FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Mar 17

Once Again, Concerns Are Being Raised Over Newsprint Media In The U.S.

by bcurry

In several previous blogs (search under “media”) I wrote about various current serious issues surrounding mainstream media in the U.S. Today, as in the recent past, another example of the potential demise of a newspaper has surfaced in the case of the Washington Post.  As reported by people with knowledge of the company’s finances, in 2022 the organization was on track to lose money after years of profitability.  At the time, The Post had fewer than the three million paying digital subscribers.  Moreover, despite the losses, The Post’s newsroom remained one of the most formidable in the country.  In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, had become The Post’s owner.  Bezos said repeatedly since then that he wanted the company to break even, not to rely on his largess.  He initially invested heavily, and the company thrived for several years, with the newsroom doubling in size.  However, by this past year, The Post was running over $100 million in annual losses.  Consequently over the past two years, the newsroom shrank by nearly half to about the size it was when he bought it. 

Next came Donald Trump’s running for a second term as president.  Normally, Bezos stayed out of the paper’s day-to-day operations.  Apparently, he had not shown up in the newsroom since 2023.  However, in the past two years he has dipped in more forcefully.  His more direct involvement has resulted in a series of jarring upheavals in strategy and leadership at one of the country’s most decorated news organizations.  Problems at The Post started actually several years ago, when its audience diminished after expanding during the first Trump administration and the Covid-19 pandemic.  During the last presidential campaign, Bezos ended presidential endorsements, effectively killing a draft editorial that encouraged readers to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent.  As a result, there was reader uproar, as reflected in thousands of cancelled subscriptions. 

Bezos insisted an independent newsroom should be self-sustaining.  However, for example, foreign reporting is expensive.  As a key beat for The Post, foreign reporting is essential to keeping The Post competitive on national security.  Wanting to reduce the number of staff reporters in order to cut costs, Bezos further insisted that the newsroom perform today at the same level as before but with fewer staff.  However, there is no way to hit their target without affecting the scope of the newsroom’s coverage.  This resulted in most international correspondents and editors being laid off, including those in the Middle East, just weeks before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran.

At recent meetings with a group of top Post journalists and business executives, Bezos reportedly remarked that the company had gotten off track years ago because of inattentive oversight, including from himself, and a sluggish response to changes in the media business.  Nevertheless, he reassured the group that he was committed to its future, and said he had spurned several offers to sell The Post.  The Washington Post represents one of the premier news outlets, along with such papers as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  The lost of The Post would be a great blow to mainstream media.  Increasingly Bezos, in light of his closer relationship with the Trump administration, has more frequently outlined his political and economic beliefs, which boil down to a mix of libertarian and pro-business policies.  Indeed, in January of last year, he traveled to Washington and was assigned a seat onstage near Trump at his inauguration.  Weeks later, Bezos’ reorientation of the paper’s opinion pages became official.  The fallout from the change was immediate.  Subscribers once again cancelled in droves.  Several Post Opinion employees resigned, including the opinion editor David Shipley.  Interestingly, Shipley now works as an editor at The Times.

As a result of the newsroom coverage of the Iranian war, Secretary of War (alias Peace), Pete Hegseth, has gone to war with the American press over Iran coverage.  He alluded to the administration’s belief that major news media are overly critical of the war’s objectives and daily operations.  Instead, he stated that American news media should reflect the war’s outcomes in more “patriotic” terms. This highly defensive reaction feels tone-deaf at a moment when the nation is at war — especially as polls show Americans largely disapproving of the conflict and are unclear about its rationale. 

One can only hope that news outlets such as the Washington Post, by invoking journalistic integrity, will continue to report the sequence of wartime events in unbiased and factual terms without undue interference from the White House.  Perhaps Bezos should adopt this principled stance and better support the independent work of his newsroom staff, rather than insisting that it reflect his own personal values and bias.


.

