Tag Archives: US foreign policy

AIPAC still our biggest foreign agent

Source: Antiwar.com
by Grant Smith

"During the course of the 1960s Senate and Justice Department investigations, it was revealed that Israel was funneling millions of dollars to unregistered foreign agents in America to lobby for foreign aid to Israel, set up think tanks, engage in Madison Avenue public relations, fund lobbying newsletters, and establish an umbrella organization called the American Zionist Council (AZC). Within the AZC was an unincorporated unit that lobbied congress called the 'American Israel Public Affairs Committee.' On November 21, 1962, the Department of Justice ordered the AZC to begin registering as an Israeli foreign agent. This touched off an intense battle between the Justice Department and the AZC which outlasted both JFK and RFK. The bloodied and bruised Justice Department hid away its files on the affair until they were finally declassified and released in 2008. The effort to register Israel’s foreign agents clearly failed. Just 42 days after the Justice Department order, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee incorporated itself in Washington and took over the AZC’s functions." (07/18/17)


Our inept Iran hawks

Source: The American Conservative
by Daniel Larison

"TAC and other antiwar conservatives and libertarians were warning about removing a bulwark to Iranian power in the region before the invasion, and we continued pointing out the gains Iran had made in the years that followed. The process of 'handing over' the country to Iran’s orbit was already happening while the U.S. was occupying Iraq with more than 150,000 troops, so it is hardly a new development and it would not have been prevented or undone by keeping 10,000 soldiers there. The prospect of Iranian power wasn’t our principal objection to the war, nor was it the most important, but opponents of the Iraq war could see very clearly before and after it happened that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would benefit Iran’s government. Supporters of the invasion deluded themselves (or lied) when they argued that toppling the Iraqi government would undermine other authoritarian regimes in the region, including Iran’s, and they failed to anticipate one of the most easily foreseeable results of the war they backed." (07/17/17)


Guy who launched 59 missiles at Syria accuses guy who launched one missile into the ocean of "behaving in a very, very dangerous manner"

Source: CNN

"President Donald Trump chided North Korea for its recent missile tests, saying it is 'behaving in a very very dangerous manner.' 'It's a shame they're behaving this way — they're behaving in a very, very dangerous manner and something will have to be done about it,' Trump said in a news conference Thursday with Polish President Andrzej Duda. … The President did not mention the arms deal struck overnight in Warsaw. Poland's Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz told reporters on Thursday that the United States had agreed to sell Patriot missiles to Poland." (07/06/17)


Don't be surprised to see Trump bomb North Korea

Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger

"The thing that most of the mainstream media miss in the Korean crisis is the reason why North Korea has been striving for nuclear weapons. The U.S. press continues to imply that North Korea wants such missiles for offensive purposes — that is, to initiate a nuclear war against the United States. Not so. North Korea knows that if it did that, the U.S. government would respond with the same type of carpet-bombing campaign that it waged during the Korean War, only this time with hundreds or thousands of nuclear bombs. North Korea does not wish to go out of existence, which is precisely why it has no interest in initiating a nuclear attack on the United States. So why does North Korea want nuclear weapons, especially ones that can reach the United States? It wants them for the same reason that Cuba, another communist state, wanted nuclear weapons back in 1962 — for defensive purposes. Defense against whom? Defense against the U.S government, of course." (07/05/17)


Trump's pricey love affair with Saudi Arabia

Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by William D Hartnung

"At this point, it’s no great surprise when Donald Trump walks away from past statements in service to some impulse of the moment. Nowhere, however, has such a shift been more extreme or its potential consequences more dangerous than in his sudden love affair with the Saudi royal family. It could in the end destabilize the Middle East in ways not seen in our lifetimes (which, given the growing chaos in the region, is no small thing to say)." (06/29/17)


The foolishness of pursuing regime change in Iran

Source: Reason
by Steve Chapman

"Hearing American policymakers talk about regime change is like watching Wile E. Coyote open a package of dynamite he ordered. No matter how clever his scheme, you know that sooner or later, he'll get blown up. He never seems to figure out that TNT is something to avoid. Some people in Washington are sick of trying to get the government of Iran to change its ways — which include financing terrorism, punishing dissent, and supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad. They have embraced another idea: Help topple the rulers in Tehran in hopes of getting someone more to our liking. This is a reminder of the maxim that for many people, the only use of history is to disregard it." (06/29/17)


Is Trump blundering into the next Middle East war?

Source: CounterPunch
by Jim Lobe & Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio

"The Washington elite is waking up to the increasingly real possibility that the Trump administration may be moving the country into yet another Middle East war. And much more quickly than anyone had anticipated. And through sheer incompetence and incoherence rather than by design." (06/28/17)


Trump regime tries to distract from Hersh story on past non-existent chemical attack by claiming possible future chemical attack

Source: Fox News

"The Trump administration said late Monday that it had discovered evidence that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad could be planning another chemical weapons attack. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement that 'The United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children.'" [editor's note: Not likely coincidental, given last weekend's story by Seymour Hersh claiming that Trump launched cruise missiles on Syrian targets even after receiving intelligence that the "chemical attack" he was using as an excuse wasn't a "chemical attack" at all – TLK] (06/27/17)


Trump's Cuba rollback is paving the way for age of "principled realism" in foreign policy

Source: PanAm Post

"American foreign policy has historically fluctuated between two competing approaches that transcend our left-right political spectrum. Political scientists label these schools of thought Idealism and Realism. Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. … In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. … President Trump’s foreign policy breaks from Idealism and Realism into a new foreign policy doctrine the President has labeled 'Principled Realism.' Two recent overt military actions are illustrative of what the President means by principled realism." (06/26/17)


Trump's red line

Source: Die Welt
by Seymour Hersh

"On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon. … Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. 'None of this makes any sense,' one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. 'We KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.'" (06/25/17)