Introduction — Feb 2, 2017
With the change of administration Washington has shifted its belligerent gaze: from Russia, where it was during Obama’s term and where it would have remained had Clinton been elected, to Iran, where it is now focused under Trump.
Precisely where it had been during the Bush administration.
So three different residents have occupied the White House and U.S. foreign policy has remained essentially the same. Although there have been shifts in emphasis and focus, U.S. policy over Iran is back to where it was a decade ago.
Like they say “the more things change, the more the stay the same”.
We would suggest that while relations with Russia may remain cordial, at least for now, they will deteriorate sharply with Iran. It’s no coincidence that many in Trump’s team are renowned as Iran hawks, or that key personnel in the administration are known as “passionate Zionists”.
Nor is it a coincidence that while relations with Moscow may remain cordial, NATO forces continue to build in eastern Europe, in some cases right on Russia’s western border.
The global elite want a dramatic reduction in the world’s population. War is the most obvious answer and had Clinton been elected we would have been heading toward direct military confrontation with Russia.
Trump’s election changed that so now the elite are bringing into play Plan B — military confrontation with Iran, which also has the potential to escalate into war with Russia. Either way the global elite get what they want: all-out war resulting in a dramatic reduction in the world’s population. Ed.
Trump adopts aggressive posture toward Iran after missile launch
Steve Holland, Matt Spetalnick — Reuters Feb 2, 2017
The White House put Iran “on notice” on Wednesday for test-firing a ballistic missile and said it was reviewing how to respond, taking an aggressive posture toward Tehran that could raise tensions in the region.
While the exact implications of the U.S. threat were unclear, the new administration signaled that President Donald Trump intended to do more, possibly including imposing new sanctions, to curb what he sees as defiance of a nuclear deal negotiated in 2015 by then-President Barack Obama.
The tough talk commits the administration to back up its rhetoric with action, which could cast doubt on the future of the Iran agreement and sow further uncertainty in an already chaotic Middle East, experts said.
Trump has frequently criticized the Iran nuclear deal, calling the agreement weak and ineffective.
Officials declined to say whether the military option was on the table, although Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood said: “The U.S. military has not changed its posture in response to the Iranian test missile launch” on Sunday.
A fiery statement from Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, marked some of the most aggressive rhetoric by the administration that took office on Jan. 20, making clear that Obama’s less confrontational approach toward Iran was over.
Flynn said that instead of being thankful to the United States for the nuclear deal, “Iran is now feeling emboldened.”
“As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice,” he told reporters in his first appearance in the White House press briefing room.
He said the launch and an attack on Monday against a Saudi naval vessel by Iran-allied Houthi militants off the coast of Yemen underscored “Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.”
Iran confirmed it had tested a new missile but said it did not breach a nuclear accord reached with world powers or a U.N. Security Council resolution that endorsed the pact.
‘HOW WOULD U.S. RESPOND?’