Majorityrights News > Category: Geopolitics

The Hill, “Trump: ‘You’ll find out’ what ‘calm before the storm’ means”, 6 Oct 2017:

President Trump on Friday kept the public wondering about his cryptic warning regarding a “calm before the storm.”

“You’ll find out,” Trump told reporters at the White House when asked what he meant by his comment. 

The president left many people scratching their heads after he offered mysterious remarks before a Thursday dinner with military leaders.

“You guys know what this represents?” Trump asked reporters in the room. “Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”

Asked what he was referring to — such as possible action against Iran or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — Trump responded, “We have the world’s greatest military people in the room.”

“You’ll find out,” he said when he was pressed again.

Later Friday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to say whether the president was hinting at a military action.

“We’re never going to say in advance what the president is going to do,” she said.

Trump’s comments came after a meeting with the military brass that touched on Iran and North Korea. Multiple reports indicate the president is prepared to decertify the landmark nuclear pact with Tehran.

White House reporters were called in to cover the photo-op after staff informed them Trump would be making no more public appearances, raising speculation he was prepared to make a major announcement.

But the president has given no indication what he was referring to, an indication he may have been trying to be provocative rather than offering a hint of future action. 

Sanders said she believes Trump was making “just a general comment.”

“I’m not aware of anything specific that was a reference to,” she said.

READ MORE...

Ending the Iran deal has been the veritable raison d’être for the Trump Presidency.

Reuters, “Trump expected to decertify Iran nuclear deal, official says”, 5 Oct 2017:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the landmark international deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, a senior administration official said on Thursday, in a step that potentially could cause the 2015 accord to unravel.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump is also expected to roll out a broader U.S. strategy on Iran that would be more confrontational. The Trump administration has frequently criticized Iran’s conduct in the Middle East.

Trump, who has called the pact an “embarrassment” and “the worst deal ever negotiated,” has been weighing whether it serves U.S. security interests as he faces an Oct. 15 deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with its terms.

“We must not allow Iran ... to obtain nuclear weapons,” Trump said during a meeting with military leaders at the White House on Thursday, adding:

“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They haven’t lived up to the spirit of the agreement.”

Asked about his decision on whether to certify the landmark deal, Trump said: “You’ll be hearing about Iran very shortly.”

Supporters say its collapse could trigger a regional arms race and worsen Middle East tensions, while opponents say it went too far in easing sanctions without requiring that Iran end its nuclear program permanently.

Iranian authorities have repeatedly said Tehran would not be the first to violate the accord, under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program in return for lifting most international sanctions that had crippled its economy.

If Trump declines to certify Iran’s compliance, U.S. congressional leaders would have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions on Tehran suspended under the agreement.

Whether Congress would be willing to reimpose sanctions is far from clear. While Republicans, and some Democrats, opposed the deal when it was approved in 2015, there is little obvious appetite in Congress for dealing with the Iran issue now.

The prospect that Washington could renege on the pact, which was signed by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, the European Union and Iran, has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it.

“We, the Europeans, we have hammered this: the agreement is working,” said a European diplomat who asked to remain anonymous. “We as Europeans, have repeated ... it’s impossible to reopen the agreement. Period. It’s impossible.”

French President Emmanuel Macron said last month there was no alternative to the nuclear accord, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

A senior Iranian diplomat told Reuters on Thursday the end result of Trump’s expected move would be to isolate the United States since the Europeans would continue to support it.

“Many foreign investors told us that they will not be scared away from Iran’s market if Trump de-certifies the deal,” the diplomat said.

Trump has long criticized the pact, a signature foreign policy achievement of his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

The administration was considering Oct. 12 for Trump to give a speech on Iran but no final decision had been made, an official said previously.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally of Trump, last month said that unless provisions in the accord removing restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program over time are eliminated, it should be canceled.

“Fix it, or nix it,” Netanyahu said in a speech at the U.N. General Assembly annual gathering of world leaders on Sept. 19.

Many of Trump’s fellow Republicans who control Congress also have been critical of the deal.

‘CANNOT ABIDE’

Trump blasted the deal in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, also on Sept. 19.

“We cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program,” Trump said, adding that Iran’s government “masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.”

Trump is weighing a strategy that could allow more aggressive U.S. responses to Iran’s forces, its Shi‘ite Muslim proxies in Iraq and Syria and its support for militant groups.

Trump’s defense secretary, Jim Mattis, told a congressional hearing on Tuesday that Iran was “fundamentally” in compliance with the agreement. He also said the United States should consider staying in the deal unless it were proven that Tehran was not abiding by it or that it was not in the U.S. national interest to do so.

When Mattis was asked by a senator whether he thought staying in the deal was in the U.S. national security interest, he replied: “Yes, senator, I do.”

Last week, Iran’s foreign minister said Tehran may abandon the deal if Washington decides to withdraw.

Middle East Eye, “Turkey threatens further sanctions, as Iraqi Kurds announce November poll”, 3 Oct 2017:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Iraqi Kurds should ‘come to their senses’ following last week’s independence referendum.

Turkey has upped its threats against the Iraqi Kurdistan region as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) announced parliamentary and presidential elections for 1 November.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to impose new sanctions on Iraq’s Kurdish regions if they don’t “come to their senses” following last Monday’s referendum vote to secede from Iraq.

Erdogan threatens further sanctions against Iraqi Kurds.

“We are managing with some embargoes in northern Iraq for now, but if they don’t come to their senses this will continue increasingly,” Erdogan said at a parliamentary meeting in Ankara on Tuesday.

“Any incident taking place in Syria and Iraq is not independent from us, they are linked directly to our domestic affairs.”

He added that the referendum was “a new attempt to strike the heart of our region with a dagger”.

Despite formerly good relations with the KRG, Turkey has been highly critical of the independence referendum over fears it could enflame

Iraqi Kurds gave a resounding 92.7 percent “yes” vote for independence in last Monday’s non-binding referendum, which has also sent regional tensions soaring.

KRG President Massoud Barzani originally announced the referendum in June, which provoked repeated calls from the US, EU and others for a cancellation or delay.

On Tuesday it was announced that presidential and parliamentary elections for the Kurdistan region would be held on 1 November.
Clinging to power?

The referendum in Kurdistan was seen by analysts as a means for Barzani to cling on to power by shoring up nationalist sentiment ahead of the elections.

The heir of a dynasty which has led the Kurdish struggle for independence for over a century, Barzani has held the KRG presidency since its establishment in 2005, two years after the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

His tenure was extended beyond his second term in 2013, as fresh turmoil engulfed the region and Islamic State overran about a third of Iraq in 2014, threatening the Kurdish region.

Despite this, it was unclear whether Barzani would or could stand in the November poll as Kurdish law says a president cannot stay in office for more than two terms.

Gorran, the second-largest party in the Kurdish parliament, announced it would be putting forward Mohammad Tofiq Rahim, the party’s foreign relations director, as its presidential candidate.

The party has been highly critical of the Kurdish independence referendum, which it denounced as “illegal” in June, and has accused Barzani of seeking to cling on to power and marginalise democratic opposition in the Kurdish region.

Barzani placing his vote in the independence referendum last week (AFP) further sanctions, as Iraqi Kurds announce November poll.

Barzani placing his vote in the independence referendum last week (AFP)

Neither Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) nor the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) had declared candidates by time of publication, despite the declaration period being due to expire on Tuesday.

Although Kurdistan has been largely autonomous since 2005, the prospect of full independence - and, in particular, the disuputed future of areas like Kirkuk and Sinjar - has provoked a fierce backlash in Baghdad.

There was controversy on Tuesday as Kurdish media reported that Kurdish MPs in Baghdad had been prevented from attending parliament.

According to some media reports, Arab MPs had demanded that Kurdish MPs swear an oath to support a unified Iraq in order to attend the parliamentary session, which the mostly independence-supporting Kurds refused.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi ordered the suspension of international flights to and from Iraqi Kurdistan from Friday in retaliation for the Kurds voting for independence.

The Kurdish push for independence is meant to capitalise on their key contribution to the war on Islamic State after the group overwhelmed Iraqi forces in 2014.

The US administration, which had strengthened its alliance with Iraq’s Kurds during the anti-IS campaign, is taking the side of Baghdad in the crisis in refusing to recognise the outcome of the referendum.

What could possibly go wrong?

Respect the flag that so many Americans died for -

READ MORE...

Sam Francis was creating ‘young fogies’ - Alex Linder.

It’s going to require some nuance, but it is important to explain why James Lawrence is a walking piece of dog shit masquerading as a human being, a manifestation shown in his article at (((Alternative Right))):

Alternative Right, “THE COSMOPOLITAN CLASS”, 24 Sept 2017.

In brief, James Lawrence has elevated Sam Francis young fogeyism = an aspiration to conceive of oneself as precociously wry in protection of the “traditional” already Jew infested culture against “progressivism.” This is anti modernism without being sufficiently post modern (to incorporate the best while leaving behind the worst of both modern and inherited ways), as it stops with a neo-traditionalism, read (((paleoconservatism))).

Now, Francis, and by proxy Lawrence, have some things right.

Namely, that there is a significant portion of influential White people circulating among our elite functions who do not have our ethnonational interests at heart. More, that there is a managerial elite who want to share in this self interested good fortune, who will thus also betray ethno nationals in order to gain favor of this elite, internationalist power.

It is also true that both these kinds of White people can gain international backing by importing foreigners against Whites (or exporting elitist interests, e.g., compradors, against ethnonationals) and they can and do also virtue signal by sacrificing Whites and quelling any backlash against foreign impositions on ethnonationalism.

But I more accurately and descriptively call these people right wingers, and their underpinning objectivism: which is directed by Jewry - hence, Lawrence’s commitment to end his article in (((his masters))) bidding by espousing the “true right” on behalf of (((paleoconservatism))) against “the left”...“the Cosmopolitans” and the occasional bad Jew - yes, they have bad ones too, he knows.

Here Lawrence takes a turn into disingenuous speculation, by saying these Whites who betray eithnonationalism are not “traitors” - well, objectivists are not perfectly described as “traitors”, true - they are loyal to their own subjective interests through a disingenuous pretense of objectivism or naively subject to the subjective/relative interests of others through the pretense of objectivism.

Although there are distinct patterns of the treacherous Whites among elite positions, there is not necessarily a well organized elite group to which they subscribe as Lawrence would provide for the diversion of conspiracy theorists - it is more facile than that.

Indeed, the only real reason to circumscribe it so perfectly with the designation of a “Cosmopoitain” elite which is strictly loyal to its in group, is to function as a tool for Jews to deflect attention away from what is indeed their more organized half of the elite internationalist equation. So that they can point to their (((paleocons))), who can say, “see? we are the good ones”, we have paleocons who are on your side, not like those bad Jews, we’re here with you to protect your (((Christian traditions))) against those “Cosmopolitan elites” and the occasional bad Jew, like Soros and neo cons like William Kristol.

That is to say, like the site Alternative Right, James Lawrence is disguising, perhaps even to himself, the fact that he is kissing Jewish ass in order to keep his means to power afloat.

White elites who betray our interests are indeed one giant pole of our problem, but their loyalty functions a bit more arbitrarily on the happenstance of subjective fortune and selling out; along with the mutual admiration and facile croneyism of their “objective” attainment, which is why, in their unaccountabilty, they are so easily bribed and outmaneuvered by the Jewish group, which is organized as a distinct group in its relative interests (is it good for Jews?) and which will send forth posers as representatives of (((paleoconservatism))) against the “Cosmopolitan” elite.

That is to say, objectivism functions in a much more slippery way against ethnonational interests and Jewry knows how to play it - e.g., through reactionary narratives like those of Sam Francis and James Lawrence. It is a nebulous, quasi group created de facto by the ever present temptation of facile betrayal in self interest, and that is why it requires the ever present default vigilance of accountability through left nationalism and its White variant, the White class, White Left nationalism.

AltRight round table discussion on politics: Toward the end of the podcast Richard Spencer expresses his ideal that The US should have explicitly accepted imperialism as the way of the world; and upon the end of WWII and the Cold War acted upon it explicitly as they found themselves the lone super power - in his ideal they would oust Great Britain from NATO, foster Germany as the land power in Europe while Russia should be incorporated within NATO, should have been starting in that Yeltsin era to facilitate an Imperium from Lisbon to Vladivastok.

Now, speaking from a very personal standpoint of where I was coming from (circa 1992), I probably would not have been offended by the idea of a Russian expanse that went all the way to Vladivastok.

But knowing what I know now, I would raise a couple of serious objections to Richard Spencer’s ideal. First of all, it violates the principle of ethnonationalism, pretty much ensuring ongoing catastrophic wars - moreover, in which the friend/enemy lines are disastrously drawn.

- i.e., there is no way for European peoples to pursue this plan without the cooperation of Jews and Israel. Especially because you would be turning Asia into your enemy with such a plan - exactly a mass of people whom we don’t need as an enemy, a people we need on our side against Jewry and Islam.

Richard is not particularly concerned about the new US military base in Israel, nor does he seem unready to play Muslims off of Asians if need be, saying that Aung San Suu Kyi was “once the darling of ‘the left’ but now that her anti-Muslim stripes have shown, she has fallen into disfavor - of “leftists” as Richard and (((co.))) misdefine them, not as left nationalists are.

Related Story: European & Asian Regional Alliance

READ MORE...

Unz Review, “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars”, 19 Sept 2017:

by Philip Giraldi

Shouldn’t they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?

I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”

It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.

Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

READ MORE...

The US has now opened its first base inside Israel; meaning that US soldiers now will be in there and thus bound to it in a way that historically did not exist prior to this moment. No longer a satrap, it will be a ready base of operations prefigured for joint US/Israeli retaliation and deployment - markedly for operations against Iran at this point.

MSN, “US opens first permanent military base in Israel”, 19 Sept 2017:

Israel and U.S. officials on Monday inaugurated the first permanent American military base in the country, which will house dozens of U.S. troops and a missile defense system.

The base will be located within the Israel Defense Forces Air Defense School in southern Israel, near Beersheba, Defense News reported.

The facility will include a barracks and several other buildings for U.S. troops to be stationed in the country, as well as systems to identify and intercept various aerial threats. It will operate under Israeli military directives.

“We inaugurated, with our partners from the United States Army, an American base, for the first time in Israel,” Brigadier General Tzvika Heimowitz, head of Israeli missile defences, told journalists. “An American flag is flying permanently over a US army base situated inside one of our bases.”  (Tsafrir Abayov/Associated Press)

Israeli Air Force Brigadier General Zvika Haimovich said the base is largely to serve as “a joint Israeli and American effort to sustain and enhance our defensive capabilities,” and will not bring operational changes such as training or exercises.

“It’s a message that says Israel is better prepared. It’s a message that says Israel is improving the response to threats,” Haimovich, the commander of Israel’s aerial defense, told Associated Press.

The Pentagon already operates an independent facility nearby in the Negev Desert. The facility is used only by The US and is meant to detect and warn of a possible ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Israel has been increasingly concerned with Iran’s development of long-range missiles and considers the country to be its greatest threat.