By Naram Sargon
From day one of his arrival into the White House, President Trump was “greeted” with an unprecedented campaign of hostilities. The corporate US media, the Pentagon, the Intelligence establishment and the financial elites all were favoring Hillary Clinton to be at the helm of the decision-making in order to accomplish the on-going war in the Middle East and to seal the siege on Russia.
Trump, however, took the deep state off guard and seized authority. He wants now to eliminate the greatest economic threat impeding trading supremacy with China, which is perceived as prone to turn the world “Chinese” if its economic growth continued to proceed with such a vigor, devouring thereby the US and other Western economies.
In his Anti-China policy, Trump is trying to deprive Beijing of its two main economic pillars, namely Iran and Russia. Iran is the valve of energy security for the booming Chinese economy. Russia, in the meantime, is pivotal in the two major economic blocs: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and theEconomic Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Luring Russia out of its alliance with China would isolate China. This is a reversal game of the one played by Henry Kissinger, who lured Communist China into acting against the then Communist Soviet Union.
Today, Trump is walking the same line of Kissinger’s, but in the opposite direction. Trump is trying to lure Russia into his fold to isolate China. He is also trying to isolate or even break Iran to strip China from its main source of energy security. His decision to walk out of the nuclear deal with Iran might be viewed as a step to pay favors to Israel, but some observers argue that the key target behind this move is China. According to these viewpoints, Trump is trying to hit China where it hurts. He is trying to deprive her of the key energy security valve. This fits well into the mainstream strategy of Trump and his business class, who view China as a greatest threat and challenge.
Arms dealers, drug cartels and other war-mongers disagree. They adversely view his project (and the project of his class) as unhelpful and non-conducive to their interests. All of his efforts to appease them and meet their demands were not enough for them. Within this context, Trump tried to bring into the Administration many of their hawkish‘icons’. Among others, he appointed John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Trump also tried to ingratiate the Zionist right-wingers, who are well-entrenched in the deep state and who have been tirelessly working to keep the US deeply involved in the Middle East, dedicating thereby US potentials, war efforts, and politics to the service of Israel.
As his adversaries continue to slur him and accuse him of having close links with Russia, Trump is trying to invest this odd propaganda in the service of his anti-China policy. He is trying to give the Chinese the impression that Russia now is closer to the US, because it has its ‘guy’ at the helm of power in Washington.
Consequently, it would be a risky adventure to hedge their bets on Russia and they (the Chinese) should better re-think their attitude. If he manages to lure the Chinese into re-thinking their stances towards Russia, Trump hopes he would be able to divide the BRICS and break the SCO. So he is tussling skirmishes with Russia and Syria, but his eyes are kept wide open on China. In spite of the broadside he is facing, with accusations being levelled at him that he is allegedly a “Russian agent”, Trump continued to work hard to de-escalate tension with Russia and tried to calm down frontlines in the Middle East. This runs in the opposite direction of what Hillary Clinton would have done. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize in the political sense, to then be able to tackle China which is the real threat to the American economic supremacy.
To get Russia out of the Chinese camp, he has to offer her something tangible in exchange, especially on the two major issues of concern to Moscow, namely Syria and the Ukraine. A lot of differences seem to have been ironed out in almost all key issues, except for the approach to Iran. Iran is a part of an undeclared axis led by Russia. So, it is most unlikely for Russia to give up Iran so easily.
Trump is trying to persuade Russia that it might take Syria and the Ukraine to distance her from any potential plans against Iran. The weakening of Iran would open up a hole for the Americans into the economic Chinese Wall to penetrate into the Chinese industrial machinery and render it defunct. Iran and China are the key mission he wants to accomplish during his tenure at the White House. The Zionist-leaning forces in the US establishment share in common with Trump his ambition to get Iran out of their way to China.
This goes in line with the fact that each US President has a specific definitive ‘Goal’ marking his tenure. Bush senior, for instance brought the US back to the Middle East and ended the cold war. His son, Bush Jr. heralded the Neo-Conservatives season in Iraq. Barack Obama’s project was the so-called “Arab Spring”, through which he tried to destroy what is left of the Middle East by means of the so-called “Islamist tide”.
The Syrian file is obviously no longer Trump’s key issue of concern. It is receding in favor of the Russian and Syrian advancing steps. This retreat in Syria to jump over to Iran and China was translated on the grounds by Turkey’s retreat and its obvious disinclination to go ahead with its project. Ankara has obviously backed down as it realized that the big US bull has abandoned the little Turkish calf and left it to its own destiny. So, the Turks started a strategic withdrawal operation that might come to its end by the end of this year or early 2019, at maximum.
The question is: Would these moves satisfy the US deep state hardliners? The campaign against Trump is extremely fierce and the anti-Trump campaign in the West is unprecedented. Corporate media try to portray him as a suspiciously Russia-leaning guy under the control of Putin! Some wild media slurs went as far as portraying Trump like a hamburger sandwich being “devoured” by the Russians!!
Yet, Trump is marching steadily towards his set goal. On the Middle East, he considers it fair enough to ensure “Israel’s security” and to guard such a security with worked-out understandings. But this would not satisfy the hardliners. To them, the project they embarked on in the Middle East by the invasion of Iraq, the assassination of Lebanon’s al-Hariri, the destruction of both Libya and Yemen and the overthrow of Syria through the Wahhabi and Ottoman terrorism is not accomplished yet. They look like someone who started the construction of a bridge and stopped work at the last meter. An unfinished bridge is useless. In other words, this would mean that their efforts for all these years were futile and in vain. The last meter was the overthrow of Damascus. But Damascus dis not fall.
Had Hillary Clinton been voted in, she would have dedicated her efforts to finish this last meter, even if this would lead to a direct confrontation with Russia. Unlike her, Trump ordered work on this project to be stopped and discharged the workers before finishing the last meter. The bridge, for the construction of which many years of hard work were spent, is now crumbling and falling down into the deep depth of the ocean. Trump is now moving his workers to construct another bridge. He is trying to construct a new bridge for the US to cross over and conquer both Iran and China. If so, what options do the hardliners have? Would they orchestrate a scandalous exit in the like of Water-Gate or Monica Lewinsky? Or perhaps a suspicious assassination as it was the case with Kennedy? Or merely a harsh discipline as they did with Bill Clinton? Time would tell. But this is what they usually do to any President who tried to rebel against the US deep state.
In any case, the struggle for Syria has come to an end, at least temporarily. Their bridge has crumbled down. Till they launch their next campaign, we have our own calculus. Israel would be super delusional to think that the 1974 disengagement line might provide a protective wall for it to hide behind. A spider web need not be necessarily shaken through a specific line of engagement. Any casual wind blowing from any casual line would be enough to shake it and tear it down. Just as the UN 1701 died silently, the 1974 disengagement agreement is now de facto dead, even if sponsored by the US and Russia. It is like a knight on a horse-back leaning to own spear to give his enemies the illusion that he is still alive. But he is dead.
This cosmetic agreement is a mere outdated decoration for a contemporary battle. It is an anachronism that we know how to handle elaborately. Netanyahu insists to maintain the same old decoration and old antiques. But we are no antique amateurs. So, let him feature what he likes. Time never regresses back. It goes only forward. The Russians and the Syrians are masters of diplomacy. Their mastership has been glaringly demonstrated through the years of the Syrian crisis. It is the amazing art of diplomacy.
Translated into English by Syrianfacts