William Perry Is Wrong.

Former US Defense Secretary William Perry, understandably, is upset with INF Treaty being officially dead. And reacting  to its death he noted:

The U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty today deals a great blow to nuclear arms control and global security, we are sleepwalking into a new arms race.

It is an honorable position, but Perry is wrong--we are NOT sleepwalking into a new arms race, we are already in it and the United States finds itself in a very unusual position--it needs to catch up with Russia, and, to a degree, China. I will omit here, not for once articulated rationales' behind the US withdrawal from INF Treaty, but US needs to "close the gap" as fast as it can. The American move was predicted long time ago and it is to develop a newer iteration of a good ol' Pershing (aka Euromissile) and load as many whatever will be deemed needed (Tomahawks most likely) into the Aegis-ashore installations in Europe, among few other things, measures that is.

The Pentagon announced that the US intends to develop conventional ground-based missiles previously banned under the INF arms control treaty, on the very day it expired following Washington’s unilateral exit."Now that we have withdrawn, the Department of Defense will fully pursue the development of these ground-launched conventional missiles,” a Pentagon spokesman said in an emailed statement on Friday.

Pay attention to this "conventional" qualifier. Sure. Conventional it is, wink-wink. Of course, DJT thinks that he may convince, by killing arms control treaties, China to join the party--wrong thinking. In general, I begin to suspect that Trump and his "team" are secret admirers of Pushkin who wrote to Vyazemski that "long ago the main slogan for every Russian person is the worse the better." Wait a minute... Could it be that Bolton is an admirer of Pushkin? Or maybe even...Russia. That should raise the suspicion among Washington D.C. commissars and American Chekists--could it be that in destroying arms control regime DJT, Bolton and others are acting in accordance to...Russian slogan. In fact, they are acting as...Russians who love this the "worse the better" principle! 

Indeed:

WTF is going on?

So, Russiagate, after all, could have been based on real facts of Russian meddling into American democracy by forcing Russian agents DJT (Colonel Trampov), John Bolton (Major Ivan Boltov) and others to implement the evil Russian concept of making shit so bad, that it may become really good, after all. Especially for military contractors. Damn you, Pushkin... Oh, wait. This whole thing needs to be thought over (this weekend)--there are so many signs that Russians as early as 1824, through Pushkin and, later, Dostoevsky, implanted this devastating idea that "worse is better" into American mind and in doing so convinced the United States to become non-agreement capable, ungovernable and utterly bankrupt, including running itself into the ground by trying to win an arms race in which there is only one competitor--the United States which races against itself in whatever little time is left for it to pretend itself scary. This is the situation which needs not Pushkin, though, but likely Gogol or Kafka to describe a full surrealism of contemporary American thinking, which is, indeed, the worse it becomes, the better it is seen for what it is.        

Trump--The Iran Conqueror.

Larry C Johnson, formerly of CIA analytical org fame, posted today a good review of how Trump is owned by war-mongers he surrounded himself with. Larry gives the spread on four possible scenarios for escalation, but that is not what catches the eye in his excellent piece. This is what we should consider strongly:

If you listen to the neo-con crowd that are certain we can bomb Iran into submission. That is a fantasy and is based on a lie. From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution. We are in an old fashioned dick measuring contest. Pride is supplanting reason. This is a dangerous time and the future of Trump's Presidency and possibly that of America hang in the balance in my view. 

I totally get it why JCS wouldn't caution Trump on the possible war with Iran. As was noted before, both Bolton and Pompeo treat Pentagon as own fiefdom and it is only natural to assume that any voices of dissent would and are being suppressed. Plus, let's be honest, look at the list of wars Pentagon flushed down the toilet and one may get the idea why US would want to strike Iran. It is more than just pride, albeit this is also a major factor, but it is general America's obsession with nations which refuse to bow to US pressure and foundation of that is not just pride but exceptionalism and, in Iran's particular case, Israeli and Saudi influences--both are terrified by Iran's emergence as regional superpower.

Larry also makes a good point, which I also make for a number of years now:

There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang--the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. 

There is one mistake though in this statement--it is not just Trump National Security team. This American ailment of thinking itself as a preeminent military power in history (recall, Obama's "the finest fighting force in history") is rooted in WW II and a gross misconception about real driving forces behind demolition of Wehrmacht (a real finest fighting force) at the peak of its might. Patton's Syndrome, reinforced by Hollywood, is a very dangerous thing, it is also very American thing. That is what Atkinson wrote:

As Rick Atkinson admitted in 1995, he could see in Patton: "the creeping arrogance, the hubris, which would costs the American Army so dearly in Vietnam. Summing up the achievements of his troops in crushing the German counterattack of December 1944, Patton with pardonable pride claims to have "moved farther and faster and engaged more divisions in less time than any other army in the history of the United States--possibly in the history of the world... No country can stand against such an Army." 

When this kind of things are at play--it is not a pride but ignorance which drives the war. Ignorance and huge insecurity against the background of the "impressive" list of lost wars. And then, of course, the question--WHO in Pentagon? As Andrew Bacevich put it bluntly in his symptomatically titled piece The Decline of Our Nation’s Generals:

It is small wonder that so few observers pay serious attention to what senior military officers have to say. What they say is mostly drivel. 

So, Mr. MAGA, or, rather, MIGA is free to follow the advice of his "team". He may get, in the end, his own Vietnam, or something even worse than that, and this, as we all know, is not conducive for the second term, as LBJ, should he be alive today, would testify to. That is, of course, if the United States will continue to exist as it exists today after Iran's "adventure". Considering utter inability of US political and military class to learn simplest things in geopolitics and war, one then, will be forced to ask what really have Trump conquered once missiles start to fly.      

A Deafening Stupidity.

So, John Bolton concludes today that:

Jerusalem (AFP) - US National Security Advisor John Bolton on Tuesday described as "deafening" Iran's apparent silence on an offer to negotiate with Washington. "The president has held the door open to real negotiations," Bolton told journalists in Jerusalem. "In response, Iran's silence has been deafening," he added. Bolton is in Jerusalem for what Israel described as unprecedented talks with his Russian and Israeli counterparts, along with meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Speaking alongside the US advisor, Netanyahu said there was "a wider basis for cooperation between the three of us than many believe." Bolton's comments come a day after the United States imposed sanctions on top officials of Israel's arch foe Iran.

Alrighty then! Iran doesn't want to talk. And why should she? Make no mistake, I am no fan of Ayatollah's rule in Iran nor am I an automatic Iran's supporter merely on the merit that Iran is in direct and stiff opposition to a bunch of Israeli stooges in Trump's Administration. Iran has her own issues and, in general, there is nothing black and white about that nation. Current United States, however, can easily be defined in a very contrast black and white manner: there are people who serve Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies, and there are people who do not. The former, not the latter, are in power and because of that there is no point of talking to them. These are precisely people who helped to form a correct, I might add, global opinion that the United States is not agreement-capable side, so, why waste time? Especially negotiating anything with such lunatics as Bolton, Pompeo or, in the end, Trump himself. 

As Phil Giraldi astutely observes today:

No one in the White House has ever made the effort to explain exactly how Iran threatens the United States, apart from repeated offhand comments about having to protect Israel or “send a message.” Urged on by Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United States has been playing the unwitting fool in its willingness to take the lead in denying Iran any legitimate role in the Middle East region. After pulling out of the JCPOA, the U.S. re-instituted punitive sanctions and then punished other countries for dealing with Iran or abiding by the JCPOA agreement. The Administration, including the president, boasted how the severe sanctions would cause the Iranian economy to collapse. Trump has also several times threatened to completely destroy Iran. As the punishment being meted out has increased, the Administration has also heated up its own rhetoric, claiming that it was Iran and not the U.S. that had become more aggressive and threatening.

Indeed, who, in this current administration, can make a case for a different course with Iran? Tucker Carlson and Dunford, who allegedly were the ones who convinced Trump not to attack Iran after the drone shooting down? Possible, of course, without all this BS drama about halting strikes in the last minute--a pathetic spectacle for the consumption of unsophisticated public. But, let's face the facts. Trump admired Bolton BEFORE even running for office, he wanted to exit JCPOA because it was Obama's "deal" and because Trump cannot not despise Iran, having assembled the Administration, which has loyalties to anyone and anything but the United States and her people. In the end, I am with Larison's definition of Trump as militarist. Indeed, if getting his second term, Trump will attack Iran, not only because he is surrounded by the cabal of hand-picked war-mongers and Israeli-firsters, but because he himself wants this. I would say that he wants it badly--he needs to realize himself as a big global shot--a first trait of a pathological narcissist, which Trump, by universal consensus is. Warfare is the shortest way to get there: win the war and voila'--the laurels of Caesar are at hand. There is, of course, one teeny-weeny problem with that--Iran is ready to fight back. 

