Is this the Path to Trump’s Middle Eastern Peace?

JC CollinsCultural, Economics, FREEPOM, Geopolitical11 Comments

The Original “Seven Countries in Five Years” and the Seven Nation Trump Ban

“Jerusalem’s only rational and historical choice is to link up once more with the Christian community of Lebanon.” – Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Walid Phares writing in a 1997 paper.

Ten days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 a member of the Joint Staff told General Wesley Clark that the United States was going to take out seven countries in five years.  The countries were listed as – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.  This story and the subsequent history which unfolded are well known to most readers.

It was widely discussed in military and state government circles that Iran was the nation which should be invaded as opposed to Iraq.  Regardless the Bush administration decided to attack and invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.  Nowhere in any action was it suggested that Saudi Arabia should be the target of any military action.

Current President Donald Trump had spoken out against the military action in Iraq at the time and has been even more vocal throughout the course of the 2016 election.  Even a few days ago he referenced again that they shouldn’t have went in but once they did they should have completed the operation and taken Iraqi oil.

These statements are widely condemned in the liberal establishment media as well as widely misunderstood and misrepresented.  Taking Iraqi oil is referring to the process of controlling the resource and ensuring it wasn’t used to enrich and support further terrorist organizations, which subsequently happened with ISIS.

Also taking place lately is the slow encroachment of Iranian forces into Iraq as they battle ISIS and provide “assistance” to the Iraqi forces.  The Trump administration has an issue with this and is positioning itself in opposition to Iran.

Iran is of course one of the main hinges in the Middle East which can either make or break any peace process which is attempted.  Saudi Arabia also serves this function on the other end of the religious and ideological Islamic spectrum. The whole region has been caught between these opposing diametrical nations for many decades with Israel providing a sort of convenient western distraction and scapegoat, though often times warranted, for many of the events and road blocks which have prevented peace.

President Trump is very outspoken about Iran and the nuclear deal made a few years ago with the Obama administration.  Just yesterday he also told Iran that they were put “on notice” after Tehran test fired a ballistic missile.  Iran correspondingly responded with statements amounting to a “screw you Trump, you don’t scare us” and are planning on more tests.

President Trump is also very outspoken about ISIS and the need to wipe them from the face of the Earth.  It is common knowledge throughout the Middle East that Saudi Arabia has been the main supporter of ISIS and its attempts to overthrow Assad in Syria and maintain a state of opposition with Iran.

So what are we to make of this?  Syria was on the original list of nations which were meant to be taken out over a five year period.  ISIS continued this mandate with the support of Saudi Arabia and America but was thwarted by Syrian allies Russia and Iran.  ISIS was also attempting to take out Iraq as its elected government began to turn away from America after the troop pullout.

This hornets’ nest of religious and ideological quicksand becomes even more confusing when we consider and contrast the recent Trump immigration ban on seven Muslim nations.  These nations are – Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.  All of these countries are the same as the original seven mentioned by General Wesley Clark except Lebanon was replaced with Yemen.

Two interesting things happened over the last few years.  First, Yemen, a staunch Saudi ally, has been embroiled in a civil war against the Iranian supported Houthis.  Second, Lebanon elected a new leader by the by the name of Michel Aoun who is now attempting to reach out to Saudi Arabia in attempts to make better relations while also maintaining the Lebanese relationship with Iran supported Shia groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

What do we make of this?

While Lebanon is attempting to stay neutral, at least for the time being, Yemen is stuck in-between the religious and ideological fight of Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi.  But another interesting fact has emerged which warrants discussion.

During the Lebanese civil war which started in 1975 the Christian militia was led by General Michel Aoun, who now, after years in exile in France, has returned to become the President.  The history of the Christian militia is important because it ties directly into a connection with the Trump administration.

One of Trump’s foreign policy advisors is Walid Phares, who was once a member of the Christian militia in Lebanon and supporter of Michel Aoun.  The obvious Christian leaning nature of the Trump administration aligns with the new Christian leadership in Beirut, with both nations using a shared resource in Walid Phares.

It should also be noted that Walid Phares suggested that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner would serve as a Middle Eastern policy advisor months before it became a reality.  The connections and flow of information between Trump’s growing administration and the new Christian-oriented Lebanese government, and the need to re-align Russia away from Iran (something the nomination of Rex Tillerson could help as he has a good relationship with Putin), are coalescing into a clear and viable strategy on Middle Eastern peace.

Also worth mentioning is that Lebanon is moving towards its first oil production in 2018.  This will obviously be a factor in any on-going and future negotiations between Israel and Lebanon when it comes to peace and the Palestinians.

This evidence is strongly suggestive of why Lebanon has now been removed from “the list of seven Muslim nations” and replaced with Yemen. On the original list Lebanon was aligned with Iran, which is why they were included, and Yemen at the time was aligned with Saudi Arabia.  On the new list Yemen is aligned with Iran while Lebanon is now aligning itself with the United States.  This is an interesting turn of events as it means Lebanon and its President Michel Aoun could manage to get Hezbollah and Hamas aligned with the larger mandate involving Israel and the Palestinians.

But this would also mean taking out Iran and its support to both Hezbollah and Hamas, which would isolate both groups within the new arrangement.  This could be accomplished with broader agreements between Trump and Russia on Europe and specifically the situation in Ukraine. This could even include broader agreements between America and Russia negotiated by former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson regarding oil and gas resources and Arctic drilling programs.  Canada would have to be in alignment with this strategy to facilitate the transportation of goods and services and access to the full Arctic resource deposits.

In previous articles I speculated that Iran was the hinge in the Middle East that would determine whether peace was achievable or not.  This is still the case.  It would appear that the region only has room for either Saudi Arabia or Iran, but not both.  The leading indicators would now suggest that Trump is moving towards action against Iran as opposed to Saudi Arabia.

The recent US Special Forces action in Yemen and the telephone conversation with Saudi Arabia would suggest this to be the case.  Further military action taken in Iraq, which is being discussed, would be ultimately targeted at Iran and either taking out their abilities to influence the region or outright regime change which is something Washington and Israel have both wanted for a longtime.

Will Putin let Trump take out Iran in exchange for Ukraine and natural gas control over Europe?  This could be the game play which is taking place as Trump steps back from NATO and Great Britain exits the EU so the EU can be integrated within the larger Eurasian Union.

There could even be a strategy where both Iran and Saudi Arabia are removed and/or restructured into a larger Middle Eastern union or regional economic alliance.  Peace with Israel in the region could possibly mean that America would no longer need to support the destabilizing House of Saud.

This convoluted and confusing mess will continue, but perhaps now we have a somewhat clearer vision and understanding of what might be playing out in the coming months.  The world is changing faster than at any time in the last eight decades.  It’s both fascinating and frightening at the same time.

JC Collins can be contacted at jcollins@philosophyofmetrics.com

This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.

Please subscribe for Premium Content.

11 Comments on “Is this the Path to Trump’s Middle Eastern Peace?”

  1. It’s as convoluted today as it has been for years, but perhaps clarity is on the horizon. Based on the news here in the U.S., it’s hard to imagine that the powers behind the curtain will ever allow Trump to align with Russia. But wouldn’t it be amazing if Trump were the guy to bring peace to the Middle East? He is like an elephant in a china shop, clumsily breaking everything in site, fooling everyone into believing he is incapable of intelligent and strategic moves. And yet he has what may be a brilliant plan, assuming he gets the opportunity to stay in office. Deep State is alive and well and watching his every move.

  2. Thank you so much for this brilliant analysis JC. I particularly loved the following paragraph from your excellent post:

    “There could even be a strategy where both Iran and Saudi Arabia are removed and/or restructured into a larger Middle Eastern union or regional economic alliance. Peace with Israel in the region could possibly mean that America would no longer need to support the destabilizing House of Saud.”

    Both Iran’s Islamist regime and Saudi the Islamist regime of Saudis are a creation of the events of the 1979 Black colour revolution that brought Khomeini to power. In the late 70’s Iran was becoming a powerful nations with a well armed and well trained Military and Air Force. Iran had access to the most sophisticated weaponry and training that US was using. Saudi Arabia despite its wealth did not and could not match the training and the skills of their Iranian counterparts, but there were no animosity in the same level as it exists between the two nations. The problem nation for both Iran and Israel was Iraq, with a soviet backed army and an Arab-Nationalist policy (Ba’ath Party) which both Syria and Iraq shared at the time. The father of Bashar Assad, “Hafez Assad” and the Iraqi leadership were extremely resentful of the “Persian” influence and superiority, but they could not pose any real threat to Iran, since Iranian military was very capable of dominating Iraq with 48 hours.

    After the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the paradigm change in the region, Iraq was encouraged to invade the newly established revolutionary and Shia Islamist government of Iran, by the United States and the Western European governments. The devastating war that ensued took 8 years and bothe Soviets and the Western governments carried out weapons testing and analysis of their effectiveness by supplying Iraq with the latest technologies available. There was even a war room in a Baghdad underground location where US military and Intelligence officers assisted Iraqi forces against Iranians. By the 2nd year of the war Iranian Army was overrunning Iraqi lines in such a manner that Saudis offered full compensation and reparation to Iran, but the minions around Khomeini, such the recently deceased Rafsanjani and other revolutionary leaders were instructed by their Western sponsors to continue with the war and not accept any offer from Saudis. Hence the war lasted 6 more years with a massive human loss of around a million Iranians and possibly the same on the Iraqi side also. Saudis continued to pay Iraq to stand up against Iranian forces and as a result the Dollar cash reserve of Saudis went to a very dangerously low levels. From that point of no return, the hostilities between Iranian mullahs and Saudi regime got progressively worse to a point of a total war in some occasions, and last year a cyber attack by Iranians on Saudi sensitive air control, banks, government computers, which was reported by news media.

    Iranian military doctrine after and during the Iran-Iraq war evolved through a mixture of regular Army/Navy/ Airforce plus an asymmetric warfare and the inclusion of the mid-range rockets, which Iran did not possess prior to 1980. The Iraqi Scud attacks on Iranian cities by Iraq, forced a revision of the possibility of including rockets in the defence doctrine of Iran. As such North Korea, Soviet and Chinese rockets were purchased and later a domestic production as well as R&D was created for this purpose.

    What is a very devastating as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, is the close proximity of its oilfield and refineries which are all located in the Eastern part of the country. This makes Iranians capable of targeting all the facilities with such rockets. Also, the Shia minority of Saudi Arabia is also in the same region where the oil wells are! Yet, Saudi’s have better and more advanced weaponry than Iranians as they receive direct from US, but what is lacking is the willing to fight military against a willful and trained Iranian military. In such an event of a war between the two countries much will be lost for the entire GCC as well as the Oil price will skyrocket instantly. Iranians have operatives and assets in Saudi Arabia and can potentially be effective to favor of Iran. It is worth mentioning that Saudi Arabia is almost incapable of quashing the Houthis in Yemen given its sophisticated weaponry and army, therefore in a combat with Iranians, it will be interesting to see the results! Also, US forces and private armies are helping Saudis to deal with Al Qaeda and ISIS and Houthis it seems without a victory in sight.

    I can therefore see the only a regime change through encouragement of the Military of Iran through channels, already in place. This is a possibility given that the Islamic Republic is a very very unpopular regime and it has lasted so long purely with the support and lifeline of EU and the Democratic party sop long. As for Saudis, I think the low oil prices combined with internal economic issues and other corruptions, not mentioning the human rights abuses alone can be a source of the corrupt Saudi regime. Both regimes must be brought down in concert, since both have been placed against each other by design, a kind of balance of power.

    This morning’s President Trumpo regarding the $150 Billion given to the Mullahs regime, is an indication of some move and actually outing the secret of the Globalist cabal in maintaining such backward and reactionary regime in place so long.

    I can say with no doubt whatsoever, that there is no animosity between the people of Iran toward Israel as the cultural and historical ties are extremely strong and it should be in the interest of Israel to see a secular Iran. It is also a well known fact that people of Iran are the most pro-American folks not in the West Asia but possibly in the world. The well educated and well to do Iranian diaspora in the US are amongst the minorities with the biggest number of Phd’s Msc’ etc. A secular Iran will ensure a peaceful region for all.

    Regarding Saudi Arabia, which is almost a 100 years old, also a non-religious government will be the best option and the sooner the 15,000 Princes are off loaded the better for the region and for the people living in the Arabian peninsula. So I think a regime change there as the best option…

  3. It appears to me that the sands of the middle east shift with the slightest breeze and cover and uncover huge swatches of land scrape, political and otherwise. Always volatile, very unpredictable.

    I’ve read quite bit lately about how many feel that the failed policies of the US have resulted in a weakened position in the entire ME and some say the world. That weakened position, whether we find ourselves in it by hook or by crook, does seem to align with the US playing a diminishing role in multi-lateral world.

    Did someone forget to tell Trump? What with his talk of safe zones for Syria and as we speak he seems to be putting some kind of sanctions on Iran. With Trump I guess we just do not know, hell, he could be making moves that are designed to bolster his opening negotiation position. And then we have to put China, the UK and Turkey in to the mix. I’m getting a headache.

    Well anyway JC, thanks for trying to clear up these ever so murky waters.
    PTM

    1. Hi Peter Moline, You raised a very interesting point when you said:

      “…failed policies of the US have resulted in a weakened position in the entire ME and some say the world. That weakened position, whether we find ourselves in it by hook or by crook, does seem to align with the US playing a diminishing role in multi-lateral world.”

      If by “failed policies” we mean something the US tried and failed, I think we are assuming there were any good policies to start with! The events since 1979 and an outright chaos created by the US governments since 1979, created the mess the world and not just America is in. The late President Reagan was possibly the only US President since that raised the question what the heck America helped Islamist to power in Iran. CIA and other Liberal media of the era i,e. BBC and BOA Persian actually assisted the Marxists and Islamists to take over Iran via leftist tactics and assassination of the top ranking Iranian Secular governments, that today the leftist authored history book vilify whilst glorify the Islamists and MArxist revolutionaries to this day. The truth is that the cancer and Toxic cults that perpetrated the mess in the West Asia are ALL here in the US. As the world’s superpower, the US abandoned its allies time and time again, which was the Shah of Iran and President Mubarak to be replaced by a CIA trained Muslim Brotherhood bearded fanatic who was apparently teaching Mechanical engineering in a SoCal university! The mess that US has caused was not “failed policies” but “Demonic policies.

      If you find people all around the world are up in arm and hateful, you have to ask your leaders and ask them: “why did you crap in these countries and are you satisfied now?”

      I invite you to watch this 53 sec. long clip of President Reagan.
      may God Bless his Sweet and Noble soul:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp0F-SrOhKc

      1. This clip is now making it’s round the net. The noble and late President Reagan sent the National Guards into Berkeley, in May 15 1969.

        History is definately is repeating itself and it seems as per the wise prediction of our JC, the heavy hand of the law will inevitably fall over the numbskull Marxists who do not understand any other language other than, BRUTE FORCE! Reagan here says it, exactly like the way it should be said…humanity is sick and tired of these murdering terrorist cabal:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B21KMA31hM8

        1. Hello carpe-diem, Thanks for the clips and adding depth to my post. “by hook or by crook” was my attempt that my have lead to your elucidating response.

          I personally constantly struggle with US policy that seems to state, and I badly paraphrase, Wesley Clark stating that we plan to take over 7 countries in 5 years, to mean, ‘take over’ as to control via puppet. In the end I believe it serves their hubris and ends to rule as much by tension/chaos, and allow their ‘policy’ to be formed by reaction. To say, the hell with it, we are so great that no matter what the situation becomes we are the masters and we can and will adjust accordingly and achieve our goals no matter what.

          I just can’t always bring myself to believe that their plans are so well crafted that things are going accordingly, except to a larger plan that they hope to achieve ‘by hook or by crook.’ One might go as far as to say they fly by the seat of their pants but always in same direction, and when necessary, seize the day.
          I had to throw that in there, no offense intended.
          PTM

          1. Thank you Peter Moline, I appreciate the humor very much in your post, and in fact the little people who are not sitting on the upper branches of the money and power tree can only use laughter as a survival mechanism. So thank you for that.

            My intention in writing this, “.. .you have to ask your leaders..” was more of a rhetorical one. That is any rational and sane human being regardless of which nation, race or creed they are from, should really ask these question. So my apologies for sounding somewhat obnoxious perhaps, but I know that we are in some ways helpless, but I am a believer in what is best to call, historical opportunity, for individual nations and the random nature of this duality based domain, in that we may be witnessing President Trump as the glitch that will caused the entangled system of the matrix to collapse and hopefully a new and better system to come into our lives. And yes, seize the day whenever the white horse of fortune arrives, we should ride on it’s back and ride towards the light. I can only remain hopeful as it’s hope of a better world that keeps us going as species.

            Wish you a wonderful weekend,

  4. Very insighful article. Alliances are tried and broken very swiftly.

    It kind of makes sense: The regional powers are exploring the new multilateral structure with its multiple shades of grey as opposed to a black and white unipolar landscape.

  5. And so we are continuing to be cleaverly trained to accept/invite the multi-polar “True World Order” with open arms with their perceived promises of peace and stability with their contradictory yet convincing messiah-like leaders Trump and (especially) Putin “somehow bringing us all together”. But what would a multi-polar world begin to look like after the new leaders get right and cozy? Inevitably, the “shit” seeps in. In the short term, the peace and stability seem like a good thing, but we know that is not the true business of the Hidden Hand. I have some ideas, but JC I would thoroughly enjoy your outline of the shadow side of the Mult-Lateral World Order.

Leave a Reply