Donald Trump Iran Israel Mainstream Media Media The Middle East Trump US

Leave a comment »
Mar 6

Interaction Between the U.S. and Canada Summed Up in One Word: Confusion

by bcurry

When the Trump administration first introduced tariffs against specific industries in Canada (ex. aluminum, steel and lumber), it created a good deal of confusion and uncertainty because of the integrated market existing between the two countries.  The initial excuse was that Canada had failed to secure the border from the smuggling of fentanyl from Canada into the U.S., which only accounted for less than 1 percent of the total entering the States.  Secondly, Trump argues that Canada has long benefited from a trade surplus with the U.S., not accounting for the import to Canada of American services. Then, suddenly Trump was openly promoting the annexation of Canada, making it the 51st state: something neither the vast majority of Canadians or Americans have supported at any time in the past.

As a result of Trump’s tariff imposition, Canadians decided to elect Mark Carney, a Liberal, as the 24th prime minister of Canada in 2025.  Carney, a former head of Canada’s central bank, has had to take a careful and sensitive route in dealing with Trump on both economic and foreign policy issues.  Take for example, the current war initiated by the U.S.with Iran, which the Canadian government was not apprised of before American pre-emptive strikes.  Canadian support for the U.S. is a touchy and complicated matter, remembering that Canada is part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defence of North America.  As is the U.S., Canada is also a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and supports its allies in the defence of their sovereignty.  On the one hand, while Carney believes it is appropriate to support the U.S.; on the other hand, there are questions surrounding the legality of the attacks on Iran under international law and NATO’s non-involvement at the outset.  Also, the Trump administration’s primary motive for the attacks on Iran has been anything but clear from the outset, setting off confusion among NATO and other allies.  While NATO will defend itself against the resulting Iranian attacks on their bases in the region, there has been no indication to date that either Israel or the U.S. have sought the support of NATO military forces.  Once again, confusion reigns among the parties.

If any word can also express the current trade and foreign policy environment created by the Trump administration, it is “uncertainty”.  For Carney and other world leaders, this uncertainty has forced them to look at alternative economic, defence and trade arrangements, given the lack of American support for maintaining the normal global processes.  As a result, Carney has to seek alternative trade relations with other countries and has recently entered into formatting new arrangements with middle-power countries such as India, Japan and Australia — not to forget previous trips to several E.U. counties.  Indeed, just this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Japan’s Sanae Takaichi inked a new “strategic partnership” that signaled the next step in a recent drive to deepen military and trade co-operation between the two countries.  Just prior to that, Carney and his Indian counterpart announced what they’re calling a “new partnership,” a series of multimillion-dollar deals and a commitment to sign a free trade agreement by year’s end.  On March 4th, Australia and Canada signed new agreements on critical minerals as Carney made a landmark address to the Australian parliament, a sign of the developing bond between the “middle powers”.  The two countries will also deepen cooperation in areas including defence and maritime security, trade and artificial intelligence.

All if this is happening because of the political and economic policies under the Trump administration, which are confusing given that over 70 percent of Canada’s trade has always been with the U.S.  This close relationship with the U.S. has even been highlighted by the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement which Trump had negotiated and endorsed during his first term in office.  Now, it appears that he wants to replace this agreement with separate agreements with Canada and Mexico, which apparently would include new tariffs on their imports to the U.S.on selected products and services.  This has created a good deal of “uncertainty” and “confusion” within North American markets.

Moreover, when it comes to the U.S. policies, once can only foresee more confusion and uncertainty in the near future.  As Trump would no doubt brag, the ball now lies in the American court.

Canada Defence Defence Economy Foreign Policy Iran Iran Israel Military Prowess NATO The Middle East Trade with U.S. Trump U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jan 11

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Obvious Distraction From America’s Domestic Issues

by bcurry

For weeks now, the Trump administration has caught world media attention with its incursion into Venezuela and capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.  However, attempting to avoid the appearance of seeking regime change, Trump has instead now focused on the oil reserves in that country.  What is not clear is whether the CEOs of major oil companies were consulted before hand, especially as they are apparently not ready to invest billions of dollars toward the restoration of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.  Economically and from a business perspective, the addition of that country’s crude oil would not make much difference to gas and oil prices in the U.S., certainly in the short term.  In addition, continuing the naval blockade against oil tankers in the region has become a costly endeavour and has stretched the operational capabilities of U.S. forces.

More recently, Trump has turned his attention to directing his overall foreign policy strategy to Greenland, Cuba and even Iran.  For example, he has repeatedly said that the U.S. must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semi-autonomous region of NATO ally Denmark.  From a military standpoint, the U.S. already has a defense agreement with Denmark
dating back to 1951.  Its installation at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of Greenland
currently supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.  There is nothing to stop the Americans from increasing their military presence on the island under the current agreement.  Instead, it became evident, as in the case of Venezuela, that his administration is more interested in exploring business and mining deals by controlling Greenland’s governance.

Next, we have statements by Trump about the economic impact of the loss of Venezuelan crude oil to Cuba.  The control of Cuba and removal of its current regime is a big personal issue for Secretary of State Marco Rubio who has family ties to Cuba.  A day after the U.S. captured Maduro, Rubio issued a warning to Cuba, telling NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he thinks the country is “in a lot of trouble.”  As in the case of Venezuela, Trump has suggested that the U.S. could run Cuba.

Finally, Trump’s attention has also turned to Iran and the current large-scale protests against the current regime under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, mostly as a result the deteriorating economic situation in Iran and the regime’s heavy handed approach to any opposition.  Iranian protests rage and civilian deaths mount. Trump has renewed his warning of possible U.S. intervention, without being very specific about what a U.S. intervention might involve.  Khamenei has accused the U.S. and Israel of having hands “stained with the blood of Iranians”, arguing that they are behind the protests.  Trump has simply asserted that any possible American strike wouldn’t “mean boots on the ground but that means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.” 

As many historians and political scientists have asserted in the past, the focus on foreign policy initiatives, especially those involving military actions, are often a form of distraction from economic and political problems at home.  One only needs to remember the former unpopular U.K. Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her administration’s military actions in 1982 against Argentina over the Falkland Islands.  Even some Republicans in Congress are beginning to question the foreign policy goals of the Trump administration.  Far-right activists such as Laura Loomer, Tucker Carlson and others opposed the operation in Venezuela, maintaining that Americans will ultimately pay the price.  They have also questioned how the administration’s vague plans are squared with a commitment to refrain from military intervention and regime change, something certainly not in line with Trump’s “America First” base.

Moreover, on America’s domestic front, things are not going well politically and economically.  Unemployment is up and inflation continues to rise, especially for food, housing and other staples.  The operation of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) in numerous cities has resulted in harm to American citizens and legal immigrants, including recent ICE-related deaths and injuries.  As a result, country-wide protests against ICE initiatives have emerged, leading to administration officials having to justify the use of force against protesters.

Recent polling has shown that Trump’s popularity has fallen to an all time low, including with respect to his once-popular immigration policies.  In addition, hundreds of cases involving the administration’s policies are before the courts.  Americans’ trust in the judicial system and governance has taken a massive beating.  For this reason, a strong argument can be made that the Trump administration has decided to assert U.S. foreign policy and power in order to distract from continuing domestic problems.


Donald Trump Economy Energy Foreign Policy Immigration Iran Latin America Military Prowess Oil and Gas Republican Party Trump US

Leave a comment »
Nov 11

When Will We Stop Young Men From Going To War?

by bcurry

Years ago, I read somewhere that old men begin wars and send young men to fight them.  This was certainly true of the multitude of wars fought during the Twentieth Century.  Today, it would appear that nothing has really changed.  Look around the world, and you cannot help to witness the continuing atrocities caused by wars and the loss of not only young soldiers, but also, and most importantly, the loss of civilian lives.  There is no need to once again recount the statistical losses of war, for what matters most is the real human suffering that one sees among the individuals and families affected by war.

