They say that the first casualty of war is the truth. You could
just as well say that the ultimate treachery in the game of war is the ruse
that allows you to prepare for carrying out that war in stealth.
The ruse is a lie. It lets the opponent believe that you have no
intention of fighting a war. When he takes his guards down and you see him as a
sitting duck, you attack with full force and score a significant victory. Is
this the aim of the current campaign mounted by the Jewish propaganda machine?
It is portraying John Bolton as a peace-lover despite the fact that he lived a
lifetime as a warmonger who made Field Marshal Erwin Rommel look like a flower
boy right out the 1960s peace-nick generation.
John Bolton used to write op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal
and other right-wing print publications, and he used to go on the Fox News
Channel where he tried to make the case for war against Iran. When he saw that
his pleas were getting nowhere with the Obama administration, he started
talking to an imaginary sympathetic audience, telling it what needed to be done
to take care of Iran. He put together a military plan that Israel could
implement provided that America supplied it with the appropriate military
equipment such as F-16 jets, B-52 bombers, bunker-busting bombs, refueling
tankers, and what have you.
That was then. What you have now is a John Bolton that spent the
first few months he's been on the Trump National Security Team, getting rid of
those under him that smelled like flower, and replaced them with those that
smelled like gun powder. He also spoke as hawkishly as ever about Iran and
others, believing that Donald Trump was a good substitute for the sympathetic
audience he used to address in times past. And he did not mention a role for
Israel this time because he felt he didn't have to.
In fact, this time John Bolton thought that because America had
all the F-16 jets, the B-52 bombers, the bunker-busting bombs, and the
refueling tankers it needed to do the job, he only had to persuade the Pentagon
to position those assets in Iran's neighborhood. The Pentagon did, and while
this was happening, Bolton promised to dispatch 120,000 additional troops to
the region at the appropriate time. Is this the John Bolton that's portrayed as
a peace-lover by the Jewish propaganda machine? Or Is John Bolton the same
warmongering hawk he's always been?
Two recent articles emanating from the far-Right bowels of the
keep-them-down neocon squad, will give you a taste of what these guys are doing
to give the make-my-day, gun-powder John Bolton –– the bouquet smell of a
groovy draft-dodger from an earlier era.
One article came under the title: “Panic Over War With Iran Is An
Info Operation To Preserve The Iran Deal,” and the subtitle: “Obama's media
echo chamber is hyping Iran's bluster about US sanctions. But their insistence
that the only options are appeasement or war offers a false choice.” It was
written by Jonathan Tobin and published on May 17, 2019 in The Federalist. The
other article came under the title: “The Warmonger Canard,” and the subtitle:
“The Iran echo chamber tries to save its nuclear deal.” It was written by
Matthew Continetti, and published on May 18, 2019 in National Review Online.
Here is what Continetti wrote: “President Trump, Mike Pence, Mike
Pompeo, Patrick Shanahan, and John Bolton have not said a single word about a
preemptive strike, much less a full-scale war, against Iran. The president's
reluctance for overseas intervention is well known. The antiwar cries are not
about context, and they are not about deterring Iran. Their goal is saving
Obama's nuclear deal by manipulating Trump into firing Bolton and extending a
lifeline to the Iranian regime”.
While Matthew Continetti's idea was to attack the Iran nuclear
deal by accusing those producing the antiwar cries of manipulating Donald Trump
to have him fire John Bolton –– Jonathan Tobin chose to attack the nuclear deal
itself by rehashing the old arguments leveled against it. In so doing, he also
attacked the Democratic Party, the Obama administration and the mainstream
media. His worry is that Trump may be pressured into abandoning the sanctions
regime, and returning to the Iran nuclear deal. And so, he counseled that this
would be a bad idea. Here is a sample of what he wrote:
“Is the US on the brink of war with Iran? That's the message of
the mainstream media and democrats. They argue abandoning the sanctions because
the choices are war or appeasement. But this is a false choice. Can the
Democrats and the media exploit the country's concerns and cause Trump to alter
his policy? There are two alternatives to negotiations for Iran: Wait for
Trump's defeat in 2020. Or threaten to resume building a nuclear weapon,
increase terrorism and war. Iran hopes the threats will convince Americans to
choose appeasement. But Trump must ignore the efforts to scare the country into
abandoning sanctions. He should stick to making Iran pay a price. The result
will be an American diplomatic victory”.
So, the question comes down to this: Are we witnessing a real
concern on the part of the far-Right that the Trump Foreign Policy approach is
unraveling with respect to Iran as it has with respect to Venezuela and North
Korea? Or is it that those two articles are scenes in the theatrics staged by
the far-Right to serve as a ruse that will make the Iranians believe America
has no intention of fighting a war … then attack Iran at a moment when the
latter will expect it the least?