{"id":92092,"date":"2017-12-30T09:08:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-30T13:08:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=92092"},"modified":"2017-12-30T09:08:00","modified_gmt":"2017-12-30T13:08:00","slug":"this-is-what-happens-when-the-neocon-warmongers-are-running-u-s-foreign-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=92092","title":{"rendered":"This is what happens when the neocon warmongers are running U.S. foreign policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

2018 \u2013 war or no war?<\/h2>\n

The Saker<\/p>\n

[Note: this post of mine is temporarily located in the \u2018guest section\u2019 because of the current fundraiser. Once the fundraiser is over, I will place it back in the correct section.\u00a0 This analysis was written\u00a0for the Unz Review<\/a>.\u00a0 The Saker<\/em>]<\/p>\n

If the first months of 2017 were a time of great hopes following the historical defeat of Hillary Clinton, the year is ending in a sombre, almost menacing manner.\u00a0 Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump, but the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria and the Neocons are now treating our entire planet to a never ending barrage of threats.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a\u00a0National Security Strategy<\/a>\u00a0which clearly show that the Empire is in \u201cfull paranoid<\/a>\u201d mode.\u00a0 It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media.\u00a0 Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year.<\/p>\n

If we go by their rhetoric, the Neocons have all the following countries in their sights:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Afghanistan<\/strong>\u00a0(massive surge already promised)<\/li>\n
  2. Syria<\/strong>\u00a0(threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)<\/li>\n
  3. Russia<\/strong>\u00a0(disconnecting from SWIFT; stealing Russian assets in the USA; attack on Russian forces in Syria)<\/li>\n
  4. Iran<\/strong>\u00a0(renege on nuclear deal, attack Iranian forces in Syria)<\/li>\n
  5. The Donbass<\/strong>\u00a0(support for a full scale Ukronazi attack against Novorussia)<\/li>\n
  6. DPRK<\/strong>\u00a0(direct and overt military aggression; aerial and naval blockade)<\/li>\n
  7. Venezuela<\/strong>\u00a0(military intervention \u201cin defense of democracy, human right, freedom and civilization\u201d)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    There are, of course, many more countries currently threatened by the USA to various degrees, but the seven above are all good candidates for US aggression.<\/p>\n

    Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggressions is, at this point in time, probably futile.\u00a0 If anything, the recent disaster triggered by the US recognition of Jerusalem clearly proves that the USA is run by people as least as stupid and ignorant as they are evil and arrogant, possibly even more so.\u00a0 The sad reality we now live in is one where a nuclear superpower lack the minimal intelligence needed to act in defense of its own national security interests, and that is\u00a0really\u00a0frightening.<\/p>\n

    Last week I took a look at the mindset of what I called the \u201cideological drone<\/a>\u201c.\u00a0 If we now look at the mindset of the US national security establishment we will immediately notice that is is almost the exact same as the one of the ideological drone.\u00a0 The biggest difference between them might be that the ideological drone assumes that his\/her leaders are sane and most honest people, whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign superiority: the drones believes in his\/her ideology, but his rules believe in absolutely nothing.<\/p>\n

    Take the example of Syria.\u00a0 All the US decision makers are fully aware of the following facts:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Daesh\/ISIS\/al-Nusra\/etc is\u00a0their creation\u00a0and they\u00a0tried everything to save these terrorists.<\/li>\n
    2. The joint Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah effort defeated Daesh\/ISIS\/al-Nusra\/etc\u00a0in-spite\u00a0of AngloZionist support and attacks in Syrian forces.<\/li>\n
    3. The AngloZionist forces are in Syria\u00a0completely illegally.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Yet none of that prevents them from\u00a0claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh\/ISIS\/al-Nusra\/etc<\/a>.\u00a0 This is absolutely amazing, think of it \u2013 the entire planet knows full well what really took place in Syria, but Uncle Sam decrees that black is white, water is dry and what is true is false.\u00a0 And the most amazing thing is\u00a0that they know that everybody knows, yet they don\u2019t care one bit.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. We can buy anybody<\/li>\n
      2. Those we cannot buy, we bully<\/li>\n
      3. Those we cannot bully we kill<\/li>\n
      4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Besides people with intelligence there is another type of people which now has completely disappeared from the US national security establishment: people with honor\/courage\/integrity.\u00a0 Let\u2019s take a perfect example: Tillerson.<\/p>\n

        There is no way we can make the argument that Tillerson is an idiot. The man has proven many times over that he is intelligent and quite talented.\u00a0 And yet, he is Nikki Haley\u2019s doormat.\u00a0 Nikki Haley \u2013 there is the real imbecile!\u00a0 But not Tillerson.\u00a0 Yet Tillerson lacks the basic honor\/courage\/integrity to demand that this terminal imbecile be immediately fired or, if that does not happen, to leave and slam the door really loud.\u00a0 Nope, the man just sits there and takes humiliation after humiliation.\u00a0 Oh sure, he will probably resign soon, but when his resignation comes it will have no value, it will be a non-event, just the sad and pathetic conclusion to a completely failed stint as Secretary of State.<\/p>\n

        The same goes for the US military:\u00a0not\u00a0one\u00a0single\u00a0officer has found in himself\/herself to resign to protest the fact that the USA is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9\/11.\u00a0 Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these \u201cpatriots\u201d has the honor\/courage\/integrity to go public about it.<\/p>\n

        Imbeciles and cowards.\u00a0 I also happen to think that they are traitors to their country and their people.\u00a0 Patriots they are not.<\/p>\n

        Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 That is the setup we are dealing with.\u00a0 As Trump would tweet \u201cnot good\u201d.<\/p>\n

        Alas, this is also a\u00a0very\u00a0hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.<\/p>\n

        And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that he odds are not in their favor.\u00a0 For one thing, an endless stream of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action, especially for clueless people.\u00a0 Furthermore, one simple way to look at risks is to say that risks are a factor of probability times consequences: R = P x C.<\/p>\n

        I don\u2019t think that US decision-makers actually formally think that way, but on a gut level this is rather straightforward, even for ideological drone types.\u00a0 If we assume that this is the case, we can now revisit our 7 countries listed above\u00a0as seen by Neocon decision makers\u00a0(not me! I already outlined how\u00a0I\u00a0saw the risks of attacking these countries in\u00a0this article<\/a>\u00a0written this summer):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        <\/td>\nPossible\/likely consequences<\/strong><\/td>\nProbability<\/strong><\/td>\nRisk<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Afghanistan (surge)<\/strong><\/td>\nmore body bags<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\nlow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Syria (military intervention & attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)<\/strong><\/td>\nIranian & Hezbollah counter-attacks<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Russia 1 (economic attack: SWIFT & theft of assets)<\/strong>Russia 2 (shooting of Russian aircraft in Syria)<\/strong><\/td>\nnon-military responsemilitary response<\/td>\nhighmedium<\/td>\nunknown\u00a0for memedium<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Iran (renege on nuclear deal)
        \n<\/strong><\/td>\n        		non-military response<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\nlow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Donbass (US backed attack on Novorussia)<\/strong><\/td>\nRussian intervention<\/td>\nmedium<\/td>\nlow<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        DPRK (attack; blockade)<\/strong><\/td>\nNuclear war in Asia<\/td>\nunknown<\/td>\nunknown<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Venezuela (direct military intervention)<\/strong><\/td>\nquagmire<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\nhigh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        A couple of points here:<\/p>\n

        Afghanistan<\/strong>: is rather straightforward and least controversial: there will be a surge in Afghanistan, it will result in more body bags, it will achieve nothing cost a shitload and nobody cares.<\/p>\n

        Syria<\/strong>: very tempting, but the big risk is this: that US forces will find themselves face to face with Iranian and Hezbollah forces who have been dreaming about this day for decades and who will make maximal political use of the US forces they will capture or kill.\u00a0 Frankly, to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option.\u00a0 Ask the Israelis \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n

        Russia option 1<\/strong>: rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal (that is politely called \u201cfreeze\u201d) Russian assets and funds in the USA have been going in for a long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this, but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow.\u00a0 Of course, Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.\u00a0 They might hold something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me,\u00a0 the US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be.\u00a0 I am not an economist and there is much I don\u2019t know here, I therefore assessed the risk as \u201cunknown\u201d\u00a0for me.<\/p>\n

        Russia option 2<\/strong>: the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in 2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders that they could do the same and get away with it.\u00a0 In truth, they might be right.\u00a0 But they might also be wrong.\u00a0 The big difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in Syria which present a major threat for US forces.\u00a0 Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US do \u2013 attack a Russian S-400 battery?\u00a0 The USA is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation.\u00a0 While the F-22 is an excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM\/Su-35).\u00a0 But if the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.\u00a0 Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30\/Su-35, it does not have a real electronic warfare suite (the F-22\u2019s\u00a0INEWS does not really qualify).\u00a0 In plain English this means that the F-22 was designed to maximize it\u2019s low radar cross section but at a cost of all other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hypermaneuverability, electronic warfare, passive engagement, etc.).\u00a0 This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.\u00a0 Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely irrelevant.\u00a0 Still, I place the risk here at \u2018medium\u2019 even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don\u2019t think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!).\u00a0 Think of it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
        \n<\/span><\/p>\n

        What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate.\u00a0 Putin\u2019s Russia is a kind of\u00a0Mordor<\/a>\u00a0which represents all evil and stands behind all evil.\u00a0 Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling.\u00a0 Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n

        Iran<\/strong>: Trump has announced that he wants out of the deal and while technically and legally he cannot do that, it\u2019s not like he will care one bit.\u00a0 The USA has long given up any pretense at respecting any kind of law, including international law.\u00a0 Also, since Trump is clearly Israel\u2019s\u00a0shabbos-goy\u00a0<\/em>I think that we can safely assume that this will happen.<\/p>\n

        Donbass<\/strong>: will the Ukronazis finally attack?\u00a0 Well, they have been for many months already!\u00a0 Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new \u201cfrog-jump\u201d (pseudo) strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended town and then declare a major victory against Russia.\u00a0 They have also been re-arming, re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East.\u00a0 As a result, the Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians.\u00a0 However, we should not look at this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view.\u00a0 Instead we should look at it from the Neocon point of view:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Possible outcomes<\/strong><\/td>\nUS reactions<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Option one: Ukronazis win<\/td>\nRussia is defeated, USA proves it power<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Option two: Novorussians win<\/td>\nRussia is accused of invading the Ukraine<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes<\/td>\nA Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again: decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one.\u00a0 In truth, the AngloZionists have very little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia.\u00a0 Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.\u00a0 Right now the USA and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the Ukronazis.\u00a0 That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.\u00a0 Furthermore, western made weapons won\u2019t make any difference, at least from a military point of view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any category.\u00a0 The real difference is a political one: shipping \u201clethal weapons\u201d (as if some weapons were not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack.\u00a0 Let\u2019s hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.<\/p>\n

        DPRK<\/strong>:\u00a0 that is the big unknown here.\u00a0 With some opponents, you know for an absolute fact that their people will fight down to the very last man if needed (Iranians, Russians, Hezbollah).\u00a0 But authoritarian regimes tend to have a pretty low breaking point unless, of course, they convince their own people that they are not fighting for a specific political regime, but for their country.\u00a0 I think that nobody knows for sure what the North Koreans will do if attacked, but I see no sign to simply assume that the North Koreans won\u2019t fight.\u00a0 From what I hear, the memories of the ruthless attacks against North Koreans by US forces during the previous war on the Korean Peninsula are still very very real.\u00a0 Here is what an intelligence officer in the region wrote to me recently:<\/p>\n

        The Trump Administration\u2019s bluster is pathetic. If this were a movie, and not real life, it would be funny (it\u2019s still funny, but being in *******, I don\u2019t fully appreciate it). The sad thing is that central casting couldn\u2019t create a better foil for NK propaganda: in every way, including physically, he fits their caricature of the evil, imperial arch-capitalist Yankee businessman. It\u2019d be like if Hitler came back to life and off-handedly threatened to destroy the US every other day (and had the capability to do so).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

        If this specialist is correct, and I have no reason to believe that he is not, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the possible dislike the North Korean people might have for their ruling elites is dwarfed by their hatred for the United States.<\/p>\n

        [Sidebar: he also had some interesting comments about my own assessment of the consequences of a war on the Korean Peninsula.\u00a0 Here is what he wrote to me:<\/p>\n

        Japan is a major target, for a number of reasons. The biggest is that there are a lot of US bases there that would be used to bring-in additional US troops\/direct the war, but there\u2019s also the fact that North Korea (and most South Koreans, actually), straight-up hates Japan. I won\u2019t go into a history lesson (which you probably already know), but there is no love lost.\u00a0 Even if the war was confined to the Peninsula, which it won\u2019t be, the global economy would take a major hit, because a ridiculous amount of global supply chain runs through South Korea (which on its own, bounces between the 15th and 10th largest economy in the world). Off the top of my head, I think Incheon (just west of Seoul) is the busiest airport in at least the region \u2013 it\u2019s a major international hub, and Busan and Incheon are some of the busiest ports in the world \u2013 I want to say Busan is top 5, even busier than the Japanese ports. All the Chinese goods that go to America flow through the Sea of Japan \u2013 those will have to be re-routed. And a lot of the components that go in fancy electronics are actually made in SK, prior to final assembly in China \u2013 so that will be an issue. So even if we\u2019re the only ones to go down, it\u2019ll be bad news for the global economy.\u00a0 Your assessment of the artillery and special forces threat mirrors mine. One of the things I always thought was funny was how people disparage \u201cWorld War 2 artillery.\u201d As a whole, \u201cWorld War 2 artillery\u201d has probably killed more people than any weapon system in modern history (unless you say something really general like \u201cknife\u201d or \u201cgun\u201d). It\u2019s not like you\u2019ll be any less dead if your house is hit with a 152 as opposed to a J-DAM<\/em>.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

        And here is the deal, if you attack a small and defenseless country you can basically ignore the consequences of making the wrong guess, but when dealing with a country like the DPRK this is a miscalculation which no sane politician or military commander would ever take the risk of making.\u00a0 But delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards \u2013 would either one of them show the kind of caution needed when dealing with such a major threat?!\u00a0 I frankly don\u2019t think so.\u00a0 In fact, I see no reason to believe that at all.\u00a0 Remember the \u201ccakewalk in Iraq\u201d?\u00a0 This term, coined by one of my former teachers at SAIS, Ken Adelman, is a wonderful illustration of the Neocon mindest: pure ideology and to hell with caution.\u00a0 We all know that this \u201ccakewalk\u201d ended up costing the Iraqi and American people:\u00a0well over one million deaths<\/a>\u00a0for the former, well over\u00a0five trillion dollars<\/a>\u00a0for the latter.\u00a0 Some cakewalk indeed\u2026\u00a0 The truth is that at this point\u00a0nobody\u00a0knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans.\u00a0 Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire?\u00a0 You tell me!<\/p>\n

        Venezuela<\/strong>: as much hatred as there is for Venezuela in the US elites, this country is not a lucrative target or, let me rephrase that, it is a great target to subvert but probably not a good one to intervene in.\u00a0 Violence in Venezuela is directly in the US interests but a direct military intervention is probably not.\u00a0 My contacts tell me that the Venezuelan military is an unholy (and rather corrupt) mess, but they also tell me that the popular will to resist the \u201cYankees\u201d is so strong that a any military intervention will immediately trigger an ugly guerrilla war (not to mention a political backlash in the rest of Latin America).\u00a0 The truth is the US probably has the means to militarily intervene in Venezuela, but they also have much better options.<\/p>\n

        Now let\u2019s sum this all up.<\/p>\n

        The chances are\u00a0high<\/strong>\u00a0that in 2018 the USA will<\/p>\n