 |
| Pro Hamas demonstration in Berlin (Source) |
While generally fair-minded, his post has an antisemitic, pro-Islamist slant. Not least, he insists on the Islamist framing of the Gaza war as "genocide"--a lie that reveals his true sympathies.
Mr. Chingo's lede paragraph (links in original):
Donald Trump has taken the riskiest and most potentially devastating step of his second term: a full-scale air strike against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, described by his advisors as “limited and contained.” The White House is seeking to sell the operation as a surgical strike aimed at neutralizing a growing threat, not launching an all-out war in the Middle East.
The attack — which hit the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites — constitutes a high-stakes gamble on Trump’s part.
He's right about the risk! The TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moniker never fit the man--in both business and politics he was never afraid of risks. Usually he wins; sometimes he loses.
As has become apparent over the past 24 hours, Trump has likely won the gamble with his Iran bombing. As Mr. Chingo puts it,
Tehran is perhaps most likely to go a third way: a calibrated, symbolic but noisy retaliation that allows it to save face without crossing Washington’s red lines.
The other two possibilities Mr. Chingo lists are a literal surrender, or a reprisal intended to draw the US into an all-out war. As Mr. Chingo predicted, the purely performative "attack" on a US base in Qatar was, in fact, this third way. So all the panicking about the US being drawn into another endless conflict as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan seems moot.
A prolonged war is not very likely, no matter what happens. There is no chance the US will launch a ground invasion of Iran, and for one very good reason--we'd lose! Iran, a country with 90 million people, sits on a high plateau surrounded by mountains. Any invasion will require hundreds of thousands of troops and be fought on terrain that heavily favors the defenders. Unlike Iraq, Iran is a coherent polity that has existed for centuries, and unlike Afghanistan, it has a strong central government. In short, Iran could and would put up a fight.
It's with Mr. Chingo's further analysis that some problems emerge. He writes
It’s further proof that Tel Aviv is no longer acting simply as an ally of Washington, but as an actor seeking to manipulate its protector. This represents a dangerous reversal of the traditional division of roles between the imperialist center and its client states, with unpredictable consequences in the various global geopolitical scenarios, where the United States intended to delegate its former role as global policeman.
This is correct--Israel is not (and never was) a mere puppet of the US. Disagreements began in 1956 with the Suez Crisis when Israel, allied with France & the UK, invaded Egypt upon Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower strongly objected, and eventually forced the invaders to withdraw. There have been other incidents since, eg here.
Mr. Chingo's weasel word is "imperialist," perhaps the most meaningless word in the English language. "Imperialist" suggests that there is some spiritual authority above both the US and Israeli governments that mysteriously guides the policies of the two nations. Such a mythical enterprise does not exist. For a guide to policy it's best to take Trump and Netanyahu at their words.
For example, Trump clearly is not interested in regime change: "I don’t want it. I’d like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible... Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don’t want to see so much chaos, so we’ll see how it does.” Conversely, Netanyahu was all-in on assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei: "It's not going to escalate the conflict, it's going to end the conflict."
This represents a fundamental disagreement between the two allies--and not even the all-powerful "imperialists" can remove it. The security interests of the US and Israel diverge on this point. By strength of arms, the US won the argument.
Mr. Chingo says something funny.
The bombing of Iran not only marks a turning point for Trump’s presidency, but could redefine the global security architecture for decades to come. The message it leaves is brutal in its clarity: deterrence is no longer based on treaties or negotiations, but on the ability to strike first and strike hard.
Deterrence was never based on treaties or negotiations. Those peaceful processes were never more than the velvet glove covering the fist. At the end of the day, global politics is about force--it has always been thus and always will be so. I'm surprised that Mr. Chingo--a so-called materialist--doesn't see this.
The second article that offends, by Left Voice author Nathaniel Flakin, is entitled Berlin’s Biggest-Ever March for Palestine. He claims that "50,000 people protested against the genocide in Gaza."
First, he claims that a "genocide" is happening in Gaza, which is obviously false--and reflects a hidden agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment