MAGA Update

 

Well, let me start with a big “if”: if what we are reading about this MOU to end the war in Iran is accurate, or even approximate, it represents a total capitulation by Trump and the United States government.  Of course, there was no choice but to capitulate, because it would have taken total annihilation of Iran to avoid this – and total annihilation of Iran would have meant half the world’s population dies.

Another big “if”: if the agreement can hold….  Because too many powerful forces with the means to ensure it doesn’t hold don’t want it to hold.  Obviously, I am not talking about Iran – as, assuming the terms we read are somewhat accurate, they come out a big winner.  There are players in this game who aren’t bothered at all with the prospect of half the world dying.

With those caveats and concerns in place, two thoughts:

First: poor JD Vance.  He is the one being sent out to sell the deal.  Not Trump, not Rubio, not Hegseth.  Why is that?  Trump is too embarrassed, and neither Rubio nor Hegseth ever had any hope at all of capturing the working-class base of what was MAGA in any future election.  So, making them take the fall is meaningless because the working-class base of MAGA would never support them in the future anyway.

Vance did have some hope of doing that – carrying that part of the base.  If you want to ensure Vance destroys any possibility that he can carry that ball in a couple of years, get him to go out and defend the war and then defend how the deal is good for America. 

It is his Kamala Harris moment: “I can’t think of a single policy of Joe Biden / Donald Trump where I would do something differently.”  Oh…not even the strategically stupidest decision in US history to launch this war against Iran?

Second: I have commented on this before, but I think it is far more evident now.  Many who voted for Trump – again, call it his working-class base – wanted the US out of foreign wars, bring the troops home, shut down the foreign military bases, get out of these international institutions like the UN, the EU, NATO, etc.

Trump is doing that.  I certainly don’t like the way he is doing it, but what if he is doing it the only way it can be done in Washington: give the neocons and all associated with wanting more war everything they want? 

Could he get US troops out of the Gulf otherwise – if the bases hadn’t been destroyed by Iran?  Could he have ensured that the other power centers in the world gained strength at the cost of reducing the position of the US without this war?

Probably not.

So, who knows if this was by Trump’s design.  But it certainly looks like it will be one effect.  With that said, I still don’t see this empire dying without a fight.  It remains very dark before the dawn…if we survive until dawn.

Not to say that Trump and this administration hasn’t failed elsewhere.  They have failed at almost everything promised, and many of the things they are succeeding at really stink for some sort of movement toward sanity. 

Catastrophe or Chaos…

 

…or both.

Roger Mitchell has written a post, The Warlord of my Dreams.  I want to focus on one aspect of this.  He notes that many look to the fall of Rome for a comparison to the current situation of the US Empire.  He believes looking at Tsarist Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution is a more appropriate analogy.  He offers several characteristics of the situation in Russia that can be compared to the situation with the US today.  I offer several of these that ring especially true for me in our current situation:

·         A tone-deaf elite which held virtually all the wealth of the country and which held the common people in contempt.

·         Huge philosophical and political differences among the populace.

·         A large number of factions at grassroots level who were willing to battle with each other at a moment’s notice.

·         Inability of the State to maintain control and order.

I think it is pretty straightforward to find history, if not repeating, at least rhyming, with these points.

Yet the one I wish to focus on is the following:

·         A vivid memory of a major military defeat in 1905 vs. Japan.

Following is an expanded version of my comment at the post; I am not going to attempt to delineate what was original vs. what has been added:

Roger, the comparison to Tsarist Russia is very good. I think the point of losing the war against Japan may line up very nicely with what is happening in Iran today. 

Would Russia have lost if they had nuclear weapons and Japan didn’t? In this case, would Russia have humbly slithered back home, or used nukes? A thought experiment worth considering in our current circumstance.  Iran is fighting a war against two countries with nuclear weapons.  Can we believe at least one of these two is not crazy enough to use their nukes in order to get what they want?

The choice facing the United States today: destroy the world economy, or slither back home.  If the choice is to destroy the world economy, the US would lose, but the rest of the world will lose much more. So, relatively speaking, yay for our team (sarcastically); we come out of the catastrophe still on top (like at the end of World War Two).  Assuming we come out of it at all.

To explain my fundamental understanding of the geopolitical world: as I have written often, it is based on the ideas of Halford Mackinder.  Whoever controls the World Island will be the primary power in the world.  The world island is basically Russia, western and central China, and Central Asia – eastern Europe would be a nice-to-have, but not necessary.  We see this World Island coming together via mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.  We see it in China’s Belt and Road Initiatives. 

Now, I see no way for the United States Empire to control this World Island.  The objective for the Empire, then, is to cause chaos in it and around it.  Sure, it would be great if Iran had a puppet government doing whatever the US wanted, but it isn’t necessary.  Just turn Iran into a hell-hole, cause chaos; this will be enough to reduce the possibilities of developing the World Island.

You will note: I am not saying that the US is doing this for Israel.  The US didn’t need Israel to fight in Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan (countries useful for their proximity to the World Island); it didn’t need Israel to expand NATO to Russia’s borders; it didn’t need Israel to ring China with bases throughout the Far East and Southeast Asia; it didn’t need Israel to destroy the economy of Germany or Germany’s economic relationship with Russia (which would have been beneficial to both Germany and the World Island); it didn’t need Israel to poke the Russian bear via Ukraine.

There are ongoing conflicts of various degrees of heat in Myanmar, Kashmir, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, or Bangladesh – none of these anywhere close to Israel and all of these in proximity of the World Island.  In these cases, I am not claiming an overt or even covert US involvement (although with hundreds of military bases and countless CIA assets around the world, well…), yet these serve the purposes of disrupting the advancement of the World Island.

The US would love for Japan or South Korea to be as rabid in the Far East as Israel is in the Middle East.  It would be of great benefit to the Empire.  But with or without, Empire rolls on.  The objectives for the Empire are clear: if I can’t have you, no one will; if I can’t control you, I will ensure you are uncontrollable.  In other words, the World Island cannot be allowed to develop. 

Simple enough.

Conclusion

I see no offramp in Iran – yes, maybe in the short-term, but not in the medium term.  And sooner or later, nuclear weapons are most likely involved here.  Whether it’s the US or Israel is irrelevant. 

It is interesting to me how calm I remain in this circumstance. When I truly can do nothing about the geopolitical situation, all I have is Christ. Yes, that’s all I always have, but there is something about my total impotence in the face of this current evil that in a way brings me calm and peace.

Quo Vadis MAGA?

Which way are you going, MAGA? 

Trump is the most confusing president in my lifetime (just see my last post, and compare it to several of my earlier posts).  Some people see him playing 4-D chess or call it his negotiation strategy, others just see it for chaos.  He regularly says things the opposite of each other and regularly does things at least seemingly the opposite of each other or opposite of something he just said three minutes before.  I won’t rehash these here, I think the evidence is clear enough.

I have been thinking through how I might best understand what is going on.  At times like this, I think it is best to go back to some fundamentals; call these the lenses through which I see the political world.

There are two fundamental lenses through which I see the geopolitical landscape.  Now, I often forget these, and when this happens, I find myself swaying because of allowing myself to be unrooted.  Having said this, I am not completely married to these two lenses – these may not play at all.  However, until I see actions clearly in contradiction to the lenses…well, the lenses stand for me.

So, what are these lenses?

The Geographical Pivot of History

Also known as the Heartland Theory.  Halford Mackinder gave a talk in 1904 to the Royal Geographic Society in London.  A picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s start with a picture.

 

 

To summarize his thesis: whoever controls the Pivot Area controls the world.  Britain at that time, and the United States certainly since World War Two, have controlled the seas – the Lands of the Outer Crescent.  But this will be irrelevant to whoever brings under control and tames the Pivot Area.

I ask you, therefore, for a moment to look upon Europe and European history as subordinate to Asia and Asiatic history, for European civilization is, in a very real sense, the outcome of the secular struggle against Asiatic invasion.

For a thousand years, Europe dealt with hoards coming from Central Asia – the Pivot Area, or Heartland. 

To the east, south, and west of this heart-land are marginal regions, ranged in a vast crescent, accessible to shipmen. 

The margins, or Inner Crescent, are key.  A buffer for the Pivot Area and a source of chaos for the Outer Crescent to use against the Pivot Area.  And, guess what?

 

 

Mackinder identifies the key players of his time.  Little has changed:

Outside the pivot area, in a great inner crescent, are Germany, Austria, Turkey, India, and China, and in an outer crescent, Britain, South Africa, Australia, the United States, Canada, and Japan.

I would only comment that western China is certainly in the Pivot Area, making China a key Pivot Area player.  Otherwise, take a look at the list: the Outer Area was at the time all allies of Britain (with South Africa more recently becoming iffy).  Those in the Great Inner Crescent are seen as where the game is to be played.