While many conservatives, myself included, are very disappointed and even angry at the cheating that occurred this last presidential election, we have to look at the larger picture. The singularity of a Trump presidency piercing the deep state hold on global governance may have larger ripple effects that we have yet to see. So, hold on buttercup.
From @Movietime_Blues on QV | Feb 28, 2021:
I am not qualified to speculate on what Trump and/or Pence’s next moves in politics might be.
However, what I can do is look at the foreign arena to see what might be happening in real life and where to connect these to US politics.
First, let’s remember the following countries Trump has visited during his administration (not a complete list):
India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, United Kingdom, Korea (North and South)
You can also add the Kirshner visits to Qatar and Morocco.
Now let’s look at what has been happening since the ASTERISK assumed the Presidency:
- Brexit UK is turning to be a disrupting force in European politics. The vast differences in the COVID vaccine rollout between the UK and the EU is causing a backlash within the EU and even the pro-EU UK press has blasted EU officials in its blundering over trying to block exports of the vaccines into the UK.
- Rumblings have started about Sweden and even Ireland maybe moving away from the Eurozone.
- Even in Scotland, where the would-be-Queen Sturgeon is trying to push for another independence referendum in the hopes that she’ll take them into the EU, there is a lot of political infighting with the SNP party that threatens to disrupt the unity to fend off the Unionist forces. It’s still early days but I’m keeping a close look at what is happening there.
- Eurosceptic feeling are also growing in France, Italy and even Spain.
- Over to the Middle East, there’s a growing dissatisfaction within Gulf Arab nation over how the Hiden State Dept is handling the Iran issue. Netanyahu is to visit the countries of UAE and Bahrain this week, one of the reasons to present a united front against the Hiden Administration.
- India and Saudi Arabia have begun closer ties, to the dissatisfaction of Pakistan.
- There seems to be an emerging alliance between Israel and India with UAE/Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
The Hiden Administration’s foreign policy seems very reactionary – not only going back to the Obama years but even back to the 1970s, during the Camp David days of land-for-peace and the US administrations stringing the Israelis along for domestic political points. They want to act like the old days of START treaties and playing footsie with various terror groups for backdoor politics can resume without much challenge.
The developments between Israel and the Gulf Arabs changes that equation.
In the Pacific, Japan is taking further action to check China’s ambitions in the islands, the latest being checking a Chinese ship that was close to one of the islands that Japan claims as one of their own. Japan is now on the verge of spending much more money to upgrade their military in order to counteract the Chinese threat now that there’s more uncertainty over whether the US continues their guaranteed security in the Pacific area.
Taken altogether is leading me to guess that it’s possible that the traditional U.S. allies are feeling unshackled and are acting as if the US military umbrella no longer exists.
Now let’s look back to Trump’s visits in those countries I mentioned: did he give them any heads-up that there are going to be events back home that would change the facts on the grounds where they are and to prepare to take more action on their own?
Remember that one of Trump’s themes is that the allies must do more for their own security and to not rely on the US umbrella for much longer. Any future security arrangements would be on a transactional basis.
So perhaps with the Sham elections a reality the allies have finally gotten the message and are starting to rethink old geopolitical assumptions and taking action based on what they’ve learned so far.
So I look to the foreign arena and, being inquisitive, try to see where there may be a connection between that and US politics.
What if the traditional allies are acting as an OUTSIDE force to pressure Congress, while there is an INSIDE force within US politics that is putting an almost equal pressure on Congress?
What would make Congress listen where no other rational actors have been able to?
To me, the 97-3 Senate vote to reaffirm Trump’s decision to put the US embassy in Jerusalem was a huge tell. The Senate was acting very defiantly against Trump in the last months of his administration. This was one instance where they defied the Hiden Administration.
Why did that happen?
Why would the Senate support the Israelis over Biden — even though it’s not clear whether Biden had plans to move it back to Tel Aviv?
I just recently shared a column from a Bahraini journalist who lamented that the Arabs don’t have the lobby that the Iranians seem to be employing. Perhaps it’s a sign that they’ve been complacent, being protected by the US military umbrella for so long.
Another tell of the reality facing the allies now.
So expect the Arabs to employ more OUTSIDE force in US politics soon.
OUTSIDE and INSIDE may be the emerging themes of the next four years.
Feb 4, 2021 – Saudi Arabia – Qatar Peace Deal
Dec 26, 2021 – Israel and India working together on military capabilities
From 2018 – Japan has been beefing up its military.
An interesting comment on the recent election in response to a JE Dyer article:
One of the chief things making it difficult for people who want to rescue America from her current disastrous course is a flawed, incomplete perspective on what the reality around us is, and where it’s going.” – Of course, this is a matter of “intelligence”, in the double meaning of the word.
Should we not therefore “circle back” to J.E.’s earlier articles about the foreign policy dimensions of “the supporting effort”? At that time, J.E.’s radar scanned a number of actions of foreign governments, but the “perspective” was pinned on the election in the sense of “these governments are not acting as if they think Trump is going anywhere”. “The Vision Thing”: Trump/Pompeo in fact changed global realities such that foreign governments (more specificity in a moment, I promise) can act against the Cabal, not on the basis of what they “want” but on the basis of what they can now “do”. Trump’s hand is neither directly involved nor visible, but it is real nonetheless.
