Does anyone not think this true?

 

Iran’s Khamenei Says US Promises Have No Credibility

Read the article at antiwar.com

Nothing is senseless-Follow the Money

Whenever a school shooting or some such event that results in human carnage occurs, we will hear that it is senseless violence.  That to those of us not involved in the incident it does not make sense, does not mean that to someone it did.  Usually, if a manifesto is left behind or medical records are disclosed, there was some reason.  Wrong or twisted maybe, but a reason.

The existence of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex, Actually should be MICEM if we add in Education and Media to the mix) explains a lot of our foreign policy.

So, we meddle in a lot of places because that justifies a lot of money for a lot of things.

Now we are bugging Iran, or are they bugging us.  And why is the Neutralist saying "we"?  The Neutralist is for neutralism.

There are some folks who don't have skin in the game, but do have moolah in it.  They all have a John Bolton connection.

See if you can figure out who wants what out of their "investment."  Click the OpenSecrets link.

As tensions rise, moneyed interests pushing for hard line against Iran

at OpenSecrets.org

they all

Mish Shedlock of Global Economic Trend Analysis and Patrick Armstrong of Russia Observer Display Common Sense-Nobody Will Notice

First, let's go with Mish.  You've seen all the ads, signs, bumper stickers telling us to support our troops.  Sometimes it will be accompanied with something saying that they are keeping us safe.  No one explains how some GI in an Afghan outpost is keeping us safe, but there it is.

Well Mish noticed:

This last weekend I saw a biker wearing a "support our troops" shirt. OK, what's the best way?
I know the answer. Do you?
The best way to "support the troops" is to not send them into stupid battles in places we ought not to be in the first place.
The War in Afghanistan is going on over 15 years. Yes, 15 years. WTF? For what?

The Neutralist has been asking the same question since 2008 on blogger.  No one cares to answer so it is good to see Mish make the point.

Now on to Patrick Armstrong.  In comments on Colonel Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis  Mr. Armstrong replied to a comment:

Seriously, what vital national interest of the USA qua USA is threatened if Russia has a big influence in Syria? Or if Iran is a big player in its corner of the world? Or if Venezuela has a somewhat socialist government? Or if China polices trade going in and out of China in the South China Sea? Etc etc.

Hypothetically, we bring all the troops home.  What happens?  Does anyone believe that Russia starts the tanks rolling west until they are in Portugal?  Does anyone think China will build an invasion fleet?  Iran does something horrible?  Will Venezuela start running an efficeint non-kleptocracy?

The Neutralist, waiting for an answer since 2008.  Actually, since the Carter administration. 

Thanks Bibi for making The Neutralist case for us

Prime Minister Netanyahu's dog and pony show to prove the Persians are nuclear naughty was old wine in new skins, or something.

What he was really saying was we need a war.

We don't and we don't need one to suit the purpose of other countries.

Washington was right and we need to steer clear of foreign entanglements.

Bibi made the case for bringing the boys and girls home and staying out of another meaningless conflict.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and the Iran War

So we have the silly fellow, John Bolton, as National Security Advisor designate. One hopes that Trump is playing some deep 4D Chess game and Bolton is some kind of head fake.  That is probably asking too much.  His ridiculous thumping for an Iran war is not singular, unfortunately, but too much part of a chorus.

As we have made clear before, Neutralist policy on the Middle East is simple.  We don't have to be there.  Until someone can persuade us that Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Qatar is going to have a carrier fleet that can take several armies trans-ocean and land them on the Jersey Shore and proceed to take over the lower 48, there is no reason for a US presence in the ME to stop that.

Yet we lack not for hacks to go on TV swearing that we better get moving on the Persians or it is the end of the end, or something.

Someone might say, if we leave, the descendants of Cyrus would develop nukes and begin again the march west that was only stopped by the miracle of Salamis.

Well, we might want to listen to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on the matter.  He gave a speech at the Israeli lobby conference sponsored by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy.

The tone of his talk was how misguided a get Iran policy is.  One thing he said that should give pause to those who think the beat up the Iranians project is a great idea:

... where Israel is headed: toward a massive confrontation with the various powers arrayed against it, a confrontation that will suck America in, and perhaps terminate the experiment that is Israel, and do irreparable damage to the empire that America has become. 

Maybe Wilkerson is a nutter and an Iranian adventure would be, oh, I don't know, a "cakewalk."  Did we hear that word in another life?  

Anyway, you can read the transcript here and the video is below.

Hat tip here where I first read the article.

Again, The Neutralist wants to make clear, we do not take sides in the ME.  All we want is for the United States to be left out.

The Iran Deal Should Be Irrelevant

The Neutralist has not been paying oodles of attention to the Iran deal and the president’s non certification of it.

Supposedly, from much of its press, it is a great agreement and Mr. Trump should have re-certified it.

Of course, he campaigned on the promise not to.

So what does he do now?  Punt it over to Congress.

The deal is discussed ad nauseum in the media with most saying stay with it even if they believe it is several levels less than the best thing since bread that is sliced.

The advocates of re-certification make the argument that if we do not do it, then our word is without meaning and who will negotiate with us, as our faith is not good?

Also, the case has been made that Iran is keeping to the letter of the agreement.

All in all, if it is true that the deal is worth keeping and we are going to be part of an international system, then we would agree, on balance, it is better to be part of the agreement.

The problem is, our history with the Persians has been one of mistakes.

By now, only the most obstinate would disagree that our promotion of the coup against Mossadegh turned out to be a bad idea.  Sure we got 16 years of a hard guy ruler and oodles of oil.  Yet beneath the surface during that time was a revolution coming that would sweep it all away,

Is certifying or decertifying a mistake?

The Neutralist has no idea.  Sure, an Iranian bomb would not be desirable, but Pakistan having one is not all that wonderful either.  If the mullahs stay with the plan, that’s great.  If they don’t what are we going to do?  Bomb them? Probably not.

No, The Neutralist believes in the Neutralist position of non-intervention.  Of course, to non-intervene means to withdraw.  Withdraw completely from MENA.  That means no more intervening in Syria, no more trying to put the Iraq humpty dumpty together.  An end to dealing with Erdogan or other kleptocrats.  We would no longer have to help the Saudis with their obscene war in Yemen.

And, with that, the Republic would fall just like it did when we left Viet Nam.

Please visit us on Facebook.

The Official Neutralist Position on the Iran deal and Iran

Let us preface our announcement with the admission that the Neutralist has in no way focused laser like on the negotiations or the agreement.  If the Neutralist policy were in effect, the negotiations would have been irrelevant.  Why worry about Iran anyway as a rogue neighbor that does not effectively control all its own territory has deliverable nukes.

Our official position on the deal is that it is probably sort of okay.  All the People we respect endorse it.   No one we have some confidence in has opposed it.  Many people we do not have a good opinion of have opposed it.  It wins on points.

As we stated above, if a neutralist foreign policy were in place, there would have not have been any need to have negotiations.

What should a neutralist attitude toward Iran be.

As we have noted in prior posts, William S. Lind has spelled it out,

America's grand strategy should seek to connect our country with as many centers of order as possible while isolating us from as many centers and sources of disorder as possible.

So, if Iran is a center of order, we cooperate with them where we can or have to, and as they are on the opposite side of the world, that should not be too often.

Then again, as they are where they are, there should not be too much need to bug them unless they actively bug us.  We have a history with the Persians, but I don't want to get into who started it.  We should not try to continue it unless we have to.

Then again, If Palestinia can build an ordered state, we can cooperate with them, as we could with the Israelis and the Andorrans for that matter.

Notice, cooperate does not mean ally.

Now there is one state that is a bit rogue.  Granted, it made a good effort in the negotiations, but it feels it necessary to bother the Russkies for silly reasons.  We shall let our readers, few as they are, figure that one out.

The Z Man thinks about Iran

The Z Man has posted his thoughts about Iran on his blog.  It is a well thought out article and worth looking at.  Of course, the Neutralist likes his thoughts because they are essentially his.

He points out with clarity the truth about our MENA involvement, it has been a loser, and whatever else, we need to leave.

In theory, it is not a terrible plan. America needs out of the Muslim world. Whether or not it is a good idea to turn things over to the Persians remains to be seen, but history is on their side. They have been the dominant people in the region for 5,000 years, give or take.

That "history is on their side" is a good way of putting it.  None of the "right" or "wrong" side of history stuff.  No one can completely predict the future though there are some insightful people.

If history is on anyone's side, it is with a people who take the long view.  That is not most of our countrymen and women where two seconds ago is ancient history.

Drudge off the deep end!

Drudge has a picture of Obama holding up a piece of paper.  the headlines accompanying it are,

PEACE FOR OUR TIME...

American Held Hostage In Iran For 444 Days Calls Deal 'Foolishness'...

'Like Jimmy Carter all over again'...

Krauthammer: Worst since Munich... 

Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own...

Rift with USA… 

Subtle it ain't.  So we have given over and the Iranian storm troopers will either be at the gates of D.C. or raining nukes on Lubbock in no time flat, or something.

The Saudis are going out on their own, according to the Telegraph.  Good luck to 'em.  Maybe the Chinese will be better partners.  Doubt they will be as easy to snooker.  Or maybe Bandar can leverage his special relationship with Putin.

The Neutralist is aware that the western industrial world runs on hydrocarbons.  If it is a choice of having our sons, and increasingly daughters, involved in another mid-east conflict with the same level of success as, oh, let's say, Iraq or Afghanistan, we should take our chances.

Israel is not amused with us either.  We wish Prime Minister Netanyahu luck as well.  After all it is his neighborhood.

The principal fact to keep in mind is that it is not our neighborhood.  We don't have to demand Iran do anything and we shall be no worse if we leave the region entirely.

The guy cited as the hostage above and who thinks the deal with Iran sucks may be right.

“My personal view is, I never found an Iranian leader I can trust,” he said. “I don’t think today it’s any different from when I was there. None of them, I think, can be trusted. Why make an agreement with people you can’t trust?”

haven't had to deal with Iranian leaders, so The Neutralist can't disagree.  Maybe in another news item the man can tell us a world leader who is absolutely trustworthy.

As we have said before, time to say au revoir.

The Seance

The year is 2112 and a seance is in progress.  A medium and several attendees are holding hands and the medium feels the spirit of a deceased person is trying to contact them.

"Oh spirit, we do not ask your name, but do tell us about yourself."

"I was the prime minister of a middle-eastern nation a hundred years ago."

"Oh spirit, why do you speak to us?"

"I come to warn you."

"Warn us of what?"

"Iran is within months of have weapons grade fissile material."

The Persians are close to getting nukes and always will be according to some.