Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

As the US and EU come out in support of Lebanon, it is clear that Saudi’s provocations are designed for domestic purposes

Saudi Arabia has used foreign affairs as a springboard for domestic purges. By contrast, the US often engages in foreign conflicts to hide bad domestic headlines.

Published

on

4,803 Views

Days ago, Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah spoke to his fellow countrymen and encouraged people to support Lebanon’s constitutional mechanisms to resolve the crisis of the coalition government losing its Prime Minister Saad Hariri to a forced Saudi authored “resignation”.

There remains the possibility that the current government can remain in place with a new Prime Minister, including Fouad Siniora, a former Lebanese PM from deposed Saad Hariri’s Future Movement. Siniora has apparently been in talks with President Michel Aoun about such matters.

The official position from Beirut is that Hariri must come to Lebanon in order to make a formal resignation, with members of all major parties openly questioning whether Hariri is being held captive in Saudi Arabia.

While Saudi Arabia has stated that Lebanon has “declared war”, this hyperbolic and frankly nonsensical provocation is not being taken on board by the US State Department or the EU.

A US State Department spokeswoman has said,

“The United States strongly supports the legitimate institutions in the Lebanese state. We expect all members of the international community to respect fully those institutions and the sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon”.

These remarks were echoed by a statement from the joint ambassadors of the EU who expressed  “their strong support for the continued unity, stability, sovereignty, and security of Lebanon and its people”.

The EU Ambassadors also called “on all sides to pursue constructive dialogue and to build on the work achieved in the last 11 months towards strengthening Lebanon’s institutions and preparing parliamentary elections in early 2018, in adherence with the Constitution”.

This is indicative of an EU and US that seek the following 

1. Stability for western businesses in Lebanon 

Since the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990, western investment has been steadily flowing back into Lebanon. France in particular has been keen to demonstrate its willingness to do business with its former mandate.

With this in mind, the EU and US seem to realise that a new civil war in Lebanon would be bad for business and they are not willing to take such a risk.

2. If there was a civil war, Hezbollah and its allies, including many Christian parties would win 

Hezbollah only officially came into being during the final phases of the Lebanese Civil War. Since then, it has consolidated a powerful base among Lebanese Shi’as, but has also come to be seen as an implicit part of Lebanese political civil society as well as an implicit component of Lebanon’s defence infrastructure. Whether protecting Lebanon against Israeli aggression or al-Qaeda and ISIS attacks, many Lebanese including many Sunnis, have come to accept that Hezbollah plays a vital role in Lebanon’s once fragile security apparatus.

Because of this, in the event of a Civil War, Hezbollah, which represents the most efficiently armed and trained faction in the country and one that is in many ways a more disciplined and effective fighting force than the Lebanese Army, would easily win any conflict.

Only a fool would think otherwise, and the EU and US are ultimately not altogether as foolish as they often sound.

very Saudi affair 

From the beginning, I’ve stated that the Hariri forced resignation had far more to do with Hariri’s relationship to Riyadh than his position in Beirut. The combination of MBS’ faction in Saudi seeing Hariri as ineffective as a ‘puppet’ combined more importantly with the Hariri family’s association with enemies of the MBS, including a purged and slain Saudi prince, was the real reason for the fact that Saudi said “Hariri must go”. Much of this was later postulated by Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and thus far, his analysis is among the most objectively vindicated of any major political figure.

2 radically different interpretations of Saudi’s ‘great purge’ and Lebanese PM Hariri’s ‘resignation’

The latest statements from the US and EU also serve to bolster geo-political expert Andrew Korybko’s thesis that it is extremely likely that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s provocative language towards Yemen’s Houthis, Iran and Hezbollah is at this point, more bark than bite.

When one considers that ever major concerted Saudi attempt at actually destabilising the region, including and especially the conflict in Syria, has been coordinated in tandem with Saudi’s western allies, one realises that Saudi Arabia’s actual geo-political might is limited merely to bribes and intimidation, when not coordinated with any military power, including Israel which as myself, Korbyko and Nasrallsh acknowledge, is taking more of a passive vulture like role in respect of Lebanon and by extrapolation Iran, than one that is coordinating or dictating Saudi’s moves. In this case, Saudi’s aggressive language, like the Hariri ‘resignation’ speech is being authored by close allies of Muhammad bin Salman in Riyadh.

While Saudi does indeed hope to goad Hezbollah, Iran and Yemen’s Houthis into a further conflict, Iran and Hezbollah are not taking the bait. Houthis, which represent the weakest faction by far in Saudi’s ‘hated triumvirate’, are seemingly taking advantage of Saudi’s weakened position. This however is a sign of increased Houthi confidence in the face of increased Saudi bravado. If anything, the Houthis are aiming to show a fragmented Saudi regime that they can take Houthi lives, but that they cannot take their freedom. This is something that Saudi Arabia will have to acknowledge the easy way or the hard way–possibly with the help of the prodigal Qatari regime which is now well placed to be a peace broker between Sana’a and Riyadh.

The only winner of the Saudi (and Lebanon) great purge is Qatar

Trump Tweet déjà vu

Yesterday, Donald Trump Tweeted his support for the purges of Muhammad bin Salman, a move which many thought confirmed an official US position in support of everything the Saudi regime is saying and doing.

I remain more convinced than ever that this is not the case.

Trump goes on a selling spree while Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman goes on a purging spree

First of all, the US State Department’s statement in favour of calm and legal stability in Lebanon goes against the Saudi narrative that Lebanon has somehow descended into a lawless Iranian military base. The US in saying that Lebanon’s sovereignty should be respected, clearly goes against the Saudi line that Lebanon has essentially forfeited its sovereignty to the ‘vast Shi’a conspiracy’ which exists only in the minds of Israeli and Saudi propagandists.

All the while, the US State Department has said precious little to either condemn or endorse the domestic Saudi purges.

Secondly, there is something of a resemblance to the apparent schism between official State Department policy and Trump’s Tweets in respect of the Saudi/Lebanon crisis and something similar which happened when Saudi and its allies broke off relations with Qatar. At that time, Rex Tillerson, like every other diplomat outside of the Middle East (with the exception of tiny Maldives), declared Washington’s neutrality in the dispute. This of course came after Donald Trump Tweeted his support for Riyadh.

Donald Trump clearly has good relations with Muhammad bin Salman, especially compared to many of the older princes who expressed shock at Trump’s style.That being said, Muhammad bin Salman also has very good relations with the leadership in Moscow and Beijing who are about as far from Trump’s brash style as one can get.

Muhammad bin Salman is a rogue with little political experience who is draining his own alleged swamp, so it is natural that Trump and Muhammad bin Salman should have some affinity for one another. Whether this will translate to a change in US policy which his tended to favour the more middle of the road Muhammad bin Nayef is far from certain.

I personally postulate that in some ways, the trilateral relationship between Muhammad bin Salman, Trump and the Washington deep state will evolve to be similar to that which exists between Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Trump and the Washington deep state.

Duterte is a radical reformer who in one short year has radically realigned Philippines’ foreign geo-strategic partnerships. Russia is now partnering with  Manila on security issues and China has hailed a “golden period” in bilateral relations with Philippines. Duterte essentially conceded Chinese claims over the South China Sea and in return, China is pumping in investment and a shot of good will into the Philippine economy.

Duterte is loathed by the deep state for his foreign policy realignment and his war on drugs, while Donald Trump has spoken positively about the drug war in Philippines. Likewise, while Duterte loathed the technocratic Obama (he once called Obama the “son of a whore”), Duterte has expressed his personal admiration for the more colloquial and seemingly straight talking Donald Trump. However, Duterte has said that there is no going back to the old “colonial mentality” with the US, irrespective of his personal good will towards Trump.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte (still) likes Donald Trump

In many ways, one could imagine Muhammad bin Salman, assuming he outlives his many blood thirsty rivals, having a similar geo-political position as Duterte vis-a-vis the other superpowers. This is to say, someone who will maintain substantial contacts with the US, in spite of mutual suspicion, but someone who also increasingly charts his own course internationally, especially where Russia and China are concerned.

That being said, my personal feelings towards Muhammad bin Salman are low. I see him as an opportunist looking to enrich himself with partners who make logical sense to a country looking to ween itself off oil dependency. By contrast, I see Duterte as a genuine patriot, a humble man, a good soul and a deeply sincere public servant.

Conclusion

While Lebanon’s situation is still perilous, the situation in Saudi Arabia is much more perilous, in spite of the fact that many still refuse to see Lebanon as a maturing post-civil war power while seeing Saudi Arabia as a rock of stagnant stability.  Against this backdrop, it is important to see that the Hariri ‘resignation’ was merely the first of many Saudi purges. Hariri is after all a Saudi citizen and he was purged as such.

The United States is famous of engaging in dangerous foreign policy manoeuvres to hide domestic scandals. The illegal bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 got Bill Clinton’s concubine Lewinsky out of the headlines and the war on Iraq was used to silence those questioning the official narrative on 9/11.

In the case of Lebanon and Saudi however, it is a matter of using a foreign policy manoeuvre as a ploy in a game that is mostly domestic in nature. If Muhammad bin Salman was doing anything else, he would be signing his own death warrant as Hezbollah is the strongest faction in Lebanon and Iran is not only the strongest power in the Persian Gulf, but along with its new partner Turkey, the most formidable military power in the Middle East.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Midterm Elections: A Disaster Denied, and What is Coming

The Democrats intend to mount a non-stopping offensive against the President.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces ) via SHTFplan.com:


Before the 2016 Presidential Election, and both before and after the inauguration, I wrote specifically about how important the midterm election would be, and the results if the President should lose even one House of Congress.  That happened: the Republicans just lost the House of Representatives. Now that the Democrats control it, not one piece of legislation will pass that is on the President’s agenda. In the supreme act of denial, the Republican party claims the “Blue Wave” was not successful; even the President declared a “victory” with the midterms.

Nothing could be further from the truth, on either count.

The Democrats intend to mount a non-stopping offensive against the President. First, they are going to demand that Mueller go on the attack again. They are already demanding the President’s tax returns. On Thursday, 11-8-18, thousands of people marched in Times Square in New York City in protest of Jeff Sessions’ departure from the White House…although Sessions was the one who tendered a letter of resignation. The mob of protesters carried mass-produced “No one is above the law” placards and signs.

Not one of those Marxists carried those signs when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resigned after Benghazi, where a U.S. Consular Outpost of the United States was destroyed, and the U.S. Ambassador and four of his staff murdered.

“Happy Veterans’ Day” is coming up, with the cliché eternal: “Thank you for your service.”

Nobody really cares about it, except the vets. Those who have to work receive time and a half for their pay, and Hallmark makes about another $50 million or so on the cards and gifts…about $10 million of that for the Government to “re-ingest” with the taxes….another day on the endless cycle:

The cycle of spending of disposable income, an indispensable part of the economy and all of the governmental employees on paid federal holiday, solemnly dispensed of at the expense of (to paraphrase Metallica) the government’s “disposable heroes.”

Where were the protests in the streets after Benghazi? Everybody was hidden, because at the time we were under Obama. When Donald Trump was elected President, a “hiatus” was granted from the nonstop march toward socialism/communism that reached a zenith as never before. Now that hiatus is shrinking, as the Communists and Marxists begin new offensives under their playbook “Rules for Radicals,” offensives targeting every area of the society.

Their plan should be obvious: to keep the President “backpedaling” and the economy faltering, in order to set the stage for the 2020 election. All of this I have written about before, and it came to pass with the Midterm elections. If they keep the President on the defense and keep pushing the “social issues,” it will render his administration ineffective…not delivering the change back toward the right that the voters wanted to see in 2016.

The Wall Street Journal published a piece on November 9 entitled Democrats plan to pursue most aggressive gun-control legislation in decades.” They have been receiving plenty of help on this one, with the Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, and the recent murders by a former Marine last week. Here they come again! All of the legislators…with armed protectors paid for by you, mind you…clamoring for the guns. Here’s a piece of it for you:

Democrats say they will pass the most aggressive gun-control legislation in decades when they become the House majority in January, plans they renewed this week in the aftermath of a mass killing in a California bar. Their efforts will be spurred by an incoming class of pro-gun-control lawmakers who scored big in Tuesday’s midterm elections, although any measure would likely meet stiff resistance in the GOP-controlled Senate. Democrats ousted at least 15 House Republicans with “A” National Rifle Association ratings, while the candidates elected to replace them all scored an “F” NRA rating. “This new majority is not going to be afraid of our shadow,” said Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who is chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. “We know that we’ve been elected to do a job, and we’re going to do it.”

Now of course the argument to this rationale will be that the Senate is needed before a law passes. Yes, we all watched “Schoolhouse Rock” and learned about the three-party system of checks and balances. The problem?  Nothing was accomplished when the Republicans held both houses of Congress, and the Reds and Blues counter one another, and more:

The Democrats’ strategy is not to pass any laws: it is to stir up public controversy, win support of the “Zero” generation, and either force actions through the “tyranny of the majority,” or make it so horrible an arena that it detracts from or prevents any positive efforts and actions from the administration…setting the stage for the 2020 election.

Ocasio-Cortez just entered the House of Representatives at the “sage/sagacious” age of 29, and she is a self-described “democratic socialist” who favors single-payer healthcare, gun control, abolishing border controls, and declared that she would support the impeachment of the President. She was also part of Bernie Sanders’ campaign movement in 2016.

Lenin espoused some “gems” that should be considered. Here is one that falls in line with the “newly discovered wonderful possibility of socialism” the Zero-generation and twenty-somethings have fallen in love with hook, line, and sinker:

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

New York just placed a “democratic socialist” in the White House…a declared socialist, among all of the hidden Marxists camouflaged under the “progressive” or “democratic” monikers.

Gun control, coming at us once again, and once more, a quote from Lenin for you:

“Disarmament is the ideal of socialism. There will be no wars in socialist society; consequently, disarmament will be achieved. But whoever expects that socialism will be achieved without a social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a socialist. Dictatorship is state power based directly on violence. And in the twentieth century – as in the age of civilization generally – violence means neither a fist nor a club, but troops. To put “disarmament” in the program is tantamount to making the general declaration: “We are opposed to the use of arms.” There is as little Marxism in this as there would be if we were to say: “We are opposed to violence!” – Lenin, “The Disarmament Slogan,” from October of 1916

The next two years should be interesting, to say the least. Keep in mind: the President is not throwing in the towel, however, he has one more year to turn the tide…before he has to campaign. There is still another way, though: I mentioned it in the last article that I wrote. Bush Jr. used this technique successfully when he was trailing Kerry in the polls. Margaret Thatcher used this technique when she was about to be shown the door, and turned it around, remaining in office.

The “technique” is a war, whether a “quickie” (such as the Falklands War…Malvinas, if you prefer), or a protracted one (Iraq “II” where victory was declared within months of started, and it was achieved…with the decades and a half of Military Industrial Complex contracts…and the transition of the United States into a Surveillance and Police State).

The technique is a war, and if you keep abreast of what is going on, you will see that Russia and China are gearing up for a war, the nations are “decoupling” themselves incrementally from the dying fiat-backed Petrodollar, and North Korea is once again raising itself as a nuclear threat (on its own, or encouraged by one or more nations). A war could either suspend elections, or propel the incumbent into a victory based on the populace’s perception of what they need. Remember this last quote from Lenin, and let it sink in good:

“A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power.” – Lenin, State and Revolution, 1917

The ultimate truth: the elections are akin to the Stock Market, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average. It doesn’t matter how many shares are bought or sold, as long as there are fluctuations and flux. The winners are the brokers, who pocket their commissions on every trade…a sell or a buy. The same exists here. The blue donkeys versus the red elephants. The “tribalism” of men, and their needs of a social order…a cohesive social grouping that reflects what they believe in…is exploited to its maximum advantage. All the while, the paradigm shifts almost imperceptibly, until before you know it….twenty years have elapsed, and you are not looking at the same country anymore.

The “art” is to make the people think they will be getting what they want…dupe them into believing it is something good, when it’s not. It took the blood of heroes to form and defend this nation.  The downfall is precipitated by traitors from within…bleeding the nation white by circumventing existing laws and replacing them with the greatest injustice and threat to personal liberty of all. What is that greatest threat? A foreign enemy? A spontaneous collapse of everything?

No. The greatest threat is the acceptance of the people of the illusion of “social justice,” that really translates into something for nothing by taking from those who have earned, and giving it to those who live within the entitlement cesspool of their own sloth. Such a mentality pervades our society today. In order to save the United States, we have to return to our fundamental values and become an ass-kicking, straight-shooting people who fear God and care for their families, neighbors, and nation once more. If we do this, we may emerge from the coming night as a nation once more. Ready your NVGs, and steel your hearts for the challenge before it arrives…now…at the twilight’s last gleaming.

May Veterans’ Day bring remembrance to your mind, may your heart find peace, and may any who serve in your family be safe and sound.


Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russia’s Next Weapon: A Church

The Russian military plans to build a military church to bolster the spiritual values of its armed forces.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Michael Peck via The National Interest:


Meet Vladimir Putin’s newest weapon: a church.

The Russian military plans to build a military church to bolster the spiritual values of its armed forces. Construction will soon begin of the Main Church of the Armed Forces, to be erected in Patriot Park outside Moscow, according to Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, deputy defense minister and chief of the armed forces’ Main Military-Political Directorate, a new organization responsible for political education of the troops.

The “new church will be one more example of the people’s unity around the idea of patriotism, love, and devotion to our Motherland,” Kartapolov told Russian journalists.

To say the church, dubbed by some as the “Khaki Temple,” will have a martial air would be an understatement.

“The walls of the military church are really made in the color of the standard Russian missile system and armored vehicle,” according to the Russian newspaper The Independent [Google English translation here ] “…From the inside, the walls are decorated with paintings with battle scenes from military history and texts from the Holy Scriptures. The projected height is 95 meters [104 feet] and is designed for 6,000 people.”

“Kartapolov is convinced that the modern Russian serviceman cannot be shaped without shaping lofty spirituality in him,” Russian media said. “Speaking about ideology, the deputy head of the military department pointed out that this will be based on knowledge of the history of our Motherland and people and on historical and cultural traditions.”

“Even though the Russian constitution states that ‘no ideology may be established as state or obligatory,’ the Kremlin continues to search for a unifying set of beliefs,” notes the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.

Religion has long played a role in Russian military life, first through the Russian Orthodox Church in Tsarist times, and then—in a secular way—through Communism in Soviet times. “In late imperial Russia, when they began to build garrisons, every regiment sought to build a regimental church, but not a synagogue or mosque,” Roger Reese, an historian at Texas A&M University who has written books on the Tsarist and Soviet armed forces, told the National Interest. “In Putin’s Russia, the Orthodox Church seeks every opportunity to represent itself as the national religion and tie itself to the state as it had under the tsars, so this act represents continuity broken temporarily by the Soviet years. Of course the Soviet regime did not build churches for the army, but it did build the ‘House of the Red Army,’ shaped like a star, in Moscow dedicated to the use of the Red Army and its soldiers.

In some respects it was analogous to a USO [United Service Organization that supports American soldiers] building. So Putin’s dedicating one particular building to the use of the Russian Army soldiers for purposes of morale—and morals—is in line with that.”

While the thought of a military church will be distasteful to some, Russia is hardly unique in linking the military and religion.

Many armies, the United States and Israel included, maintain chaplains who wear uniform and hold military rank. Chapels are common on military bases, and soldiers are given time for – and sometimes pressured to – attend religious services. While a Russian military church is likely to favor a specific denomination – Russian Orthodoxy – even that isn’t unique: non-Christian members of the U.S. military have complained of religious discrimination , especially by Christian fundamentalists.

What’s interesting is how little things change. Be it the Tsar’s conscripts, or the Red Army’s draftees or the volunteers who comprise much of modern Russia’s military, some spiritual reinforcement is deemed necessary to get soldiers to fight.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Pat Buchanan: Macron Trash Talks “America First”

Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot of the 20th century. He spoke of a Europe of nation-states and ordered NATO out of France in 1966.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Pat Buchanan via The American Conservative:


In a rebuke that bordered on a national insult Sunday, Emmanuel Macron sniped at Donald Trump’s calling himself a nationalist.

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron said.

As for Trump’s policy of “America first,” Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new age: “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values.”

Though he is being hailed as Europe’s new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for transnationalism and globalism, Macron revealed his ignorance of America.

Trump’s ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country’s history.

America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid “entangling” or “permanent” alliances with any other nation, as we did for 160 years.

Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?

When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War,” took us into World War I, he did so as an “associate,” not as an Allied power. American troops fought under American command.

After that war, the U.S. Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.

The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we stayed out for more than two years after it had begun.

We did not invade France until four years after it was occupied, the British had been thrown off the Continent, and Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three years.

The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did—did they not serve our nation well, given that America’s total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with the millions that other nations lost?

At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, “By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest…its moral values.”

But Trump did not say that other countries don’t matter. He only said we should put our own country first.

What country does Emmanuel Macron put first?

Does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for all of Europe and all of mankind?

Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot of the 20th century. Yet he spoke of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in 1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, “Long live a free Quebec”—inciting French Canadians to rise up against “les Anglo-Saxons” and create their own nation.

Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?

By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the soon-to-be-vacant chair of Angela Merkel.

But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now live? Or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western corporate and media elites?

The realities: in Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.

Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.

A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary and is making gains even in Germany.

The leaders of the world’s three greatest military powers—Trump in the U.S., Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China—are all nationalists.

Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara; Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi is head of India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?

In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen’s renamed party, Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron’s party for the May 2019 European Parliament elections.

If there is a valid criticism of Trump’s foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to recognize the new realities of the 21st century. It’s that he has not moved expeditiously to dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S. interests exist.

Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than the nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships in the Baltic and Black seas?

Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us in the Middle East?

Why do we not have the “America first” foreign policy we voted for?


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending