Reports are pouring out of Wuhan, China indicating that many more people have died from the novel coronavirus than what … More
Trump is playing a high-risk-high-reward game of geostrategic chicken with Iran. If we wins, he’ll get a real deal with Iran. If not, it’s war.
My articles on the “Little Cold War” with Iran were cited for Bill McLoughlin’s column on The Daily Express. Read on for more insights into our current situation with Iran.
In this piece, I argue that those European states most directly threatened by Russia must enhance their military capabilities.
“Trump recognizes how unfairly our “partners” are treating us. He also exposed how insincere our trading partners were when they so readily declined his deal of true free trade. What’s more, he’s reinvigorating the image of the American president as a figure who commands–and deserves–the respect of foreign leaders, friend and foe alike.”
“It’s time to face the fact that the United States has become the battleground for a ridiculous proxy war between two cousins, Ukraine and Russia. It’s no different than how the United States was the victim of an internal blood feud within Islam on September 11, 2001.”
“The Americans and British judiciously used time, geography, and force to their extreme advantage during World War II. In Afghanistan, however, the United States never took the time to analyze the situation from a strategic view. Rather than recognizing how America’s partners, such as Pakistan, could have fully assisted the war effort (had we simply made a deal with the Taliban, Pakistan’s client in Afghanistan) and remained tightly focused on al Qaeda, who knows how differently our history would have turned out?”
“America’s allies must do what they can, when they can, against whomever they perceive as a threat. The United States will always have their backs; we will gladly provide intelligence and logistical support to these states.”
“Rather than go directly to Vladimir Putin, could it be that President Trump is engaging in this brouhaha over a purported Syrian chemical weapons attack to distract the easily distracted mainstream media?”
“The idea that the United States would not retaliate against Assad is disturbing, because it sends a signal to the Israelis and our Sunni Arab partners that we really don’t have a backbone when dealing with Iran (which is what this is really all about). It will force them to take a hard look at whether they will stick their proverbial necks out for us in fighting to maintain a regional order that favors American preferences over those of the Russians and Chinese. We can–and should–draw down most of our 2,200 men in Syria. But, we should also strike back at Assad’s forces for conducting the chemical weapons attack. We cannot encourage, or appear to be encouraging, the use of WMD in such an unstable world. It sets a bad precedent and sends mixed signals to our allies, and also signals to North Korea that we really aren’t serious about upholding non-proliferation policies.”