second is North Korea: it’s leader Kim Jung Un’s highly publicized willingness to meet with Trump to negotiate for the dismantling of its nuclear missile program, to pursue re-unification with the South for the removal of economic stifling sanctions;
- Third is Trump’s voiced threat to withdraw from the JCPOA with Iran if it is not renegotiated, to the satisfaction of the United States.
The need for Trump to divert public attention from the Mueller and F.B.I. investigations could suggest heightened emphasis, through media channels such as FOX News and conservative pundits, on the latter two major issues challenging the Trump administration.
Recent coverage of Kim Jung Un’s crossing of the North-South Demilitarized Zone to meet with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-In, in the latter part of April, 2018, is for the short term, de-emphasizing Trump’s role for the present moment, however, the appointment of Mike Pompeo, who has public voiced his discontent, and current mistrust of the North Korean regime’s willingness to dismantle its nuclear program for a lifting of sanctions and possible re-unification, has the potential to put that effort into jeopardy.
This leaves the United States posturing leading up to the self-imposed date of May 12, 2018 for its decision on the Iran deal (JCPOA).
To date, the leaders of all consenting countries to the JCPOA, have stated their continued support for the deal, and Iran’s compliance as demanded. The only dissenter is the United States and, to that end, the forces to make its case, now being front and center.
First, there is John Bolton, National Security Advisor. To firmly establish his advice on the JCPOA, is to Google or YouTube: “John Bolton on Iran deal” to view a litany of recent interviews where he states the case on behalf of the President. Here is one recent example: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/
As early as July, 2017, Bolton tweeted: “Withdrawing from the Iran #NuclearDeal should be a top @realDonaldTrump administration priority.”
Most recently, in a move to discredit the Iranian governments role in the original negotiations, and its current commitment to meet its obligations as detailed by the JCPOA; Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, by way of YouTube video presentation, purports to have secured physical, documentary evidence, captured by Israeli secret services, that undeniably proves Iran lied leading up to the negotiated deal, and continues to deceive participating nations on its intent to reconstitute its nuclear ambitions, if not before the end of the fifteen year limitation.
Netanyahu Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrPFH_KIqSc
In response to Netanyahu’s video claim is Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister:
Iranian Foreign Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHXpzHIwW1M
What should be of concern is the statement that Trump is prone to believing what Netanyahu is making claim to by his presentation even though the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the watchdog to the advancement of nuclear development, has indicated Iran has been, and continues to be, compliant with the agreement contrary to that of the United States.
Trump in Agreement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aU2bckMD_g
IAEA Report of Key Events: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/chronology-of-key-events
So, these are the facts as best known, and as conveyed, through the various public media platforms.
What is at stake is the potential for another contrived conflagration instigated by the United States premised upon unfounded, but highly publicized, misinformation, or is it?
The point to be made by this essay is to highlight the different claims being made on this very important issue, and to suggest who might have the most to gain, or lose, by the various, outcome potentials. Certainly, Iran and its Peoples stand to lose the most in much the same way those of Iraq, Libya, and currently Syria and Yemen have lost. But, for the United States, and its supporting allies, and their citizens; may be impacted by an increase in their taxes to pay for the carnage they seem willing to support being imposed on foreign nations’ regimes that are not willing to march to the tune of western governments, or at best, maybe just to serve as a major distraction to events occurring or not, domestically.
You decide who to believe!
naykdpoet 
ENIGMA: ‘a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand’
Tags: administration, commentary, domestic policy, environment, foreign policy, Internet, media, News, policy, politicly correctness, politics, Trump, truth
Could this definition not be applied to the 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump?
Even long before Trump pronounced his candidacy, he was portrayed as one whose achievements in business, finance, and personal life, bellied all sense of reason, justification, and rationality in light of the norms most professionals, and the general public of all strata, have been accustomed to believe.
Since his official inauguration, he has successfully pursued the implementation of a significant portion of his electoral platform promises, be it through executive orders, to the more recent contentious matter: with the support of a Republican Congress and Senate, to nominate and approve Brat Kavanaugh as the ninth Supreme Court Judge solidifying a conservative weighted Court Bench for decades to come. All this with no seemingly clear and comprehensive plan or strategy, or so it is thought.
Again, since his official inauguration, the focus of the official, Democrat opposition in both the House, the Senate, and the broader mainstream media, with the exception of FOX News Channel, have set their ambitions to find means to impeach Trump on a variety of charges stemming from influence of Russian meddling and collusion by senior members of his 2016 campaign team; tax evasion and avoidance hallmarked by his reluctance to release his personal and business prior year tax returns; and personal sex scandal with a porn-star and other women. Their collective goal, at minimum, being to conjure enough suspicion and negative accusation on these contentious issues, unresolved though they may be prior to the Mid-term election of November 6, 2018, will embolden Democrats, independents and non-affiliate members of the public to take back either or both, the Senate and House of Congress, to enable the pursuance of impeachment and, ideally, repealing of legislation of regulations enacted through executive orders.
Is it possible those of all stripes who have voiced their concern, and opposition, over the measures taken, to date, by the Trump Administration, domestically, and possibly more critically, on matters of foreign policy and national security, are being measurably, and strategically, mislead?
An eye-opening encounter with a talk given to a predominately white, middle to upper class, right-leaning audience of elderly, men and women by Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAz6o4bUIA&feature=share], wherein he details the conditions that led to the electing of a president, unlike any of his predecessors, as is Donald J. Trump. But, possibly more importantly, the identifying and detailing of the strategy to be employed by his Administration to intentionally respond to those conditions on both the domestic and international stage.
The title to this strategy: Principled Realism.
Principled Realism is a national security paper authored by H. R. McMaster, former National Security Adviser, recently replaced by John Bolton, published in December, 2017.
The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”
[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]
“Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. The ultimate goal of Idealism is to bring about a just and peaceful world by ending tyrannies. In the idealist view, the United States should engage in humanitarian missions, military interventions, and nation building, to advance this goal. Idealists believe that U.S. foreign policy should not be determined by what is best for the United States, but by what is, morally, the right thing to do.
In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. Realists believe that moral principles are incompatible with the protection of our national interest. Interests come before values, and U.S. foreign policy should set aside moral considerations, and focus on whatever works.”[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]
Trump’s Administration strategy as detailed in McMaster’s published policy paper is neither of these two, previously held foreign policy objectives.. No longer will the United States foreign policies and/or interventions be premised, or measured, on the historic strategy of being the global watchdog and purveyor of democratic tendencies, but rather, on the practical approach to international developments focusing on their direct impact on the economic and national security interests and concerns of the American Peoples, solely.
“Principled realism opens up diplomatic possibilities anchored on the intersection of our values and our interests. President Trump’s foreign policy will not be one that puts fear in the minds of oppressive regimes as some had hoped. Dictatorships offend our values, but not necessarily our national interests.” [http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]
So it would seem, with `eyes wide shut’, while the Democrat establishment incumbents and supporters, the liberal-leaning on-screen mainstream media and entertainment industry, and political pundits exhaust their efforts to bring down the man: Donald J. Trump; through his folly, embarrassing tweets, and public rally displays as a bombastic idiot, his Cabinet team is stealthfully implementing the doctrines, through legislative policy, of measured principled realism.
To appreciate, and possibly decide the what, where, why, and how this strategy just might have a foresight beyond most to currently understand, view this informative, video conference presentation given by Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist who specializes in global energy, demographics and security in February, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eJK4Avk2M
Share this: