Back Stage at the Donald Trump Cage Match – Pepe Escobar | Sputnik

Back Stage at the Donald Trump Cage Match

Pepe Escobar | Sputnik

The real story behind The Fall of Michael Flynn has been confirmed by a highly-informed USA insider, who has previously detailed how the Trump presidency’s foreign policy will unfold.

According to the insider, which I named “X”, “Flynn was removed because he was agitating for a strike against Iran which would have had disastrous consequences. That would have led to Iranian strikes against Western oil supplies in the Middle East, raising Russia’s economic power as the oil price would have soared to over $200 a barrel, and the EU would have had to join the Russian-Chinese block [BRICS], or not be able to obtain sufficient energy to survive. The United States of America would have been completely isolated.”

When still on the job as National Security Adviser, Flynn, on the record, had already put Iran “on notice”. That was, for all practical purposes, a virtual declaration of war.

“X” expands on the ramifications: “Turkey is the key here, and Turkey wants a deal with Iran. The key danger to NATO is Turkey, as it does not control Serbia, and Turkey-Serbia undermines Romania and Bulgaria in an outflanking maneuver to the southern-southeastern part of NATO. Serbia linked to Russia in WWI and Turkey linked with Germany. Tito linked with Russia in WWII and Turkey was neutral. If Turkey, Serbia, Russia link together, NATO is outflanked. Russia is linked to Iran. Turkey is linking to Russia and Iran after what Erdogan perceives was a failed CIA coup attempt against him. All this was way beyond the capacity of Flynn to handle.”

“X” maintains that the Obama administration opening towards Iran, which led to the nuclear deal, was essentially a tactic to undermine Russia’s Gazprom – assuming an Iran-Iraq gas pipeline would be built all the way to Turkey and then connected to EU markets.

Yet this major Pipelineistan gambit would have needed major investment and years to be completed. In parallel, from the start, Tehran increased its energy sales to Eurasian neighbours and especially China. The end result could only have been the ratcheting up of USA-Iran “tension”. Flynn may have indeed been “out of his depth”, as “X” defined it, on how to deal with the hyper-complex Southwest Asia chessboard.

“X”, against a virtual Beltway consensus, insists, “the rapprochement to Russia was not dependent on Flynn. It is dependent on those who supervise Trump, and they put him in there for the purpose of shifting towards Russia. The deep state conflict is irrelevant. These are pros who know how and when to change policy. They have the goods on anyone who is in a high position and can destroy them at will. Flynn was in their way and now he is out.”

“X” reveals once again what makes the Pentagon squirm as far as Russia is concerned: “Russia is not an economic threat to the USA. Its manufacturing base is centered on military production. It has developed since the [late 1990s] Belgrade bombing into the greatest military power in the world in terms of self-defense. Its defensive missiles seal its air space and its offensive ICBMs are the most advanced in the world. The recently tested US defensive missile placed in Romania is nearly worthless despite a fake, staged success for European consumption and to hold NATO together. Russia is a natural ally to the USA. The USA will shift to Russia and Flynn’s departure is relatively meaningless except for its entertainment value.”

Taking out Trump

Now compare this analysis with the CIA spin duly relayed by stenographers across USA corporate media, pointing to a vicious internal battle in the Trump administration. A battle there was, indeed, and USA intel was delighted to help out since these ops never liked Flynn, and vice-versa.

Add to the intel octopus Obama loyalists such as pathetic former advisor Ben Rhodes plus assorted deep state ops, retired or otherwise. It gets curiouser and curiouser when even neocon Michael Ledeen, who co-wrote the Islamophobic opus The Field of Fight with Flynn, laments that his political assassination was carried out by “a cabal of CIA officials and Obama loyalists, in tandem with allies in the media.”

For all practical purposes, the most powerful deep state neocon/neoliberalcon factions did launch a covert op to take out Flynn and keep going to eventually take out Trump – pursuing every possible impeachment avenue further on down the road. Whatever the deep strategy of the real Masters as detailed by “X”, Trump does face a formidable axis of deep state neocons/neoliberalcons, the CIA, neoliberal corporate media from CNN to the Washington Post, and the still-functioning Clinton machine.

What would have been the ultimate game-changer – a real reset with Russia – may be on evidence, imperiled, despite the analysis by “X”. Or, and that’s way more enticing, we could be right in the middle of a very sophisticated –  Wayang shadow-play – performance, as the Masters, according to Kissinger’s prescriptions, do ultimately plan to align with Russia to challenge and break up Eurasia integration, which is essentially carried out by the Russia-China-Iran strategic partnership.

Meanwhile, we have nasty diversions such as that ghastly, senile senatorial duo McCain-Graham urging Kiev, earlier this year, to go on another war drive against the Donetsk People’s Republic – while stirring the galleries to blame it all on President Putin.

HR McMaster himself, the new National Security Adviser, may be a tactical diversion cleverly set up by Team Trump. McMaster is quintessential politically correct deep state status quo; he frames Russia as “an adversary”, true to standard Pentagon doctrine that considers Russia as much as an “existential threat” as China.

So it’s too early to unequivocally state the neocons have knocked Trump out. We’re in the middle of a vicious deep state/USA elites fratricidal cage match. This was largely predictable, even before the final result of the USA presidential election.

A comprehensive 1,176-page Military Manual covering the Law of War was published on Friday, the US Department of Defense announced in a statement

“X” is fundamentally correct when he stresses Trump was supported by the Masters to reorient/reorganize/reboot the whole Empire of Chaos project. The extra $54 billion bump on military spending was long planned. “T. Rex” Tillerson, quietly, has already decimated half of the Obama administration’s State Dept; that’s swamp cleaning in a nutshell. Big Oil and a substantial sector of the industrial-military complex are firmly behind Trump. These interests already know demonizing Russia is bad for business.

The losing axis though will continue to wreak havoc as the current chaos develops as enhanced shadow play. Machiavelli/Richelieu Steve Bannon may have given the game away – in code – when he hints this is a process of creative destruction leading to a completely new form of power structure in the USA. Under these circumstances, Flynn was just a pawn. And make no mistake; dour neo-Machiavelli and his glittering Prince are firmly set in for the long game.

…. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Clyde Duncan  On March 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Pitting Russia against Iran in Syria? – Get over it!

    Frederick W Kagan | Fox News

    Faced with the Syrian debacle, Trump administration officials, among others, claim that the U.S.A. can exploit the weakness of the growing strategic coalition between Russia and Iran, ultimately using Russia to contain Iran in Syria and throughout the Middle East.

    The Obama administration had this idea too, and it remains wrong.

    Circumstances could arise that might split the partners, but American outreach to Moscow won’t do it. A bigger question for the U.S.A. right now is whether we can prevent other nations vital to our interests from shifting toward the new Russian-Iranian orbit.

    There are reasons why the Russia-vs-Iran fantasy is attractive. Historical tension between Iran and Russia is real, and neither state knows how to be a good ally.

    Russia sees itself as a superpower and disdains to treat other states as equals.

    Iran sees itself as the natural hegemon of the Middle East and leader of the vast Shi’a Muslim denomination.

    Marginalization and persecution of Shi’as over the centuries makes it hard for the Islamic Republic to trust outside powers. Tehran also has had tensions with Russia over Caspian Sea resources and oil.

    Thinking too much about these historical disagreements, however, obscures the deep commonality of aims shared by Moscow and Tehran — driving the U.S.A. from the Middle East being the chief of these common goals.

    Iran’s leaders constantly assert that the Middle East should be free of the influence of outside powers.

    They never point that argument at Russia or China, but rather at the U.S.A., Britain, and their allies.

    Russia’s leaders and doctrines assert that the U.S.A. must abandon its position as a global power and yield to a multipolar world order in which Russia is its equal.

    Russia and Iran also share allies and goals around their periphery. Both back Armenia over Azerbaijan in the Caucasus. Russia has kept a military base in Armenia since the end of the Cold War, while Iran fears that Azerbaijan could attempt to stir up separatism within Iran’s large Azeri population.

    Both seek stability in Afghanistan and prefer to work with local Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras rather than Pashtuns. Both have, however, worked with, and even supported, Taliban factions when it suited them.

    Only extreme circumstances will split the Russo-Iranian coalition in Syria — if the Assad regime faces defeat, or the pro-regime coalition succeeds enough that it can move on to consider its next goals. Neither is likely.

    Vladimir Putin would give up on Bashar al Assad long before Ayatollah Khamenei would, but right now Putin needs an Alawite government like Assad’s to let him keep his new military base on the Mediterranean. Ayatollah Khamenei needs the Assad regime to give the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force and its Hezbollah allies a secure rear-area from which to confront Israel.

    Russia needs Iran in Syria at least as badly as Iran needs Russia.

    The Assad regime and army are kept alive artificially by tens of thousands of Iranians, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shi’a militia, and Afghan and Pakistani militia troops, all provided, paid for and commanded by Iranians.

    The Russians neither can, nor would, replace these forces with their own. If the Russians agreed to drive the Iranians from Syria, the Assad regime and Russia’s position would collapse.

    Russian and Iranian aims in the region diverge significantly on two points. The Islamic Republic is committed to destroying Israel and containing or collapsing Saudi power. Moscow shares neither goal.

    But Moscow has done nothing to protest or contain Iran’s harassment of Israel using Hezbollah and HAMAS.

    The Russians have also reached out to the Saudis and Gulf states to mitigate damage their support for Iran has done to their position in the region. Moscow would prefer a Sunni power to balance Iran, where Tehran prefers unquestioned hegemony.

    There is some surprising overlap even in this divergent effort, however. Egypt is drifting away from the Saudi bloc and toward Moscow and even Tehran.

    President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi voted for Russian initiatives in Syria at the U.N. and even sent a small number of Egyptian troops to Syria on behalf of the Russo-Iranian coalition.

    The Iranians have no quarrel with el-Sisi, and have never directed against him the kind of vitriol they reserve for the Saudis and their Gulf Arab allies. Russia and Iran may, in fact, come to see Cairo as a mutually acceptable contender for leadership of the Sunni Arabs in the region at the expense of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. This would be a formidable new challenge to American strategy and statecraft.

    American policy-makers must get past facile statements about the supposed limits of Russian and Iranian cooperation and back to the serious business of furthering our own interests in a tumultuous region.

    The Russo-Iranian coalition will no doubt eventually fracture, as most interest-based coalitions ultimately do. Conditions in the Middle East and the world, however, offer no prospect of such a development any time soon.

    Frederick W. Kagan is the Christopher DeMuth Scholar and the director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: