There Are No “Easy Wars” Left To Fight, But Do Not Mistake The Longing For One

There Are No “Easy Wars” Left To Fight, But Do Not Mistake The Longing For One

Submitted by Alastair Crooke 

There Are No “Easy Wars” Left To Fight, But Do Not Mistake The Longing For One

Israelis, as a whole, are exhibiting a rosy assurance that they can harness Trump, if not to the full annexation of the Occupied Territories (Trump in his first term did not support such annexation), but rather, to ensnare him into a war on Iran. Many (even most) Israelis are raring for war on Iran and an aggrandisement of their territory (devoid of Arabs). They are believing the puffery that Iran ‘lies naked’, staggeringly vulnerable, before a US and Israeli military strike.  

Trump’s Team nominations, so far, reveal a foreign policy squad of fierce supporters of Israel and of passionate hostility to Iran. The Israeli media term it a ‘dream team’ for Netanyahu. It certainly looks that way.

The Israel Lobby could not have asked for more. They have got it. And with the new CIA chief, they get a known ultra China hawk as a bonus.

But in the domestic sphere the tone is precisely the converse: The key nomination for ‘cleaning the stables’ is Matt Gaetz as Attorney General; he is a real “bomb thrower”. And for the Intelligence clean-up, Tulsi Gabbard is appointed as Director of National Intelligence. All intelligence agencies will report to her, and she will be responsible for the President’s Daily briefing. The intel assessments may thus begin to reflect something closer to reality. 

The deep Inter-Agency structure has reason to be very afraid; they are panicking — especially over Gaetz.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have the near impossible task of cutting out-of-control federal spending and currency printing. The System is deeply dependent on the bloat of government spending to keep the cogs and levers of the mammoth ‘security’ boondoggle whirring. It is not going to be yielded up without a bitter fight.

So, on the one hand, the Lobby gets a dream team (Israel), but on the other side (the domestic sphere), it gets a renegade team.  

This must be deliberate. Trump knows that Biden’s legacy of bloating GDP with government jobs and excessive public spending is the real ‘time bomb’ awaiting him. Again the withdrawal symptoms, as the drug of easy money is withdrawn, may prove incendiary. Moving to a structure of tariffs and low taxes will be disruptive.

Whether deliberate or not, Trump is keeping his cards close to his chest. We have only glimpses of intent — and the water is being seriously muddied by the infamous ‘Inter-Agency’ grandees. For example, in respect to the Pentagon sanctioning private-sector contractors to work in Ukraine, this was done in coordination with “inter-agency stakeholders”. 

The old nemesis that paralyzed his first term again faces Trump. Then, during the Ukraine impeachment process, one witness (Vindman), when asked why he would not defer to the President’s explicit instructions, replied that whilst Trump has his view on Ukraine policy, that stance did NOT align with that of the ‘Inter-Agency’ agreed position. In plain language, Vindman denied that a US president has agency in foreign policy formulation.

In short, the ‘Inter-Agency structure’ was signalling to Trump that military support for Ukraine must continue.

When the Washington Post published their detailed story of a Trump-Putin phone call — that the Kremlin emphatically states never happened — the deep structures of policy were simply telling Trump that it would be they who determine what the shape of the US ‘solution’ for Ukraine would be.

Similarly, when Netanyahu boasts to have spoken to Trump and that Trump “shares” his views regarding Iran, Trump was being indirectly instructed what his policy towards Iran needs to be. All the (false) rumours about appointments to his Team too, were but the interagency signalling their choices for his key posts. No wonder confusion reigns.

So, what can be deduced at this early stage?  If there is a common thread, it has been a constant refrain that Trump is against war. And that he demands from his picks personal loyalty and no ties of obligation to the Lobby or the Swamp.  

So, is the packing of his Administration with ‘Israel Firsters’ an indication that Trump is edging toward a ‘Realist’s Faustian pact’ to destroy Iran in order to cripple China’s energy supply source (90% from Iran), and thus weaken China — Two birds with one stone, so to speak? 

The collapse of Iran would also weaken Russia and hobble the BRICS’ transport-corridor projects. Central Asia needs both Iranian energy and its key transport corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce. 

When the RAND Organisation, the Pentagon think-tank, recently published a landmark appraisal of the 2022 National Defence Strategy (NDS), its findings were stark: An unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the US war machine. In brief, the US is “not prepared”, the appraisal argued, in any meaningful way for serious ‘competition’ with its major adversaries — and is vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The US, the RAND appraisal continues, could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theatres with peer and near-peer adversaries — and it could lose. It warns that the US public has not internalized the costs of the US losing its position as the world superpower. The US must therefore engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to preserve influence worldwide.

Indeed, as one respected commentator has noted, the ‘Empire at all Costs’ cult (i.e. the RAND Organisation zeitgeist) is now “more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestige”.  

And China would be altogether a different proposition for a demonstrative act of destruction in order “to preserve US influence worldwide” — for the US is “not prepared” for serious conflict with its peer adversaries: Russia or China, RAND says. 

The straitened situation of the US after decades of fiscal excess and offshoring (the backdrop to its current weakened military industrial base) now makes kinetic war with China or Russia or “across multiple theatres” a prospect to be shunned.

The point that the commentator above makes is that there are no ‘easy wars’ left to fight. And that the reality (brutally outlined by RAND) is that the US can choose one — and only one war to fight.  Trump may not want any war, but the Lobby grandees — all supporters of Israel, if not active Zionists supporting the displacement of Palestinians — want war. And they believe they can get one. 

Put starkly and plainly: Has Trump thought this through? Have the others in the Trump Team reminded him that in today’s world, with US military strength slipping away, there no longer are any ‘easy wars’ to fight, although Zionists believe that with a decapitation strike on Iran’s religious and IRGC leadership (on the lines of the Israel’s strikes on Hizbullah leaders in Beirut), the Iranian people would rise up against their leaders, and side with Israel for a ‘New Middle East’.  

Netanyahu has just made his second broadcast to the Iranian people promising them early salvation. He and his government are not waiting to ask Trump to nod his consent to the annexation of all Occupied Palestinian Territories. That project is being implemented on the ground. It is unfolding now. Netanyahu and his cabinet have the ethnic cleansing ‘bit between their teeth’. Will Trump be able to roll it back? How so? Or will he succumb to becoming ‘genocide Don’?  

This putative ‘Iran War’ is following the same narrative cycle as with Russia: ‘Russia is weak; its military is poorly trained; its equipment mostly recycled from the Soviet era; its missiles and artillery in short supply’. Zbig Brzezinski earlier had taken the logic to its conclusion in The Grand Chessboard (1997): Russia would have no choice but to submit to the expansion of NATO and to the geopolitical dictates of the US. That was ‘then’ (a little more than a year ago). Russia took the western challenge — and today is in the driving seat in Ukraine, whilst the West looks on helplessly.

This last month, it was US retired General Jack Keane, the strategic analyst for Fox News, who argued that Israel’s air strike on Iran had left it “essentially naked”, with most air defences “taken down” and its missile production factories destroyed by Israel’s 26 October strikes. Iran’s vulnerability, Keane said, is “simply staggering”.

Kean channels the early Brzezinski: His message is clear — Iran will be an ‘easy war’. That forecast however, is likely to be revealed as dead wrong. And, if pursued, will lead to a complete military and economic disaster for Israel. But do not rule out the distinct possibility that Netanyahu — besieged on all fronts and teetering on the brink of internal crisis and even jail — is desperate enough to do it. His is, after all, a Biblical mandate that he pursues for Israel!

Iran likely will launch a painful response to Israel before the 20 January Presidential Inauguration. Its riposte will demonstrate Iran’s unexpected and unforeseen military innovation. What the US and Israel will then do may well open the door to wider regional war. Sentiment across the region seethes at the slaughter in the Occupied Territories and in Lebanon. 

Trump may not appreciate just how isolated the US and Israel are among Israel’s Arab and Sunni neighbors. The US is stretched so thin, and its forces across the region are so vulnerable to the hostility that the daily slaughter incubates, that a regional war might be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down. The crisis would pitch Trump into a financial crisis that could sink his domestic economic aspirations too.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/20/2024 – 23:25

“Solar Powerhouse” China Is Leading Asia’s Green Energy Movement

“Solar Powerhouse” China Is Leading Asia’s Green Energy Movement

If you’re trying to implement green energy solutions in Asia, chances are you’re going to need to rely on China one way or another. 

Southeast Asia’s demand for renewable energy is rising, driven by tech manufacturing and data center growth, according to Nikkei. Solarvest, the region’s leading renewable energy provider, plans to capitalize on this boom by increasing imports from China, according to a local manager.

That manager told Nikkei: “We aim to invest more in the next couple of years. Buying equipment and components from Chinese suppliers, who have mastered the supply chain and solar tech, gives us the best opportunity to generate green energy with a price that is low enough to compete against fossil fuels.”

Through its Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has extended its influence over power infrastructure in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan. However, the U.S. has criticized China for subsidizing manufacturers and underpricing goods, leading to tariffs and trade barriers.

The Nikkei report says that despite U.S. opposition, China maintains an edge with economies of scale and growing climate urgency. Solar energy, seen as the most accessible renewable source, attracted $500 billion in investment in 2024, surpassing all other energy types, according to the International Energy Agency.

Offshore wind projects take over eight years to complete, while solar plants can be built in under two, making solar a faster choice for companies transitioning to renewables, industry leaders told Nikkei.

This urgency is especially pronounced in emerging Asian economies like Malaysia and Thailand, which rely on fossil fuels but aim to attract tech giants like Apple and Google, committed to 100% renewable energy through the RE100 initiative.

China dominates the global solar energy market, housing leading players like Longi Green Energy, Tongwei, and Jinko Solar, as well as the top three inverter makers: Huawei, Sungrow, and Ginlong.

Despite efforts by the U.S. and India to localize production, China is projected to maintain over 80% of global photovoltaic manufacturing capacity by 2030, with its solar products costing 20-30% less than competitors, according to the IEA.

Analysts attribute China’s edge to its economic scale, advanced technology, and cost efficiency. Even as countries impose trade barriers to curb dependence on Chinese products, demand for China’s affordable solar solutions remains strong globally.

Companies like Foxconn highlight that Chinese solar energy rivals fossil fuels in cost, driving its adoption worldwide, particularly in markets eager to expand renewable energy capacity.

China’s dominance in solar wasn’t always guaranteed. In the 2000s, Japanese and Taiwanese firms led the photovoltaic industry, but China’s massive scale and government subsidies allowed it to outpace competitors.

Now, China controls over 90% of the solar supply chain, from polysilicon production to module manufacturing.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/20/2024 – 18:00

World leaders try to stabilize relationship with China as US presidency transitions to Trump

With President-elect Donald Trump set to begin his second term in the White House, world leaders are reassessing their diplomatic strategies with China amid uncertainty about the United States’ future role in international conflicts.

Ukraine launches UK long-range missiles into Russia for first time: report

The development aligns with a recent policy shift by President Joe Biden’s administration, which authorized Ukraine to use long-range US missiles inside Russian territory.

US Military Suicides Continued To Increase In 2023: Pentagon Report

US Military Suicides Continued To Increase In 2023: Pentagon Report

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Suicides increased among U.S. military service members in 2023, continuing a gradual rise seen over the past decade, according to the Department of Defense’s annual report on suicide in the military.

American flags on display to honor U.S. military veterans in Handy Park, in Orange, Calif., on Nov. 11, 2024. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

A total of 523 service members—including active, reserve, and National Guard—died by suicide in 2023, up from 493 in 2022, according to the Pentagon’s report, while the total force rate of suicide deaths per 100,000 service members was 9 percent higher than in 2022, at 25.6 per 100,000.

The Pentagon’s report highlighted an upward trend since 2011 among active-duty military members: A total of 363 active-duty service members died by suicide in 2023, up from 331 in 2022 and 328 in 2021.

The report noted that military suicide rates have been comparable to those seen across the wider U.S. population between 2011 and 2022.

The findings “urgently demonstrate the need for the Department to redouble its work in the complex fields of suicide prevention and postvention. One loss to suicide is one too many,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a Nov. 14 statement.

The defense secretary said the Pentagon is focused on long-term, sustained initiatives to prevent suicide and is taking a “comprehensive” and “integrated” approach to increasing protective factors and decreasing the risk of suicide among service members.

“Our efforts aim to meet the military community where they are in their personal and professional lives—whether through bolstering financial readiness and support, building healthy relationships, improving mental health, or supporting them through life transitions,” Austin said.

The defense secretary noted that there has been a decrease from previous years in the number of military family members (spouses and dependent children combined) who died by suicide.

A total of 146 military family members died by suicide in 2022 compared to 165 in 2021, and 200 in 2020, according to the report. Numbers for 2023 were unavailable due to the time it takes to process data for this category.

The report noted that the complexity of suicidal behavior means it is difficult to identify a single root cause that might explain the trend.

Pentagon Working to Combat Suicide Rates

Overall, in 2023, 158 deaths were attributed to suicide among active-duty Army personnel, according to the report. Another 72 were reported among active-duty members of the Air Force, 70 among Navy members, and 61 among Marine Corps members, while two suicides were reported among members of the Space Force.

Among reserve members, 44 suicides were reported in the Army, 10 in the Marine Corps, eight in the Navy, and seven in the Air Force.

Similar to previous years, the majority of the deaths (around 60 percent) were among males under the age of 30, the Pentagon report found.

Firearms were the primary method of suicide deaths for service members and their families, according to the Pentagon, which noted the importance of promoting awareness regarding safely securing and storing firearms.

Speaking on Thursday, Austin touted the work the Pentagon is doing to tackle rising suicide rates among military personnel, including establishing the Suicide Prevention Response and Independent Review Committee in 2022 to conduct a review of clinical and nonclinical suicide prevention and response programs.

That review has resulted in more than 100 recommendations so far, Austin said.

In 2025, the Department of Defense also plans to invest $250 million in suicide prevention, Austin and other officials noted.

“We are dedicated to fighting for our Service members by fostering supportive team cultures and tackling the stigma of asking for help and other barriers to care,” Austin said.

“We continue working hard to improve the delivery of mental health care, bolster suicide prevention training, and educate people about lethal means safety. There’s still much more work to do, and we won’t let up.”

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, considering suicide, or engaging in substance abuse, dial or text the U.S. Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 to speak with a counselor. If you’re in the UK, call the Samaritans at 116123.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/20/2024 – 06:30

Trump Now Has More Followers Than Taylor Swift

Trump Now Has More Followers Than Taylor Swift

Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via Headline USA,

It was recently revealed that President-elect Donald Trump surpassed one of the most famous pop stars, Taylor Swift, in Twitter followers, proving that Americans like him more.

“BREAKING: Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) has surpassed Taylor Swift in followers to become the 8th most-followed account on [Twitter],” popular conservative commentator @alx reported.

As of Nov. 18, Trump had 94.8 million followers, and Swift had 94.7 million followers.

“OVERTAKEN,” conservative commentator and senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobeic wrote in response to the recent news.

Like almost any other Hollywood celebrity, Swift publicly expressed her far-left political beliefs, specifically her opposition to Trump.

Even though Swift refused to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, she supported Joe Biden for president while he was still in the race, which resulted in Trump attacking her on social media.

“I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

“There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money.”

Trump, however, stated that Swift is “unusually beautiful” even though she is a leftist.

Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in her Instagram post after Democrats orchestrated a coup against Biden and replaced him with Harris.

“I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body for decades,” she wrote.

However, Swift’s endorsement didn’t affect Americans, with only 6% saying that they were now more likely to vote for Harris.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/19/2024 – 23:00

Ukraine strikes Russia with US-supplied long-range missiles

Russia’s defense ministry said that one missile caused damage, starting a fire at a military facility.

JACK POSOBIEC and TONY SHAFFER: The neocons want us in WWIII

“I see this as an attempt to get Trump boxed in, so he has to maintain the war no matter what.”

Gallup: Public Support For Gun-Bans Craters

Gallup: Public Support For Gun-Bans Craters

According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent.

Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years.

President Biden often combined the call with dubious factuallegal, and historical arguments.

Jonathan Turley previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.

Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.

Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.

Years ago, Turley wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.

In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.

The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.

The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.

Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans.

The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base.

That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/19/2024 – 18:00