Telepolis: Is Trump a warmonger?

Trump relies on weapons and threats, weakens the rules of war, prefers murder and forgives war criminals. Economic pressure is closer to military intervention.

He threatens to destroy Iran, he also offered talks, he ordered an attack on Iranian positions in response to a shot down American drone. Was it really a retaliatory strike? The assassination of Suleimani was certainly done with caution in Iraq to give rise to war.

Iran’s cruise missile attack on the U.S. Al-Assad base in Iraq resulted in 64 soldiers being treated for brain injuries. Trump, however, continues to downplay this by referring to minor injuries, “headaches. One could suspect that the mutual attacks could have been coordinated. Washington also did not criticize the reaction to the shooting down of a Ukrainian passenger plane by the Iranian air defense.

Of course, the legislative initiatives do not have any possibilities. They will not go through the Senate, where Republicans have a majority, and Donald Trump will veto it if necessary. Before voting, he said very cautiously that in any case only 5,000 soldiers would be deployed in Iraq, that there would be fewer, and that each MP should vote “with his own heart.

Obviously, however, he would not give up military authority and that he did not want to introduce a new authorization to use military force before the elections. Since he has repeatedly promised to withdraw U.S. troops from the region and end “endless wars”,  this will be a step toward an offensive military policy.

Trump would have preferred to continue endless wars with two military powers and have a free hand, after all, the military powers were already arbitrarily expanded when new terrorist groups such as Khorasan (Pentagon reports success against the sinister Khorasan group in Syria) or attacks (Suleimani) were invented. And no one in Congress will campaign for new military power before the elections.

National security in the U.S. appears to legitimize all kinds of aggressive wars, which are also contrary to international law.

Comments: