Donald trump risks ‘incendiary’ iran encounter with ‘massive’ u.s. Troop deployment t

[Boats]

DONALD TRUMP RISKS ‘INCENDIARY’ IRAN ENCOUNTER WITH ‘MASSIVE’ U.S. TROOP DEPLOYMENT TO MIDDLE EAST, WARNS JAMES CLAPPER
BY: SHANE CROUCHER / Newsweek - 5/14/19 AT 11:05 AM EDT
RE: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-iran-...4914?piano_t=1

Video link: blob:https://www.newsweek.com/a8fa420e-3c...7-166270964376

James Clapper has warned that deploying tens of thousands more American troops to the Middle East would increase the chances of armed conflict with Iran through an “accidental encounter that could become incendiary.”

The retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general and former director of national intelligence made his comments on CNN in response to a New York Times report that the White House is considering sending 120,000 extra troops to the Middle East.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented the plan to President Donald Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, the Times reported, though it is not clear if the president himself has been briefed on the details.

The plan would deploy troops in response to an Iranian attack on American forces or an acceleration by Tehran of its nuclear program. However, a ground invasion would require a greater number of troops and was not part of the plan.


Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions on the country. Responding to suggestions that Iran is behind the sabotaging of oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the president said Monday that provocations by Tehran would be “a very bad mistake” and “they will suffer greatly.”

“This may have been the top end of perhaps a series of options from a lesser deployment to a greater deployment,” Clapper told CNN’s New Day on Tuesday morning, adding that 120,000 troops is “obviously a massive deployment.”

“I was serving as the chief of air force intelligence in 1990, 91, and I couldn't help but recall that era when the then Bush administration did a lot of public preparation for a massive deployment to restore Kuwait's sovereignty,” Clapper said.

“And there's been none of that for a deployment of that size. [If] we're going to send our sons and daughters off to a potential broad Middle East war, you would think there'd be more preparation publicly to educate the public about why this is necessary.

“I hope that they're not contemplating a ground invasion or anything of that sort. But 120,000 additional presumably air and naval forces over and above what's already there, which is quite substantial, is massive.”

Clapper continued: “There is always the likelihood, if you have, you know, our forces and Iranian forces in proximity to one another, there’s always the opportunity for an accidental encounter that could become incendiary.

“Depending on where these forces are deployed, and particularly if we bolster our presence in the Strait of Hormuz, that heightens the probability for an inadvertent encounter between Iranian and U.S. forces. So, just because of the numbers, the probability goes up.”

Around 54,000 U.S. troops are estimated to have been deployed in the Middle East in 2017, not including Afghanistan, according to the foreign affairs think tank Chatham House.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal note: Ever notice every new President wants to start a war. Trump has never been a military person - yet he can send Troops into the field just because he can.
It's disturbing to see such posturing and to send troops without thinking about the ramifications or even consulting with NATO. Why are we the big brother of the world.
North Korea, Russia, China and now once again the Middle East - this crap is out of control. Whatever happen to the Peace-Makers in the world. No condemnation is ever made or arguments to stop these random movements of military personal. I don't even know who are our allies anymore? He's pissed off the majority of folks with his - I can do whatever I want to - because I'm the President. Egads what are we in for the next two years!!!

Boats

[Boats]

Trump's Head Warmonger Is Saber-Rattling at Iran and Drawing Up Plans to Send 120,000 Troops to the Middle East
By: Jack Holmes - Esquire - 5-14-19
RE: https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...s-middle-east/

The neocons have predictably learned nothing from the last two decades. How about the media?

Imagine how little you would have to have learned over the last two decades to think sending 120,000 American troops to the Middle East is a good idea. Forget taking lessons from Vietnam—we already spurned that opportunity. There will soon be American kids fighting in Afghanistan who were not yet born on September 11, 2001. More than 2,300 American troops have died in the sand and rock over nearly 18 years, and what do we have to show for all that sacrifice? We're currently in "peace talks" with the Taliban while they wage terror attacks on humanitarian aid groups. In May 2019.

And let's not even get started on Iraq, a country we invaded on a platform of George W. Bush administration lies only to see more than 4,400 Americans die in the bloody street battles of the factionalized civil war that inevitably followed. Oh, and there's the whole ISIS thing, which wasn't a thing beforehand. Also, by some counts, it lead to the deaths of 1 million Iraqis. Also, they told us it'd be quick, we'd be greeted as liberators, and weapons of mass destruction would be found. None of this is to mention all the men and women scarred or mutilated, physically and mentally, by their experiences over there. Thousands of Americans made it home, but will endure sleepless nights for the rest of their lives—or will never again play football in the backyard with their kids.

None of this giant aggregate of human tragedy seems to have affected the calculus of senior-level members of the Trump administration at all. Neither have the estimates from some corners that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost up to $6 trillion already, and will get to $7 trillion if this continues into the early 2020s. (It's here where you insert the snipe about how we can't afford free public college or universal healthcare or a massive infrastructure overhaul or the Green New Deal.) That's probably because the president tapped John Bolton—the bloodthirsty warmonger who worked his tail off to engineer a War in Iran during the Bush administration—as his national security adviser.

Like any good neocon, there's scarcely a war Bolton doesn't like or a delusion about American Democracy Transplantation he doesn't harbor, but he's got a unique hunger to engage Iran. (Well, he won't be doing the engaging. He'll be sitting in the White House. American kids from Boise and the Bronx will be fighting and dying.) As a reminder, Iran is not Afghanistan, or even Iraq. It is a country of 83 million people, and its military has more than half a million active-duty personnel—some of whom, like the Revolutionary Guard and particularly the Quds Force, are trained at a high level. It would be a more formidable engagement on the front end than either of the two we already remain engaged with right now, and then, if the United States "won," it would be stuck occupying the territory of a population that has hated us for decades—ever since the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and re-installed the Shah, a king.

No matter. The New York Times reported Monday night that we're well on our way.

At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said.
Any report out of this administration claiming Iran intends to "accelerate work on nuclear weapons" should be treated with extreme skepticism. Iran halted its nuclear program as part of the Iran Deal the Obama administration worked to broker in concert with the European powers. Iran did not violate the deal, the United States did, because Donald Trump, American president, had promised to dismantle Barack Obama's legacy regardless of the merits.

The deal put in place verification measures for the West to ensure Iran was complying, but it relieved sanctions on Iran's economy, so it had to go. Never mind that the whole purpose of sanctions is to force a country to the table to make a deal that involves relieving the sanctions in exchange for concessions. The Times notes Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said last week that "Iran would walk away from parts of the 2015 nuclear deal it reached with world powers," but again: the United States violated the deal last year and has started to reinstitute sanctions. When the U.S. withdrew—with zero alternative plan besides saber-rattling—the agreement became unworkable.

Oh, and Shanahan is a former Boeing executive with no military or diplomatic experience prior to the job of Acting Secretary of Defense, which he has not secured Senate approval to fill. Trump has abused the "acting" designation to shirk the Constitution's mandate that the higher body of Congress should advise and consent on major appointments like the Secretary of Goddamn Defense. Instead, we're stuck with a guy Trump has described as "a good buyer" of military equipment, because all that's required to serve in this administration now is a healthy taste for crony capitalism—in this case, the military-industrial complex. No prizes will be awarded for guessing whether Shanahan's former employer is interested in a conflict that could necessitate the U.S. government buying more Boeing equipment.

Anyway, from The Times:

The revisions were ordered by hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser. They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said.

The development reflects the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.

Yeah, sure they're not interested in an invasion. Bolton would invade a phone booth if he thought there were brown people with oil inside. But it certainly would require more than 120,000 troops to take on Iran, which, again, is the major regional power alongside Saudi Arabia. (We have chosen the Saudis, despite their abysmal human-rights record and brazen political murder of journalists, as our allies. While previous presidents also backed the House of Saud, Trump's outstanding support certainly has nothing to do with the fact they're putting money in his pocket through his hotels. Ethics and conflict-of-interest concerns are for suckers.)

The Times then traced how this all directly contradicts the non-interventionism of Trump's campaign, in which he lashed his opponents for supporting the Iraq War while lying about his own support. He pledged to disentangle the U.S. from conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, but now he's not—a stunning indication that maybe, perhaps, the president's word is not bond. "It is also unclear whether the president has been briefed on the number of troops or other details in the plans," the Times says, a nice reminder of the Weekend at Bernie's vibe that sometimes comes spilling out of this administration. Maybe Trump is involved and thinks this is a good re-election strategy. Or maybe they're keeping him in the dark. Or maybe he really, truly doesn't give a shit.

But then there's this.

European allies who met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said that they worry that tensions between Washington and Tehran could boil over, possibly inadvertently...The size of the force involved has shocked some who have been briefed on them. The 120,000 troops would approach the size of the American force that invaded Iraq in 2003.
Deploying such a robust air, land and naval force would give Tehran more targets to strike, and potentially more reason to do so, risking entangling the United States in a drawn out conflict. It also would reverse years of retrenching by the American military in the Middle East that began with President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011.
But two of the American national security officials said Mr. Trump’s announced drawdown in December of American forces in Syria, and the diminished naval presence in the region, appear to have emboldened some leaders in Tehran and convinced the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that the United States has no appetite for a fight with Iran.
Several oil tankers were reportedly attacked or sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates over the weekend, raising fears that shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf could become flash points. “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens,” Mr. Trump said on Monday, asked about the episode.
This has Tonkin Gulf written all over it. They are looking for an excuse, and considering deploying more forces over there to gin one up.

Ah, but how can you be so sure?

The high-level review of the Pentagon’s plans was presented during a meeting about broader Iran policy. It was held days after what the Trump administration described, without evidence, as new intelligence indicating that Iran was mobilizing proxy groups in Iraq and Syria to attack American forces.
Without evidence. That is the defining phrase of this administration, which just this week rolled out a State Department security advisory for Iraq on the basis of "escalating tensions" between the United States and Iran. If the government will not learn the lessons of the Iraq War, our best hope is that the media will. The New York Times played a major role in fomenting support for that world-historical boondoggle, and they would do well not to take the word of an administration that makes the Bush folks look like the Truth Squad.

Every word that comes out of the pit of fraud and deceit the Trumpists have dug should be treated with the utmost suspicion, but that impulse should shift into overdrive once they start talking about what the Iranians are supposedly up to in the Gulf. These times are perilous enough already without another war in the Middle East that will dwarf Iraq in terms of the scale of the task—and the human misery that will flow freely in its wake. Sometimes, "the Forever War" doesn't seem to do it justice.

About this writer: Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire.com, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well folks here we go again.

Boats

[Boats]

It Sure Looks Like the Trump Administration Is Preparing for War With Iran
By: Ryan Bort - Rolling Stone - 5-14-19
RE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...h-iran-835116/

No one wanted President Trump to pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement signed by President Obama held that Iran would get rid its nuclear fuel in exchange for the U.S. waiving the sanctions that had crippled the nation’s economy. A UN nuclear agency monitored whether Iran was complying. Though many called the deal flawed, few argued it should be scrapped altogether. The international community, nuclear proliferation experts and administration officials like Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all urged Donald Trump to keep it intact.

But laying waste to anything that could have been perceived as an accomplishment by his predecessor was at the top of Trump’s priority list, and the “decaying and rotten” deal, as he described it, was axed, alienating allies and angering Iran while clearing the way for the nation to build a nuclear bomb. A conflict has loomed since the agreement was nixed. Now, the United States is actively taking steps to prepare for one.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that Trump administration officials have drawn up a plan that involves sending up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran show aggression against American forces or resume its nuclear program. The Times learned of the plan, which was presented last week by Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, through discussions with several national security officials. The plan to send troops overseas was devised by National Security Adviser John Bolton, a conflict hawk who unsuccessfully lobbied for action against Iran while serving in the George W. Bush administration. Bolton also supported the invasion of Iraq. As the Times notes, the “120,000 troops would approach the size of the American force that invaded Iraq in 2003.”

As many have pointed out, the plan looks like a precursor for regime change.

The news of the potential deployment comes as tension between the United States and Iran has approached a boiling point.

The most recent flare up came Sunday, when four oil ships, two of which belonged to Saudi Arabia, were damaged in the Persian Gulf. On Monday, a team of U.S. investigators reached an initial determination that Iran or groups that support it were behind the attack. Trump was not pleased when asked about the incident. “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens,” he warned on Monday.

The attack came days after the Trump administration deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln and four B-52 bombers to the Middle East to counter what Bolton described as “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran. “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces,” he added.

Iran called the deployment “psychological warfare” and, on Friday, said it would not negotiate with the United States. Following Iran’s act of aggression in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that though the nation does “not seek escalation,” it has “always defended” itself.

The recent frenzy is the result of months of incendiary rhetoric and aggressive actions exchanged between the two nations since Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal last May. Iran did not take kindly to the move. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei went so far as to tell supporters that the Islamic Republic will still be standing after “Trump is dead” and “his corpse is fed on by snakes and insects.” Though a little less graphic, threats from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani were similarly pointed.

Trump, as he does, responded in kind.

His tweet: To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Relations haven’t gotten any better since last summer. In November, the administration restored the sanctions that had been lifted when the nuclear deal was signed in 2015. Trump heralded the move with a “Sanctions Are Coming” Game of Thrones meme. “Our ultimate aim is to compel Iran to permanently abandon its well-documented outlaw activities and behave as a normal country,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters at the time.

The administration continued to apply pressure in April by labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, making it illegal for any group to offer it support. President Rouhani maintained that Iran would continue to build its military might despite the designation. Later that month, Pompeo announced the cancelation of sanctions waivers that had been offered to countries importing Iranian oil. “The Trump Administration and our allies are determined to sustain and expand the maximum economic pressure campaign against Iran to end the regime’s destabilizing activity threatening the United States, our partners and allies, and security in the Middle East,” the White House said in a statement.

Unfortunately, Iran has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of acquiescing to America’s vision of how it should conduct itself in the Middle East. Any action to hamstring the nation has been met with steadfast defiance. That defiance now teeters on the brink of military action against American forces and, potentially, something much worse. On Wednesday, President Rouhani said Iran will being to resume producing nuclear material. “The path we have chosen today is not the path of war, it is the path of diplomacy,” he said in a nationally broadcast address. “But diplomacy with a new language and a new logic.”

The United States responded by imposing even more sanctions on Iran, putting “other nations on notice that allowing Iranian steel and other metals into your ports will no longer be tolerated,” as Trump described the move in a statement.

When asked on Monday whether the United States would pursue a regime change, Trump was noncommittal. “We’ll see what happens with Iran,” he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal note: He could have said - Let's talk and see if we can't work out our in differences?
He's no diplomat!

Like I said earlier every President wants to go to war. NATO could help maybe?
But he's pissed them off to.

It looks like another long drug out war is possible - unless nukes are used and then so much for peace on earth. Will this stuff ever end!?

Oh by the way none of these are from the New York Times! Just wanted to make that perfectly clear.

Boats