Obviously purely military (technological, tactical and operational) realities of this possible war are beyond the grasp of Trump, Bolton, Pompeo or any other war-monger in D.C. But, if to follow a chilling revelation from Larry Wilkerson that Bolton and Pompeo, two utterly unqualified people, view and DO treat Pentagon as their own fiefdom, there is very little doubt that eventually any voice of reason, professionalism and caution will be suppressed there. The preparation for the war with Iran will continue. Iran knows this, hence the "deafening silence". Plus, people tend to not talk to cads and louts such as Bolton or Pompeo (or Trump) out of respect for themselves. Iran respects herself and, as Wilkerson correctly points out, it is normal for civilization with millennia long history and glorious antiquity such as Persia. A bit of respect would have gone a long way but this is a trait completely absent from current US policy and decision makers. A thin veneer of "culture" of these people is no thicker than the papers which their degrees in useless subjects are printed on.

So, neither Trump nor Bolton, nor anyone else in D.C., should expect anything but deafening silence in response. Meanwhile, NATO (ahem, puppets) produces this:

On Tuesday, NATO urged Russia to destroy a new missile to save a treaty that keeps land-based nuclear warheads out of Europe or face a more determined alliance response in the region. 

Apart from obvious and traditional lies of placing responsibility for the death of INF treaty on Russia--it was United States which unilaterally quit this, and other, treaties--Russian Foreign Ministry yesterday warned that if NATO wants another Caribbean Crisis it will get it. Russians are also aware of US inevitably abrogating START, because nuclear weapons are the only weapons the United States has at her disposal to remain relevant. Meanwhile, Russia simply doesn't look back and news on S-500 going into IOC and serial production should give some food for thought to those who still believe that they can fight Russia and survive. There are very few known facts about S-500 apart from well-publicized events such as S-500 hitting aerodynamic targets at unprecedented ranges of 300 miles and the ability to intercept hypersonic targets. RT, though, makes mistake when writes this:

The system is expected to engage intermediate-range cruise and ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles with speeds of up to Mach 5 and intercontinental ballistic missiles during terminal phase. With new interceptors reportedly capable of reaching low earth orbit, the system may double as an anti-satellite weapon and could intercept ICBMs mid-course, according to some reports.

S-500 can not intercept " hypersonic missiles with speeds of up to Mach 5" for a simple reason that anything "up to Mach 5" is NOT hypersonic by definition. Any targets with up to Mach 5 are standard and not hardest targets for S-300PMU2 or S-400. S-500 from the onset was developed as anti-hypersonic complex and that means that it can intercept hypersonic maneuvering targets (not to me mistaken with ballistics which are "hypersonic" by definition), that is greater than Mach 5 velocity, within atmosphere and from the inception was designed as the response to the American efforts within the framework of Prompt Global Strike (PGS) program. I do not want to speculate what is the upper velocity limit for S-500, but judging by the envelope PGS vehicles were trying to push it was around Mach 8-10, if one considers failed and abandoned Mach 20 tests for HTV vehicles. So, make your own conclusion what targets will S-500 intercept. One thing is certain--S-500 is a new word in air-space defense and that changes even further a balance of power globally, not to mention at Russia's borders with NATO, which, somehow, despite "I cross my heart and hope to die" promises to Russia not to expand to Russia's borders did exactly that. Nobody speaks seriously to people who have no honor. Especially when their backs are against the wall and they know they are losing big, if not already. 

UPDATE: Ohh, goody. 

President Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to use "overwhelming force" against Iran if it attacks U.S. assets or personnel. "Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration," Trump wrote on Twitter.

Will somebody explain to DJT that between bellicose proclamations and actually following through with them there is an abyss. Of course, there are also serious groups of behavioral psychologists who consult serious governments, evidently not US government, and who can easily lay it out that all this hot air Trump produces is a direct, unequivocal proof of a weakness. Unless, of course, DJT wants to use nuclear weapons on Iran, as his Israeli handler Sheldon Adelson suggested before. Yes, nuking Iran is the use of "great and overwhelming force", it will be the same force which will turn US into a rogue state sponsor of nuclear terrorism and will ensure that Israel will face an existential crisis. Other than that, I think militarily Iran is ready to face anything US is going to throw at her.  

That Was Your Choice, Donald.

Nobody twisted your hands trying to impose such a loser as Bolton on you. You did it yourself, so live with the consequences. 

Donald Trump has confirmed that his top foreign policy adviser wants to embroil the US in multiple international conflicts. But the US president insists he retains final say on whether American missiles are to fly into Iran.In a sit-down Meet the Press interview broadcast Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked Trump if he was “being pushed into military action against Iran” by his advisers – presumably pointing to the aggressive pronouncements from National Security Advisor John Bolton.“I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks,” replied Trump. “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?”

