NBC News reports on the Trump administration’s regime change-in-all-but-name policy for Iran:

“We certainly don’t like this regime. It’s a deeply hypocritical religious dictatorship that robs its people blind,” a State Department official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told NBC News. “Ultimately, it’s up to the Iranian people to decide what government they want to live under. …We want the Iranian people to be successful. We hope they can restore democracy there [bold mine-DL].”

Pompeo made a similar remark about “restoring” democracy in Iran last month in an interview with Laura Ingraham. This seems to have become a talking point inside the department, and officials are echoing Pompeo’s language even when they’re speaking anonymously. The administration is obviously seeking regime change, but they want to keep up the pretense that they aren’t trying to force anything upon the Iranian people at the same time that they are strangling their economy and destroying their savings through sanctions. “It’s up to the people,” they say, as they throttle the people and try to goad them into rebellion.

The rhetoric of democracy “restoration” is no better than Bush-era claptrap about democracy promotion, and especially in Iran’s case it makes no sense. Iran has not really been a democracy at any point, so what do they think should be restored? There is a tradition of parliamentary and representative government in the last century, but the last time there was an elected Iranian government that did something the U.S. didn’t like our government conspired in its overthrow and embraced a dictatorship instead. No one seriously thinks that this administration hopes that Iran gets a government that genuinely represents the interests of the Iranian people, because such a government would refuse to accept their unrealistic and extreme demands. Trump’s own National Security Advisor is a major MEK cheerleader, so we have to assume that when administration officials say they want to “restore democracy” they mean exactly the opposite.

The Trump administration probably doesn’t want to admit that it is seeking regime change because policies of regime change have produced such nightmarish results at great cost to the people in the affected country and the surrounding region. Advocates of regime change are now very wary of having their terrible policy ideas likened to those that led to the wars in Iraq and Libya, and so they don’t even want to own up to that they seeking the overthrow of a regime that they clearly wish to topple. Regardless, the administration’s Iran policy is sure to fail on its own terms whether they define the goal as “changing regime behavior” or changing the regime, because the Iranian people aren’t going to cooperate with the administration’s plans to use them to bring chaos and instability to their country.

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/restoring-democracy-is-t...

See also:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/boltons-favorite-derange...

By Philip M. Giraldi

One of the things to look forward to in the upcoming holiday season is the special treats that one is allowed to sample. Fruitcake and nuts are Thanksgiving and Christmas favorites. They usually come in tins or special packages but it seems that this season some of the nuts have escaped and have fled to obtain sanctuary from the Trump Administration.

Currently, there is certainly a wide range of nuts available on display in the West Wing. There is the delicate but hairy Bolton, which has recently received the coveted “Defender of Israel” award, and also the robust Pompeo, courageously bucking the trend to overeat during the holidays by telling the Iranian people that they should either surrender or starve to death. And then there is the always popular Haley, voting audaciously to give part of Syria to Israel as a holiday treat.

But my vote for the most magnificent nut in an Administration that is overflowing with such talent would be the esteemed United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement James Jeffrey. The accolade is in part due to the fact that Jeffrey started out relatively sane as a career diplomat with the State Department, holding ambassadorships in Iraq, Turkey, and Albania. He had to work hard to become as demented as he now is but was helped along the way by signing on as a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Jeffrey set the tone for his term of office shortly after being appointed back in August when he argued that the Syrian terrorists were “. . . not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, who must have somehow missed a lot of the head chopping and rape going on, subsequently traveled to the Middle East and stopped off in Israel to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been suggested that Jeffrey received his marching orders during the visit.

James Jeffrey has been particularly active during this past month.  On November 7th he declared that he would like to see Russia maintain a “permissive approach” to allowing the Israelis to attack Iranian targets inside Syria.  Regarding Iran’s possible future role in Syria, he observed that “Iranians are part of the problem not part of the solution.”

What Jeffrey meant was that because Israel had been “allowed” to carry out hundreds of air attacks in Syria ostensibly directed against Iran-linked targets, the practice should be permitted to continue. Israel had suspended nearly all of its airstrikes in the wake of the shoot-down of a Russian aircraft in September, an incident which Moscow has blamed on Israel even though the missile that brought down the plane was fired by Syria. Fifteen Russian servicemen were killed. Israel reportedly was deliberately using the Russian plane to mask the presence of its own aircraft.

Russia responded to the incident by deploying advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to Syria, which can cover most of the more heavily developed areas of the country. Jeffrey was unhappy with that decision, saying “We are concerned very much about the S-300 system being deployed to Syria. The issue is at the detail level. Who will control it? what role will it play?” And he defended his own patently absurd urging that Russia, Syria’s ally, permit Israel to continue its air attacks by saying “We understand the existential interest and we support Israel” because the Israeli government has an “existential interest in blocking Iran from deploying long-range power projection systems such as surface-to-surface missiles.”

On November 15th James Jeffrey was at it again, declaring that U.S. troops will not leave Syria before guaranteeing the “enduring defeated” of ISIS, but he perversely put the onus on Syria and Iran, saying that “We also think that you cannot have an enduring defeat of ISIS until you have fundamental change in the Syrian regime and fundamental change in Iran’s role in Syria, which contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS in the first place in 2013, 2014.”

As virtually no one but Jeffrey and the Israeli government actually believes that Damascus and Tehran were responsible for creating ISIS, the ambassador elaborated, blaming President Bashar al-Assad for the cycle of violence in Syria that, he claimed, allowed the development of the terrorist group in both Syria and neighboring Iraq.

He said “The Syrian regime produced ISIS. The elements of ISIS in the hundreds, probably, saw an opportunity in the total breakdown of civil society and of the upsurge of violence as the population rose up against the Assad regime, and the Assad regime, rather than try to negotiate or try to find any kind of solution, unleashed massive violence against its own population.”

Jeffrey’s formula is just another recycling of the myth that the Syrian opposition consisted of good folks who wanted to establish democracy in the country. In reality, it incorporated terrorist elements right from the beginning and groups like ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliates rapidly assumed control of the violence. That Jeffrey should be so ignorant or blinded by his own presumptions to be unaware of that is astonishing. It is also interesting to note that he makes no mention of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, knee-jerk support for Israel and the unrelenting pressure on Syria starting with the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 and continuing with the embrace of the so-called Arab Spring. Most observers believe that those actions were major contributors to the rise of ISIS.

Jeffrey’s unflinching embrace of the Israeli and hardline Washington assessment of the Syrian crisis comes as no surprise given his pedigree, but in the same interview where he pounded Iran and Syria, he asserted oddly that “We’re not about regime change. We’re about a change in the behavior of a government and of a state.”

Actually, the only regime change that is needed is in Washington and it would include Jeffrey, Bolton, Haley, Pompeo, and Miller. And while we’re at it, get rid of son-in-law Jared Kushner and his claque of Orthodox Jews, Jason Greenblatt the “peace negotiator” and David Friedman the U.S. Ambassador in Israel. None of them are capable of acting to advance any American national interest, which they wouldn’t recognize even if it hit them in the butt. Once they are gone the U.S. can bid the Middle East goodbye and leave its constituent nations to sort out their own problems. Jeffrey’s ridiculous prescriptions for the Syrians and Russians are symptomatic of what one gets from a team of yes-men who have latched onto some dystopic ideas and pursued them relentlessly, blinded by what they believe to be American power. Someone should tell them that their antics have made that power a commodity that is dramatically depreciating in value, but it is clear that they are not listening.

Read more:

https://ahtribune.com/us/maga/2634-james-jeffrey.html

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

Foreign Affairs recently asked a number of analysts and scholars what U.S. strategy in the Middle East should be. The participants were asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “The United States should stop trying to solve the regional problems of the Middle East,” and they were asked to assign their level of confidence in their answer. The responses were mostly what you would expect. For example, Elliott Abrams strongly disagrees with the statement and Emma Ashford strongly agrees with it (both confidence level 10). John Mearsheimer very much agrees and Shadi Hamid disagrees almost as much. Some were less certain, and others professed to be neutral. With maybe a couple exceptions, informed readers could have accurately guessed the participants’ answers before they gave them. It’s an interesting exercise for gauging the relative hawkishness and/or meddlesomeness of the people answering the question, but it may be the wrong question for thinking about what is really wrong with U.S. policies in the region. 

The question takes for granted that the U.S. has spent the last several decades trying to “solve” the region’s problems, and the disagreement is over whether it should keep making the effort, reduce that effort, or give up entirely. What if the U.S. has not been trying to “solve” the region’s problems at all, but has instead been trying to exploit and compound them with other goals in mind? For instance, taking sides in Syria’s war and funneling arms and equipment to insurgents is not what one does when one wishes to bring a conflict to an end more quickly. It it what an outside government does to keep a conflict going longer than it otherwise would. Maintaining an illegal, open-ended military presence in Syria doesn’t seem designed to “solve” any of Syria’s problems. No one can seriously argue that U.S. policy in Yemen has been aimed at trying to solve that country’s problems. It’s also true that the U.S. isn’t very good at solving regional problems because we don’t understand the region, but finding solutions to those problems has not been a high priority for Washington for a very long time. 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/whats-really-wrong-with-...

The USA are CREATING PROBLEMS in order to 

a) help the Saudis

b) show they are the top rubbish bin of history

c) provide training for troops that could not fight a pair of flies in a jar

d) annoy the Europeans while claiming to be their friends

e) blame the Rooskies for the crap

d) divide and conquer 

e) suck the national resources of the Middle East

and more...

Read from top.