I had family members who fought in both World Wars, and gratefully had survived to return.  Born shortly after WWII, I lived through the Cold War period and the West’s battles with the then Soviet Union.  I lived through the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent struggles of East European countries for independence.  I lived through the Vietnam conflict, which one must remember like the earlier Korean conflict, was never officially declared a war by Congress. Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 toppling the long time dictator Saddam Hussein and leading to the subsequent decade occupation of Iraq.  Fortunately, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to send Canadian troops to fight in Iraq.  However, Canada did join the NATO mission in Afghanistan where in over ten years of fighting, Canadian combatants loss their lives and several were seriously injured.  With the war in Afghanistan going poorly and in light of the gains being made by the Taliban, the U.S. couldn’t wait to get out of that country, much in the same way the Vietnam conflict ended.  And for what?

Now, we have the Ukrainian-Russian war being initiated by 73 year old Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years and de facto dictator of Russia since 2000.  To date, while supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial support, no NATO country has boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, there is little doubt that NATO’s European countries are deeply concerned about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and potential future threat.  The result is that they have begun to build up their military forces and to expend a larger proportion of their budgets on defence.  Canada, as a NATO member, has also agreed to significantly increase its military spending to meet its continuing commitments to the alliance.

In the Middle East, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas in Gaza, its attacks on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, and its most recent attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, represents a long period of wars and deaths and destruction on both sides.  Indeed, there have been multiple wars with Israel, including those in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and an ongoing one since 2023, which began with the infamous October 7 attacks.  According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the U.S. spent almost $18 billion on military aid to Israel from October 2023 to October 2024.  While the U.S. continues to provide this massive support, do date President Trump has not indicated that American troops could become directly involved in Gaza.  Time will tell!

People in the Trump administration like to describe the president as a president for peace — this despite the recent change whereby his Secretary of Defense is now the Secretary of War.  In addition, the Trump administration is building up its military presence in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela.  Drone attacks have been carried out on boats in international waters, with the administration declaring that these are drug smugglers originating out of Venezuela and supported by the country’s president Nicolás Maduro.  However, some current and former U.S. officials contend that the unspoken goal is the goal is to force Maduro from power.  In other words, regime change.  As of November 6th, the U.S. Senate has twice failed to pass resolutions that would limit Trump’s authority to continue military action against Venezuela or airstrikes against alleged drug vessels.  After long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the combination of the words America and regime change raises alarm bells, both inside and outside the U.S.  Let’s hope that this aging American president isn’t once again ready to sacrifice American young lives in another worthless war.

Afghanistan Canada Defence Defence Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Russia Trump Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Jul 17

U.S. Current Involvement In The Middle East Is Just Making Things Worst In The Region

by bcurry

As if the continuing supply of American weaponry to Israel isn’t destabilizing enough with respect to Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran, now the Trump administration has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and Israel has undertaken further military actions in Syria.  Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition now has received carte blanche from the U.S. to do whatever they believe is in their strategic interests, even if this means further threatening the political and economic stability in the region.  Iran is economically in a mess, and American military actions have simply caused greater consternation and outrage.  Indeed, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency, one of the immediate consequences is the fact that Iran has speeded up its deportation back to Afghanistan of Afghan refugees who number more than 1.4 million in the country.  It’s been reported that the mass expulsions threaten to push Afghanistan further toward the brink of economic collapse with the sudden cut off of vital remittance money to Afghan families from relatives in Iran.  In addition, the sudden influx of returnees piles on Afghanistan’s already grim unemployment, housing and health-care crises.  More than half of Afghanistan’s estimated population of 41 million already relies on humanitarian assistance.

In the case of Syria, Israel recently launched deadly airstrikes on Syria’s capital, damaging a compound housing the defence ministry and hitting an area near the presidential palace, according to the Israeli military and Syrian authorities. The bombardment in central Damascus followed days of bloody clashes involving Syrian government forces in the southern region of Sweida, the heartland of the country’s Druse minority and a strategically important province near Israel and Jordan.  Israeli officials have argued previously that they want to prevent any hostile forces in Syria from entrenching near their borders.  Syria of course has a new interim government following the overthrow of former dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.  Syria’s new president Ahmed al-Shara has tried to stabilize the country since the change of regime and has also attempted to forge closer relations with the U.S.  However, Israeli military actions in Syria could damage these potential improved relations.  The Trump administration so far has been silent on the Israeli initiatives, except to state that they are “very concerned” over the Israeli strikes.

For an administration that claims it is against wars and the killing of civilians in particular, Trump appears to have taken a wait-and-watch position when it comes to Israel’s military actions in the region.  This position has given clear support to Netanyahu’s aggressive military initiatives, whether right or wrong.  This could lead to more awkward and contentious relations between the two administrations.  Even Israel’s apparent attempts to improve relations with other Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia could be in jeopardy with the continuation of Israel’s attacks on its neighbouring states.  It’s becoming harder and harder to justify Israel’s military actions back home in the U.S. and in turn America’s continuing major involvement and military support.  The prospects of a more permanent cease fire with the Palestinians and Iranians is increasingly becoming that much more difficult under the circumstances.

In addition, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, said in an interview with the New York Times: “In Israel, Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice everything for his survival and we are closer to a civil war than people realize. In Gaza, we have returned to fighting — and for what?  And overseas, I never remember such hatred, such opposition, to the state of Israel.”  Opposition to the actions of the Netanyahu administration is growing among Western countries, including Great Britain, the European Union and Canada.  All in all, there is little doubt that the Middle East region is today more unstable than ever, and the Trump administration through it actions or lack thereof has greatly contributed the region’s instability.

Afghanistan Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Israel Israel Military Prowess The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Jan 13

American Assertions of Imminent Iranian Threat to Attack U.S. Embassies Appears to be Questionable

by bcurry

Trump’s claim made to justify the decision to kill Iranian general Qasem Soleimani that attacks were being planned to attack four U.S. embassies has not been verified by actual intelligence. Even his Defence Secretary Mark Esper stated that he ‘didn’t see’ evidence of an Iranian plot to attack four U.S. embassies. Kind of reminds you of another President’s rationale for invading and occupying Iraq after 9-11.

16 years ago on February 5, 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his infamous presentation at the United Nations making the case for war with Iraq. Remember that Powell insisted that the Iraqis, and in particular their dictator Saddam Hussein, were behind the attacks on 9-11 and had “weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”, including tons of the deadly nerve agent VX. This despite the fact that Iraqi insiders and American intelligence sources had confirmed that the Iraqi regime had secretly destroyed the nerve agent soon after the Gulf War in 1991. Indeed, legitimate sources concluded that all WMDs — biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear — were subsequently destroyed.  Following the occupation of Iraq and an extensive search, the Americans did not find any WMDs. The result was that over four thousand Americans and coalition troops died and almost 32,000 were wounded in action in the Iraq War.  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about $1.9 trillion would be the long-term price tag for the war.

Unfortunately, Congress never investigated Powell’s use of the intelligence he was given. Furthermore, based on misinformation regarding the actual intelligence, most members of Congress supported the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Now, history may have just repeated itself.  President Trump decided to kill a top Iranian commander without providing clear and unquestionable facts to justify the action.  On top of which, Congressional leaders were not consulted beforehand because Trump has accused some as being “corrupt”.  We have also now learned that Trump reportedly okayed assassinating Soleimani seven months ago.

Whether or not you agree that Soleimani should have been assassinated is not real question. Let’s face it, he will most likely be replaced by one of his underlings.  However, we now have increased the instability in the region and raised the risks to Iraqis, Iranians and foreigners.  This is unfortunately demonstrated by the tragic shooting down of the Ukraine International Airline flight 752 by an Iranian missile, resulting in the deaths of all 176 passengers and crew.  Hopefully, all sides will attempt to deescalate these new tensions and Congress will do a better job of overseeing the President’s actions then it did in the past.

Iran Iraq Today The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Jan 7

Trump Is Completely Out To Lunch When It Comes To Iran

by bcurry

Here we go again! Hasn’t the American administration learned from past mistakes in the Middle East?  Remember supporting the former dictator, the Shah of Iran, against the Iranian people who suffered terribly under his regime.  Remember the flimsy excuses given by Bush Jr. to invade Iraq based on false intelligence about  Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction”.  Remember how the American occupation of Iraq and failure of subsequent Iraqi governments led to the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIL) and subsequent years of terror in the region.

Now, we have an American President ordering the assassination of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the Trump administration claimed to pose a “clear and present danger.”  One can always ask “why now”?  Seems all too convenient as a distraction for a President who is smack in the middle of the impeachment process.  Now, U.S. and NATO forces and Westerners in the region are at real risk from Iranian reprisals.  The Iraqi parliament has voted to kick American and foreign forces out of the country, despite Trump’s threats of placing stiff sanctions on Iraq and making the Iraqis pay for the al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq.  This important base hosts many U.S. troops and was a strategic key in the war against ISIL.  Indeed, the U.S.-Iranian conflict may have just opened the door for the reemergence of ISIL in the region which is a much greater threat to everyone.  Remember that Iranian-backed forces fought against ISIL in Syria.

The actions by Trump carried out by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo  and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper may have just complicated what is already a dangerous situation in the region.  As was the past case in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration appears to have no strategy to deal with the likely escalation of U.S.-Iranian conflict that will most definitely follow.  Iran on the other hand has been given an opportunity by the American actions to distract the Iranian people from recent protests and uprisings within Iran against the regime driven by the country’s poor economic conditions.  In addition, the Iranian regime now has an excuse to recommense its nuclear arms program by withdrawing from the current accord which, under Trump, is no longer recognized by the U.S.

Canada, which has hundreds of military and other personnel in the region, has helped in the training of Iraqi security forces. With the recent events, they have been told to stand down.  The Americans have unfortunately paused their counterterrorism operations and are now focused on ensuring their security on bases throughout the region.  Some retaliatory moves by Iran are bound to happen, leaving Westerners throughout the region in a very dangerous position.  Trump’s further threats of potential reprisals, military or economic, may only add to what is already a very volatile situation.  Indeed, I would advocate that all Canadian personnel be withdrawn immediately and entirely from the region, in particular from Iraq.  Once again, why should Canadians pay with their lives for U.S. mistakes in the region?

Canada Donald Trump Iran Iraq Iraq Today Terrorism US

Leave a comment »
Jun 16

Trump Administration Puts Us on the Brink of Another Middle East Conflict

by bcurry

The U.S. has blamed Iran for recent attacks on two oil tankers in the vital oil shipping route south of the Strait of Hormuz, a major transit route for oil from Saudi Arabia. However, exactly how and by whom the tankers were attacked has yet to be confirmed.  Iran’s administration denies any involvement, although such proclamations have to be taken with a grain of salt given past Iranian operations in the Middle East and the Gulf. Pending further independent investigation and clarification, we all need to take a deep breath.

The problem is that Trump’s actions employing sanctions on Iranian oil and his other economic pressure tactics has made it difficult for Iran to negotiate or back down by reducing its activities elsewhere in the region. Instead, Iran has responded with its own campaign of maximum pressure. It has threatened to start stockpiling low-level, nonweapons-grade uranium and to close off oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.  Iran is acting like a rattlesnake that is cornered with nowhere to go.  Unless one wants to get bit, one normally would back away slowly and allow the snake to peacefully go its way.

Unfortunately, some hawks in the Trump administration, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, appear to be itching for a military strike on Iran.  Big mistake!  Iran is no Iraq and is quite capable of defending itself militarily.  Sure, military action by the U.S. would be backed by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.  However, other nations, including those in the European Union, have urged caution and called for restraint. Indeed, France and other European signatories to the nuclear deal with Iran have said they still want to save the accord despite the withdrawal of U.S. support.

The Trump administration’s “all-or-nothing” negotiating approach is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less — with Iran wanting American sanctions to be immediately lifted before proceeding with any negotiations. Trump’s approach to Iran is completely at odds with that taken with respect to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un who, unlike Iran, already has an arsenal of nuclear weapons.  The Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is depicted as the “devil” and the dictator Kim is described by Trump as being a “nice guy”.  Go figure?  Regardless, let’s hope that we’re not once again on the brink of another Middle East conflict!

Iran The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.