One little detail: Bolton is not a hawk, he is a chicken hawk, or, to be even more accurate--a chicken whose only skill is to manipulate not very bright people (ahem) at the behest of Israel, he lacks in everything else. Evidently, these "qualities", or, rather, lack thereof, are precisely what is valued in Trump's administration. But then again--to get Trump's logic, or, yet again, rather lack thereof, is an undertaking for not fainthearted. How this makes any sense, judge for yourself:

Trump went on to defend his record of preserving peace – including speaking out against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the decision to call off a strike against Iran in response to a drone downing this week, because it would not have been “proportionate” and would have resulted in “150 dead people.” This was the second time in 24 hours that Trump was forced to back Bolton, after saying on Saturday that the official is “doing a very good job” but adding that he “disagrees very much” with him on the Middle East.

I would be really pissed off if my gastroenterologist, while performing endoscopy on me, cut my balls off. I sure as hell wouldn't call this "doing a very good job". But this is what Trump, in effect, is saying. I, of course, have news for Don--Bolton cannot do "a very good job" in the field of national security since he is utterly corrupt and unqualified for this position. Here is Colonel Douglas Macgregor being pretty blunt about this whole snafu. 

Everyone, but Trump, understand that he surrounded himself with a cabal of chicken-hawks and military nobodies and he takes advice from them. Boy, try finding a better definition of shooting oneself in the foot. So, in the end, no amount of rationalization will help--Trump did it to himself and now he looks like a hot air balloon, who does the bidding of people who are radically against America's REAL national interests and work for different governments. Good job, Donny! Wonder why no one who matters takes you seriously? As Vladimir Putin, yet, again stressed--US has "to ripen for dialogue with Russia" (in Russia). Translating into normal human language from diplomatic one: there is nobody to talk to in the US. 

UPDATE: Col. Wilkerson adds to the argument I advance here. 

I Didn't Want To, But I Might As Well.

Yes (sigh), Iran shooting US drone. I hate commenting on these things. Pure and simple: US wanted the response to her probing "action". Iran delivered the response. US has nothing to follow on with, honestly. What are the US options here? To launch a volley of Tomahawks and JASSMs at Iran, specifically at Bushehr, Tehran, what have you? So, some JASSMs will leak through, blow some buildings, damage some military installations, kill some Iranian military, possibly civilians? Then WHAT? I heard (do not even want to browse internet for that) the figure of 2000 sorties a day floating around supposedly required for "punishing" Iran, that is allegedly bombing her into the stone age. Good luck with that, considering the fact that Iranian Air Defense is not third-rate, at least. And then, of course, the air war against Iran will fast move into the territory the United States doesn't want it to go--attacks on US, Saudi and Israeli targets in the Middle East. Iran, unlike Iraq, has means to respond. 

Now, Pompeo's recent visit to CENTCOM in Florida was primarily to twist hands of US military which is very reluctant to get into the actual shooting war with Iran--after all, they are military professionals and they know how to calculate and what to expect. Trump doesn't want that war? Probably he doesn't, but being an utter amateur in military-political field he cornered himself by:

1. Assembling his so called national (in)security team consisting mostly of ignorant chicken-hawks and Israeli-firsters;

2. By constantly bloviating about how great personally he, Trump, and America are, capable of...exactly what?  

So, now media report that Trump pulled away from the precipice of the war on Iran in the last minute. Sure, in Trump's world it stands for statecraft. In the rest of the world it means an empty threat-mongering and chest-thumping ending, now predictably, with a whimper. Truth is, the United States doesn't have resources to attain any sensible political objective with Iran. US military knows it, again--they, unlike it is the case with Trump, Bolton or Haspel, were taught operational planning of scale. As with Venezuela, it all fast degenerated into the media circus yet again, while in the process making Trump and his Admin look like a bunch of amateurs. Oh, wait...

In the good news, if to believe "lefty" media sewer such as Daily Beast, it is now Tucker Carlson who advises Trump and Carlson's position is clear--he is in open opposition to Bolton-Pompeo gang and is decidedly anti-war figure. If true--good! I think Tucker is on several orders of magnitude more qualified to be National Security Adviser than this dangerous loser Bolton. Hey, Donald, do you hear me? Remove Bolton and offer his job to Tucker. In fact, I am sure Tucker will be good as the Secretary of the State too--way better than the grey mass of the so called American "diplomats", who are primarily Hillary's leftover bureaucrats who are incompetent. So, here it is. I hate, no really, I hate commenting on some launch sequence and firing solution in whatever Iran used (locally updated ancient Hawk missile complex?) to shoot down slow and radio-contrast target. The game is much larger than that and if Trump really wants to get his second term--he better learn how to govern really, not for the consumption of the mass media. And he better stay away from ANY military provocation against anyone. OK, done, over, let's move on.    

Ohh, Goody...