“Biden” or any other symbolic label we wish to attach to this machine, is blocked from carrying out an Obama 2.0 mission. Thus we should and can think of the old adage of Talleyrand: Whereas earlier it was possible for the cabal to commit any crime, we enter the age of “it is worse than a crime, it is a mistake”! Mistakes are like “accounts payable”, just like screwing up on stock-market speculation. When you lose, you pay. The power to commit the crime is gone, even if “Biden” continues to believe that it is merely waning and he can get it back. No, he can’t.
The “incomplete perspective” derives from not understanding myriad Trump moves while he was in office. And that derives from short memories, which in turn derive from being absorbed into the narratives Trump and patriots were fighting the entire time. Case in point: North Korea. What was that gig all about? Who believes or knows why Trump was right when he repeatedly said that, had it not been for him, we would be at war with North Korea?
Well, if we move backwards from the solution to the moves taken to accomplish it, we pose a new question. What was the solution and where did it come from? – This is dangerous stuff for people absorbed by the narratives. The solution was the joint Russian-Chinese “double freeze”, NK freezes its nuclear and ICBM programs, the US freezes the “war games”, Trump’s terminology.
Oh, wow! Trump “colluded” with the Russians (told ja so, eh, Pelosi, Schifty?) and even with the Chinese! Ok, but how did he do that? IC goes to POTUS – nothing special there, Obama told Trump in advance – and delivers the “assessment” that NK has an ICBM capability, can hit the US homeland, Zugzwang, forced move in chess, gotta remove the threat. Pentagon is assigned to come up with a “plan”, everything is on the table, except when nothing is left on the table. FBI-McCabe, outraged, of course, at the outrage, testifies to Congress in the Russiagate hearings that Trump told the IC he had spoken with Putin and Putin’s “assessment” is that, no, NK does not have an ICBM capability to hit the US homeland. Who knows whether that really happened? Putin, in any case – such things are never reported in the US, “incomplete perspective” – issues a statement: Given the geography of this neighborhood, if we see a missile launch, we cannot know whether we are the intended target or some other country, so we will shoot it down. And that is, of course, no bluff because the Russians do it all the time in Syria, especially when/if it is not reported States-side. Kim has a nifty idea, too: he launches a medium-range missile over Japan and it plunges into the sea near Guam at the Mariana Trench. Some US “expert” – this was in fact reported – is asked, “Why didn’t we shoot it down?”, and the answer is: “If we could have, we would have, but the short answer is, we can’t”. And that had little to do with US capabilities or lack thereof as such. It merely confirmed what Putin said about geography: Launch sighted, target-acquisition, tracking…the missiles is gone, no sense in chasing a missile from behind, the timing is too short for any reaction at such close distances.
So POTUS has the IC floundering to substantiate its assessment, and the Pentagon is floundering to come up with a military solution, with the proximity of North Korea and South Korea harboring the danger that NK will obliterate Seoul at the first sight of any preemptive action.
Trump cut the umbilical cord between the IC and the Pentagon so that the Pentagon could begin to do some serious thinking about reality instead of mopping up the bilge-water for the IC. – Thinking outside the box was necessary for a long time, but Trump finagled the situation to make it possible. The out-of-the-box thinking came from Russia and China.
The situation in the Mideast is similar, but it is still too dangerous to talk about it. I can just pose a question to outline the chessboard setup. And I really have trouble understanding why people have trouble understanding the chessboard analogy. Trump: “Putin, Xi and Erdogan are world-class chess players, Biden is no match for them”. Now, guess who does not want the Iranians in Syria or Iraq? Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq don’t want them there. “Biden” can do his worst, he is just not in the game. Even US Envoy Jeffrey says “don’t go back, at least now we have a stalemate, much better than we had before,” but that is only his “perspective”. “Biden” is not in the game and cannot get back into the game: for the others, there is no stalemate.
Afghanistan: ah, “Biden” wants to walk away from the deal with the Taliban? Let him try. Everyone in the game says “It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake”. But here again, “incomplete perspective”. How did Trump get the deal? Everyone knows that the Taliban in the old days of Brzezinski were adamant warriors against the opium trade. As war and time wore on, however, they, or some factions, were drawn into that trade because they had no other financial resources. So we recall the Democrats trying to “cook” the Intel books on Russians paying Taliban to kill Americans, but this time the SIGINT Intel got it right and said, well, yes, we have tracked Russian payments, but there is no “bounty”, there is no correlation of payments and killings. What was going on? — Even Ric Grennel won’t tell.
It’s simple: the Russians were/are paying the Taliban temporarily so they can wean themselves off the opium trade and develop new “business models” in a country that wants peace. The deal is done, no matter what “Biden” does: he is not in the game. The Russians are not paying money into a black hole: they guarantee the deal and there is no alternative and the Taliban have no alternative. It’s their business to convince their own troops of that fact. Necessity becomes possible. The Taliban were not at all convinced that the US was serious about fighting terrorists, which had something to do with the transfer of Syria-terror-fighters – reported over a long period of time in Russia, not States-side – to Afghanistan. Then Trump dropped the MOAB, and not on the Taliban. There rest can be left to your imagination. The MOAB caught the Taliban’s attention and things started to move.
As I said, dangerous stuff, but only dangerous if people try to sustain the “incomplete perspective” narrative, and then the first four years of Trump make no sense. As Pompeo said, Trump’s foreign policy legacy will stand for a long time. He’s right, we know he is right if we understand what he is saying.
As these things play out, they play into transforming the necessity for Trump’s “return” into the real possibility: Welcome back dearly beloved DJT.