Sunday, May 19, 2019

Will Trump Be Tricked Into War With Iran?

We know that President Trump's blood-thirsty national security adviser, John Bolton, and his fellow neocons would love war between the United States and Iran. It appears they would do anything to get such a war, including possibly a false flag operation.

Trump has flooded the area surrounding Iran with US military assets, especially naval assets. This is in addition to troops already in Iraq as a result of George W. Bush's war there and troops that were in Syria. In total, there are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq. There are also other US personnel in the Green Zone in Iraq.

Thus, there are plenty of targets for a false flag operation and one may have just occurred.

A rocket was fired into the heavily fortified Green Zone less than a mile away from the US Embassy.

No one was injured but a smoking rocket-launcher was quickly found. The launcher was discovered in eastern Baghdad, an area that is home to Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

Apparently, this was proof enough for the president that Iran was behind the rocket launch.

He tweeted out a remarkable comment for the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military:
No doubt the president will be nudged again. There are many actors in the area, beyond even the neocons in the United States, that would love to see a war between Iran and the US.

His tweet reaction will only encourage them.

Trump appears "reluctant" to commit US military forces in a war against Iran but bullying and intimidation appear to be the only hands he knows how to play. In the Middle East, this can easily turn into war.

The Military Times reports that the U.S. Navy says it has just conducted exercises in the Arabian Sea with an aircraft carrier strike group ordered to the Persian Gulf to counter an alleged, unspecified threat from Iran.

The Navy said Sunday the exercises and training were conducted with the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group in coordination with the U.S. Marine Corps, highlighting American "lethality and agility to respond to threat,” as well as to deter conflict and preserve U.S. strategic interests.

These kinds of exercises in the waters just off the shores of Iran cannot make that country's leaders happy. How patient will they be?

In short, by amassing such a major US presence in the region, the "reluctant" warrior is goading Iran and also setting up plenty of targets for bad actor false flag operations.

This is where the short-game grifter Trump becomes most dangerous. He has the largest military in the world at his control but he is just not a deep thinker and that is not the type of person you need guiding US policy in the Middle East.

You need a leader who understands the dangerous trap that the Middle East is for the US and who can't have the wool pulled over his eyes by the neocons. A leader is needed who will call an end to US presence in the region and bring home the boys. Trump is not that man. The odds of him bumbling into war with Iran are very high.


Via Brian Stelter:

The president's message -- "never threaten the United States again!" -- seemed to closely track a Fox segment about "U.S.-IRAN TENSIONS." Media Matters' Matthew Gertz noted the 4:16 p.m. segment was followed by Trump's 4:25 tweet...

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.


  1. I think all those Big Macs and Diet Pepsi are clogging the arteries to his brain.

    1. You assume that he has a brain (other than reptilian) to start with.

  2. Why did anyone take Trump's supposed anti-war stance seriously? Even when he was candidate Trump he expressed his willingness to bomb and torture people, especially Muslims. Didn't the Trump fandom on the pseudo-libertarian side pick up on this, or were they too mesmerized by his proposal to put an economic and immigration lid on top of the US?

    I didn't believe for a second that these pseudo-libertarians jumped into the Trump bandwagon because he represented himself as a man of peace. Advocating for tariffs, saying the US is being 'raped' through commerce, that's not the language of a man of peace. It was clear to me then as it is clear today that they supported that phony because he promised them protection from people who are not in the least melanin deficient, that's all.

    1. Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth when it came to foreign intervention. But the other options only talked out of the wrong side. (other than Rand Paul, but don't get me started on him) That makes him the only game in town when it comes to those of us who want an end to foreign intervention and foreign invasion.

    2. Hello, Sam Drucker,

      He wasn't the only game in town when it came to avoiding further intervention. He was the only game in town when it came to hating immigrants and markets, sure, and in that front he has delivered somewhat, even if imperfectly.

    3. Cause only bigots prefer to be ruled by their own people. got it

    4. Hello, Sam!

      How else do you explain it? Did the pseudo-libertarians not hear him when he said he was going to "bomb the sh¡t out of them", referring to ISIS? Was that the language of a non-interventionist? He also said he was going to bring back waterboarding and whatever it's worse. Is that the language of a non-interventionist? Didn't he say he wanted to impose tariffs because other countries were taking 'advantage' of the US, thereby showcasing his economic ignorance? Was his the language of a non-interventionist? Didn't he say during the campaign he was going to impose a total ban on Muslim travelers? Is that the language of a non-interventionist? He criticized the Iran Nuclear Deal and threatened to withdraw the U.S. unilaterally from the deal (which he later did) and impose new sanctions on Iranian commerce (which he eventually did). Is that the language of a non-interventionist?

      I don't think the pseudo-libertarians were deaf and blind. They had to be aware of that man's many contradictions. The moment he said that Mexico only sends rapists and drug dealers and that he was going to build a wall across the southern border, TIIIIIIIMMBERRRR!!!! All these pseudo-libertarians stacked themselves neatly in support of him.

      I don't believe in serendipity. Yes, bigots wanted a bigot as ruler. Is that such a big surprise, Sam?