Ok, delusional--I get it. But this guy who did two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq evidently learned zero there, I mean real war--not "triumphant" COIN in those countries. The guy is a lawyer by education and a darling of a "patriotic" media in US. He has issues with real operations and strategy (it is expected from people with "degree" in Law and Government) and assessing, at least, the size of force required to actually win, that is to say occupy Iran. Hence:

US Republican Senator Tom Cotton is facing severe criticism from the public after bombastically claiming that the US would win a war against Iran in just “two strikes.”While speaking to Margaret Hoover for the aptly named show ‘Firing Line,’ the Arkansas senator said a war with Iran would not drag on for decades like the failed war with its neighbor, Iraq. Instead, he claimed it would end after the “first strike and last strike.”

Judging by the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran war will be a "cakewalk", yes, yes--I would love to see Mr.Cotton, who accidentally is a US GOP Senator, "lead" some formation (will he plan operation?) against "defeated" Iran forces say in Mazandaran or Talysh Mountains. While planning for it, Cotton may take a look at Google maps and review Iran's terrain, you know--to get an impression on how he, Cotton, will fight in a country with 80 million population and fairly competent armed forces, not to mention, I am sure, a partizan (COIN) war which will be unleashed in Iran against the invaders, which would make Afghanistan a relaxed stroll in the park in comparison. Of course, there is always the Air War, that is bombing Iran from the air but this too will create such a global shitstorm that I do not even want to contemplate it now. 

Now, back to this possible land war in Iran. I hear all the time--but what about Russia. Well, Russia will not allow the United States to enter Russia's Caspian underbelly, unless Russia is ready to provide for the United States a Vietnam 2.0 (probably worse) and she is ready to do so if push comes to shove. People somehow miss this obvious fact that getting the United States into the death trap of Iran's ground war, with Russia having all necessary lines of communications opened through Azerbaijan and Caspian Sea to resupply Iranian resistance if the United States decides to sign a death sentence to herself, will be able to make such a war a nightmare. This, of course, if such a war is unleashed. Bolton, certainly, dreams about it. Here is Colonel Wilkerson explaining who people in current Administration are, especially Bolton:

    

Cotton is made of the same human material as Bolton or Pompeo, and that means he is incompetent. In the end, Russia will, as always, exercise and exhaust all diplomatic options first to diffuse situation and to prevent the war. If, however, the war starts, and it may, considering already not very healthy state of the American economy and society, throw the United States into a massive turmoil, Russia will make sure that Iran has instruments for defending its sovereignty. After all, it is in Russia's own interests too. In this case, Russia will engage. And then, of course, there is an issue of Azerbaijan and a large Azeri population of Iran--three times larger than that of Azerbaijan proper. 

In general, Mr. Cotton, speaks about the area he has no clue about in any political, geographic, military or cultural senses but that is what American "elite" today is--a collection of militant ignoramuses. As Larry Wilkerson describes his conflict with Bolton, as mustached coward told Wilkerson: "I do policy, you do war." How the draft dodger and lawyer can do military policy is a mystery behind seven locks, but my suggestion to Cotton (I am sure it is within his power)--to stop talking on subjects he has no clue about, forget about whatever he remembers from Iraq and Afghanistan, and try to enroll into some REAL military history courses in US Army War College and maybe attend Leavenworth, US Army Command and General Staff College--to pick up few professional facts about possible combined arms operations in Iran. I know, I know--a very long shot--but hope springs eternal.

No Sh.t Moment.

It is a Victory Day in Russia and elsewhere in the world where people of good heart and will celebrate those who sacrificed so much to save civilization. But...life never stops and a major No Shit moment just occurred with POTUS. 

Donald Trump is questioning his administration’s aggressive strategy in Venezuela following the failure of a US-backed effort to oust Nicolás Maduro, complaining he was misled about how easy it would be to replace the socialist president with a young opposition figure, according to administration officials and White House advisers. The president’s dissatisfaction has crystallised around national security adviser John Bolton and what Mr Trump has groused is an interventionist stance at odds with his view that the United States should stay out of foreign quagmires. Mr Trump has said in recent days that Mr Bolton wants to get him “into a war” – a comment he has made in jest in the past but that now belies his more serious concerns, one senior administration official said.

Ahhh, Mr. President, it is called YOUR (that is Trump's) Administration for a reason--You, nobody else, out of your own free will (and ignorance), stuffed (or deliberately infested) this administration of yours with most imbecilic, incompetent war-mongers, who even failed the smell test in W's admin. That is some crafty bottom feeding you performed which would impress even "Buck" Turgidson. So, Mr. President, now it is a time to own it. War and serious international relations are not your run of the mill New York real estate shyster dealings--they do require real qualifications and skills. But, let Mr. Trump deal with this smelly business himself, after all, according to sources:

Despite Mr Trump’s grumbling that Bolton had gotten him out on a limb on Venezuela, Mr Bolton’s job is safe, two senior administration officials said, and Mr Trump has told his national security adviser to keep focusing on Venezuela.

A classic case of serious bi-polar syndrome which afflicted current Administration which, evidently, is not really Trump's, methinks. It is akin to asking a plumber (nothing against this highly needed profession) to continue to perform open heart surgery on a dying patient. Or, for that matter, letting a fox guard chickens in a chicken coop. No shit. 

No, Daniel Larison, You Are Wrong Here.

I am talking about Daniel Larison trying to figure out what really drives Trump-Bolton relations. Larison explains US getting into the regional wars' trap this way:

For someone “not playing along,” Trump has obediently given Bolton and the Iran hawks practically everything they have wanted so far. He has gone much further in laying the groundwork for war with Iran than any of his predecessors, and the only reason that many people seem confident that he won’t order an attack is their mistaken belief that he is a non-interventionist when all of the evidence tells us that he is no such thing. Trump presumably doesn’t want to start a multi-year, extremely expensive war that could also throw the economy into a recession, but then every president that launches an illegal war of choice assumes that the war would be much easier and take less time than it does. No one ever knowingly opts for a bloody debacle. The absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations of a quick and easy triumph are always dashed on the rocks of reality, but for some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time because “this time it’s different.” There will come a point where Bolton will tell Trump that attacking Iran (or Venezuela) is the only way to “win,” and Trump will probably listen to him just as he has listened to him on all of these issues up until now.

I disagree--see highlighted in yellow. Larison must ask himself a question--when was the last time POTUS was a man with serious military or intelligence background, not to speak of his national security team? Even when one discounts baneful corrupt influence of Israel and Gulfies' on the US foreign policy, how about we face the fact that in the last 27 years we have one non-stop reshuffling of the lawyers, entrepreneurs, media figures and political pseudo-scientists at the American political top and national security apparatus. Being former Attorney General or a journo does not qualify one for expressing competent opinions on the issues of real warfare or serious intelligence matters. US political top and decision makers are utterly ignorant and uneducated in these matters as are in actual practical geopolitics once one considers a disastrously pathetic level of geopolitical thought in the US in the last 30 years--no wonder, it was written by people who saw explosions on TV screen only. In other words, most people in US elites from POTUS position down lack every single quality imperative for running such a country as the United States or any other superpower. These are the real, not "some", reasons for "absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations"--ignorance. There is absolutely no mystery about it by anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of what real war is.

I know, it is a painful realization, but that is what one gets when electing a kindergarten to run a nation, which has NO real life experience with war and is absolutely confused by a real state of the affairs inside and outside its borders. I know, it is insulting to recognize that all those allegedly high IQ people in legislature, media and executive are not very bright and are not fit to offer any opinions on any issues related to real national security. This also explains not just forced but truly admired by many in US  Israel's military "accomplishments"--it is easy to BS the Sect of Desert Storm Witnesses. But in the end, one has to ask this simple question--how all those, primarily humanities and social studies "educated", people constituting US political class can possibly think other than "this time is different"? They can not--they simply lack appropriate instruments, a cognitive apparatus, which require many years of study, practice, including in operational zones, and study again, especially when it goes for operational and strategic planning level. Without these instruments everything related to warfare in US is reduced to doctrine-mongering and ROI, and Hollywood. Real war? Forget it, after all these will be those deplorables who will be sent to die in some God-forsaken locality, while serving as mass murder instruments of an Empire which has no clue. 

I am forced to use words of Russian intelligence professional Andrei Bezrukov:

What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for the real fight--we'll see about that... They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them. 

I can only clarify Bezrukov--mediocrity is too noble a term to describe those who run this pathetic (and dangerous) spectacle. I wonder if Daniel Larison understands this.  

Of Course, Israel.

Who would ever doubt that US foreign policy and doctrine is ran from Tel-Aviv (or Jerusalem)? With honor mention of Riyadh, we can not forget Riyadh here. 

WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - U.S. acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said on Monday he had approved sending a carrier strike group and bombers to the Middle East because of indications of a "credible threat by Iranian regime forces," but did not provide any details on the underlying intelligence. U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said on Sunday the United States was deploying the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East to send a message to Iran. While neither Shanahan nor Bolton provided details on U.S. intelligence, other U.S. officials told Reuters there were "multiple, credible threats" against U.S. forces on land, including in Iraq, by Iran and proxy forces and at sea. "(It) represents a prudent repositioning of assets in response to indications of a credible threat by Iranian regime forces," Shanahan said on Twitter. Still, questions remain on what specific intelligence- gathering method was used, how relevant the intelligence was, and how those threats differ from the usual concern about Iranian military activity in the region.

Getting warmer and here is more specifics. 

At an April 15 meeting in Washington, Israeli National Security Council chief Meir Ben-Shabbat passed along a warning to US National Security Advisor John Bolton, senior Israeli officials told Axios. The information Bolton received was left vague: the attack could hit a US target in the Persian Gulf, or maybe Saudi Arabia, or maybe the UAE. “It is still unclear to us what the Iranians are trying to do and how they are planning to do it,” one of the senior officials said, but added it was “clear” that an unspecified event would take place sometime in the future, which would have unstated consequences. The Axios report was corroborated by a separate report from Israel’s channel 13 journalist Barak Ravid, who claimed that Israel had handed over information to the US about an alleged Iranian plot to target US interests in the Gulf.

Bolton, I think, will get his war eventually since by the looks of it he, being a fraud, impresses another fraud in charge so much that it immediately reminds one of the tender childhood with two kindergarten age boys BSing each-other back and forth on who spend more time in the armed forces and shot more cannons. A sheer lunacy! 

It Is Not Just Trump Admin.

I understand Daniel Larison's frustration with US actions abroad, with him, finally, starting to use proper terminology about US foreign policy, which includes such terms as lunatics, fanatics and now degenerates--about time:

No one has ever accused the Trump administration of being interested in history or logic, so we shouldn’t expect their policies to be informed by either one. It is nonetheless remarkable how heavily the administration continues to rely on “maximum pressure” tactics to achieve its goals in its three most high-profile foreign policy initiatives (i.e., Iran, Venezuela, North Korea) when there is absolutely no reason to think that such pressure tactics can force another government to make major concessions or capitulate. They have targeted three governments that define themselves in large part by their opposition and resistance to the U.S., and they think that they can squeeze them into surrender or collapse. Like a degenerate gambler at a slot machine, the administration thinks that all they need to win is just one more set of sanctions, and then another and another, and when the latest effort doesn’t get them the desired result they keep pulling on the same lever in the hope of a jackpot. 

But truth to be told, it is not just Trump Administration, this applies to  US political class as a whole, granted with few and notable exceptions. Can we start from the beginning and admit--US political class as a whole is utterly incompetent and aggressive. Replacing Bolton with someone else will make few, if any, differences. Even what passes in the US for so called realists is an amorphous group of good ol' American exceptionalists, who still think that US is "good". It is not--this whole, let's call it for what it is, US imperialism and militarism is a natural state of what came to be known as national security-warfare state which sits firmly on the foundation of a large financial capital, which in desperate attempts to save itself will go to any length to find something to consume. So, low life Bolton or Pompeo are merely material manifestations of the most sinister interests of globalist financial mafia, which will dispose of the remnants of the American Republic if need be. 

The transformation I observed in the US since 9/11 cannot be described in words other than an accelerating slide towards totalitarian society. And then you have, of course, moral freaks such as Maddow and HRC:

Clinton offered a hypothetical to Maddow: A Democratic candidate for the 2020 election comes on her show and says, "China, if you're listening, why don't you get Trump's tax returns? I'm sure our media would richly reward you." 

And here is my pitch--could it be that there are few, if any, simply decent human beings left in US political class? By decency, I, of course, do not mean nice on the surface people who pay taxes and attend church on Sunday--by that I mean not being a moral freak and lowlife scumbag in a larger metaphysical sense. I mean people who do the "right thing" and who are honest in the most fundamental way, under most difficult circumstances. Judging by the position United States finds itself today--no such people exist anymore. Just zombies, but that is precisely a social demand of a system--honest (and competent) people are simply filtered out. Look at the faces and behavior of Marco Rubio, Mike Pence or imbecile Joe Biden--little, fragile people who convinced themselves through ballot, which is to say through professional lying to people, that they are great. Indeed, it is not just the Ship of Fools, it is the Ship of Zombies. Zombies have no morality or decency and that is their defining characteristic which makes them not human and that can explain a lot. The system is IN the process of implosion and we observe it right in a front of our eyes and do not expect anyone to save it--there is simply no one decent out there. 

For Monroe Doctrine Junkies.

Many in the US still cannot come to grips with a simple historic fact that Monroe Doctrine was not just about Western Hemisphere being US sphere of vital interests. Here is a short reminder: 

Monroe Doctrine, (December 2, 1823), cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy enunciated by Pres. James Monroe in his annual message to Congress. Declaring that the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct spheres, Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States. 

As you can see, the whole doctrine was predicated on a quid-pro-quo principle of not screwing with Europe and her possessions. Of course this whole thing was not worth the paper it was printed on once the United States solidified and started to grow in the postbellum years and suddenly recognized herself a colonial power with  pompous rhetoric about democracy and liberty serving as a fig leaf for full blown imperial conquests. Donald J. Trump is not known to be well endowed with historic knowledge so, naturally he, and many of his warmongering "advisers" concluded that:

US President Donald Trump has warned that Russia must get out of Venezuela. Two planeloads of Russian troops are currently in the Latin American country under the terms of a 2001 cooperation treaty. Speaking at the White House, Trump also warned that “all options are open” when it comes to getting Russia out of Venezuela.Around 100 Russian troops touched down in Caracas on Saturday, a show of support for President Nicolas Maduro’s government. The move caused consternation in Washington, however, with Vice President Mike Pence calling the deployment an “unnecessary provocation.”Pence also called on Russia to withdraw its support of Maduro and “stand with Juan Guaido,” the Washington-sponsored opposition leader who declared himself interim president in January.

So, when Donald J. Trump, and the whole choir of America-based Monroists, tries to convince Russia to "get out" of Venezuela they should really read attentively what Monroe Doctrine is actually about, you know pp. 1 and 2. Last time I checked the United States has more than 800 military bases around the world and, surprise, surprise, is involved in fomenting troubles, humanitarian catastrophes, support of terrorism and other activities which null and void any idea embedded in the Monroe Doctrine. After all, it was the United States which unleashed a bloody coup in Ukraine (together with her lapdogs from EU) and any referrals to Monroe Doctrine and its principles are just for PR. United States through its incessant aggression around the world since 1999 lost any moral and judicial grounds to demand anything from anybody. The ongoing coup in Venezuela, with all my huge reservations about "lefty" Latin American regimes, is a blatant violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and having a convicted crook and neocon such as Abrams (supported by draft-dodger and coward Bolton) as a handler of Venezuela pretty much answers all questions who is behind events in Venezuela. I omit now a criminal role of propaganda and disinformation US media play in all this affair--by now no one should be surprised with that.

So when chicken hawk Bolton proclaims with pathos that:

The United States will not tolerate hostile foreign military powers meddling with the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law. The Venezuelan military must stand with the people of Venezuela. 

And Trump threatens with "all options" being opened, they should really consider some few cost-benefits factors in case (and it may happen) of US attacking Venezuela with Russian advisers in it. Never mind the fact that militarily a hundred or so military personnel, primarily IT people to help Venezuela fight off those "strange" electricity blackouts, are not really there to set up a base or anything of like.  Even Bloomberg gets it. Russia knows that the US now is in full blown attack on Nord Stream-2 and that new (what round? Number 100?) sanctions are coming, but Russia doesn't care. Why Russia doesn't care? Few factors:

1. Militarily Russia can annihilate conventionally any combination of threats in Eurasia. This capability only grows with time and US knows this. Pentagon has to live (and it tries, actually) with the fact that it neither has forces nor force structure to win anything conventionally in Eurasia in general and especially in Russia's immediate vicinity. 

2. Economic, and here are two really stunning graphs. 

Russia's Gold Reserves:

China's Gold Reserves:

And I mean physical gold, not those funny papers which pass for gold on all those speculation platforms such as Wall Street and other so called "exchanges". 

What you see is the death of a US Dollar in progress. The US simply ran out of her military luck and ability to "color revolutionize" serious players. It also ran out of ability to bomb those--how can US bomb China or Russia, or India? Did anyone even calculate the consequences for the US? Once the United States stops being able to overthrow or bomb into submission nations which prefer to trade in own currencies and in gold, you already guessed what is going to happen with grossly overvalued US economy and US Dollar. Remove US military "power" from equation and then just dismantle present US-based global financial system one country at a time. As per Venezuela, will see where it all goes. In my mind the best way to do things would have been US and Russia secretly negotiating some kind of settlement but I doubt today, seriously doubt it, that there is much time left for that or that US has competent people on its very political top to negotiate anything at all. Russia and China seem also settling something really huge which both dramatic growth of Chinese gold reserves and Russia's incessant growth of the same support. 

Well, this, plus a dismantling of Russia's "liberal" economic block together with massive purges of inept and corrupt administrative elite--leftovers from Yeltsin's criminal years. Paradoxically, Russian-American trade continues to grow despite all sanctions and other monkey wrenches morons in Congress continue to throw at it. Well, of course, this trade is small relative to Russia's or US' trade, but still--in few billions. I think it is too late for the US but who knows, now she has to think how US can block China, if the US even have any resources for that. I doubt she has but US still has some aces to play but are required skills there? This I don't know but something tells me--not anymore. It could have been great, it could have been new prosperous century--too bad self-proclaimed hegemon turned out to be the main reason for everything going down the drain. Time of reckoning is upon us.