Pompeo’s hatred of Iran arises from his deep-rooted Islamophobia

By Yuram Abdullah Weiler

Peaceful protests broke out in cities across Iran on Saturday following a decision by the National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company (NIOPDC) to raise fuel prices. The price hike is an attempt by officials to recoup revenue lost as a result of US economic sanctions unilaterally and illegally re-imposed on Iran’s petroleum sector. Funds so generated would be used for additional subsidies to help some 18 million Iranian families experiencing extreme economic hardship.

Unfortunately, some of the protests have turned violent, and the United States, seeing an opportunity to spread chaos, has thrown its full support behind those persons involved in fomenting riots and vandalizing public property.  Encouraging the rioters, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in a Twitter post wrote, “As I said to the people of Iran almost a year and a half ago: The United States is with you.”   In rebuttal to this clear support of anarchy, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said, “He [Pompeo] openly supports immolation of the Iranian people’s properties through foolish shamelessness and opportunism, while calling it defending the Iranian people.”  For their part, the IRGC issued a statement warning that those who “would foment insecurity, and all actions targeting the calm and tranquility in the society will be dealt with decisively.”

Iranians have been suffering for over 40 years as a result of various US attempts to topple the legitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Economic sanctions, which typically impact people in the lower brackets the most, have been the weapon of choice for Washington in its relentless quest for revenge against Iran for the victory of its Islamic Revolution in 1979.  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) brought a brief period of hope that sanctions relief, and perhaps even improved relations with the US, might be in sight, but the Trump regime abruptly pulled the US out of the deal and reneged on all commitments.

After Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May of 2018 and re-imposed sanctions for his “maximum pressure” campaign, his secretary of state, Michael Pompeo, sent a patronizing message in July to the Iranian people via Twitter, in Farsi and English, claiming in capital letters, “THE UNITED STATES HEARS YOU. THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTS YOU. THE UNITED STATES IS WITH YOU.”   If so, then why would the tyrannical Trump regime impose a sanction regimen on Iran so stringent that Iranians are forced to choose either watching loved ones die due to severe shortages of necessary medicines, or risking the use of unregulated drugs and incurring horrific side effects as a result?

Shortly after the reapplication of sanctions on Iran on November 5, 2018, Pompeo pontificated, “The leadership [in Iran] has to make a decision that they want their people to eat,” as if officials in Tehran had made the decision for the reinstitution of sanctions against their own citizens rather than the economic terrorists in Washington’s Zionist-aligned government.  To add insult to injury, the former Kansas politician suggested that it was up to Iran’s government either “to make a decision that they want to use their wealth to import medicine” or “use it in a way that doesn't benefit the Iranian people.” Voicing a not-so-subtle hint at regime change, Pompeo confided that he was “very confident the Iranian people will take a response that tries to fix that themselves.”

Pompeo insisted, contradicting the grim reality, that “not only are the transactions themselves exempted- that is, the transactions in medicine, for example- but the financial transactions connected to that activity also are authorized.”   Technically speaking, his claim may be true, however, the difficulty lies in trying to find a pharmaceutical company willing to sell lifesaving drugs to Iran and a bank willing to finance the transaction, and both agreeable to taking the risk running afoul of Washington’s fiscally vindictive wrath.  In practice, the net effect of the broad scope and complexity of US coercive economic measures against Iran’s banks combined with the nonstop hawkish rhetoric uttered by Pompeo and other regressive US politicians is to deter financial institutions out of fear of incurring penalties due to “secondary sanctions,” thus reducing such humanitarian exemptions to inconsequential legal boilerplate.

By February of 2019, it should have been clear to all that Pompeo did not care one iota about the Iranian people who were already facing grinding hardships due to US sanctions.  During an interview on CBS News, the portly secretary of state admitted that the coercive unilateral measures were indeed intended to target ordinary Iranians and thus amounted to collective punishment, which is against international law.  “Things are much worse for the Iranian people,” Pompeo gleefully conceded, “we are convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime.”

A member of the reactionary, extreme right-leaning Tea Party, Pompeo demonstrated his disdain for people of color and non-Christian religions during his first run for a seat in the US House of Representatives in 2010 against Democrat Raj Goyle, a two-term Kansas state representative whose parents hail from Chandigarh, India.  Despite that Goyle was born in Cleveland, Ohio in America, a staffer for Pompeo referred to him in a Twitter post as a “turban topper.” The xenophobic rant continued with “This guy could be a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist etc who knows” ending with “One thing’s for sure . . . Goyle is not a Christian!” While Pompeo had the remarks deleted, he refused to fire the responsible staff member.

Pompeo’s unabashed hatred of Iran apparently arises from his deep-rooted Islamophobia, which appears to be a pillar of his extreme version of fundamentalist Christianity.  Speaking to a church group in 2014, then-congressman Pompeo said, “I can tell you that this threat to America is from people who deeply believe that Islam is the way and the light and the only answer.”  Sounding a clarion call for a renewed crusade, he warned that Muslims “will continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ as our savior is truly the only solution for our world.”

In a 2018 letter to Senators Bob Corker and Robert Menendez concerning the nomination of Pompeo for secretary of state, former Representative from Minnesota Keith Ellison and Representative from Indiana André Carson wrote, “Mr. Pompeo’s long record of anti-Muslim statements and close alliances with anti-Muslim organizations and activists will render him ineffective as a statesman to Muslim leaders and populations around the world.”  Rounding out Pompeo’s Islamophobic qualifications, Ellison and Carson noted that the nominee “is a ‘steadfast ally’ of Brigitte Gabriel, who runs ACT for America, the largest anti-Muslim hate group in the United States.”

Concerning his aversion to the Islamic Republic, Pompeo posted an Iranophobic remark on Twitter in November 2016 stating, “I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal [JCPOA] with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.”  Earlier, as a member of Congress, the future US secretary of state wrote an op-ed for Fox News that could be termed an anti-Iran manifesto.  Asking whether or not the JCPOA benefitted the United States, Pompeo answered, “Unfortunately for our country’s future, the answer to that inquiry is a resounding no.”  His remedy is overthrowing the legitimate government of Iran. “Congress must act to change Iranian behavior,” the then representative wrote, “and, ultimately, the Iranian regime.”  Additionally, Pompeo displayed his contempt for Iran and Iranians, condescendingly commenting on “Iranians’ bizarre tantrums and illogical arguments” while accusing Iran of “continuously threatening to walk away from the [nuclear] deal,” which his boss, Trump, actually did.

Evidently, Pompeo and other US officials not only are neither feeling the pain of Iranians nor are capable of empathizing with them, but also appear to be relishing the cruel conditions they have created by re-imposing ever harsher economic sanctions on Iran.  To them, this economic terrorism is a neo-crusade, and their long sought after Holy Grail is regime change in Tehran.

Locked and Loaded’ for War on Iran?

Patrick BUCHANAN

“Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Putting America’s credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear, in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!”

Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.

Pompeo dismissed their claim, “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

But while the Houthis claim credit, Iran denies all responsibility.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo’s charge, that the U.S. has simply replaced a policy of “maximum pressure” with a policy of “maximum deceit.” Tehran is calling us liars.

And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on the Saudis’ crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation, leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.

Tehran being behind Saturday’s strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.

U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.

According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.

But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.

Given Pompeo’s public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering next week may be a dead letter.

The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the call for a commensurate response is put directly to our “locked-and-loaded” president.

If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?

For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country attacking them.

Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi war in Yemen.

If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?

What about Iran itself?

If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday — shutting down about 6% of world oil production — imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.

In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?

Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?

Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Sen. Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”

Divided again: The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.

How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.

John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

creators.com

‘Keep friends close, enemies closer’: Why Donald Trump works with bloodthirsty Neocons

Robert BRIDGE

[Note: This article was sent to press just prior to the news that Donald Trump had requested the resignation of his National Security Advisor, John Bolton. Since that decision does not alter the argument made in this article, it is being presented here in its original form].

Trump supporters suffered a collective convulsion when foreign policy hawks, like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams, were brought screeching into his administration. How could the US president be sincere about rolling back US military activities abroad, they asked, when the neocons had a hotline to his ear?

Yet here we are, almost three years later, and we’ve yet to witness Armageddon, although we do have a spectacular trade war raging with China. Mere mortals would view the cessation of US-driven hostilities as a positive development. For the US deep state, however, which depends upon military expansion and war for its very survival, it is an unspeakable disaster. In that sense, if Trump is really serious about draining the Swamp, abstaining from global aggression would be one of the most effective ways of achieving that goal.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

 · Sep 10, 2019

I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore....

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

....I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.

75.6K

9:28 PM - Sep 10, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

33.4K people are talking about this

Had Hillary Clinton squeaked out a victory in 2016, we’d all be handwringing once again, attempting to make sense of yet another killing field – this time in Syria – reminiscent of the former Secretary of State’s “We came, we saw, he died” psycho scenario that played out in both Iraq and Libya. The closest the Trump administration got to full-blown warfare came in April 2017 when it launched missiles at a Syrian air base purported to have been involved in a chemical attack on civilians. Since that moment, which made the carnivorous media cheerleaders giddy from the promise of bloodshed, it has been relatively quiet on the Western front. So quiet in fact that John Bolton is probably wondering why Trump chose him as his security advisor in the first place.

New Day

✔@NewDay

.@FareedZakaria on Syria strikes: "I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night

554

6:29 PM - Apr 7, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,568 people are talking about this

Indeed, not only has Washington not invaded a foreign country since Trump entered the Oval Office, it looks like Bolton may be remembered as the White House National Security Advisor who was sent home without a head of some foreign leader to place above the fireplace. And certainly not for lack of trying.

The belligerent Bush-era hawk who once spoke out in favor of preemptive strikes against both Iran and North Korea, Bolton also failed, thus far, to drive Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro out of Caracas. In fact, Maduro has claimed, without providing any evidence, that Bolton was personally responsible for organizing an attempt on his life.

The setbacks for the hawks continues in Afghanistan, where Trump has expressed a willingness to cut a deal with the Taliban that will allow him to draw down US troops and declare a foreign policy victory ahead of 2020 elections. Yet conspicuously missing from those peace talks is John Bolton, who reportedly has been blacklisted for peace talks later this month.

According to a report in the Washington Post, quoting an anonymous source, “Bolton asked for a copy of the draft agreement the United States is trying to strike with the Taliban. But the U.S. envoy leading the negotiations, Zalmay Khalilzad, denied the request, saying Bolton could read the agreement in the presence of a senior official but not leave with it in hand…”

Most shocking of all, however, as far as the deep state is concerned, is Trump’s recent suggestion that he would be willing to sit down with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at UN headquarters later this month.

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9.

87.6K

3:56 AM - Mar 23, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

55.8K people are talking about this

Trump made the comments after he was essentially ambushed during the G7summit in Biarritz, France last month. At the secret invitation of French President Immanuel Macron, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif made a surprise visit to the meeting, to discuss possible ways of ending the standoff with Washington after the Trump administration pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal last year.

According to US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, US sanctions are an effort to reduce Tehran’s oil exports—which provide some 40 percent of its revenue—to “zero.” Washington’s allies, however, fear that crushing the Iranian economy will eventually force Tehran into some sort of response, potentially a violent one, thereby giving the US a possible pretext for war.

“Iran’s strategy at this time is reducing its commitments under the nuclear deal,” Mehdi Mahmoudi, an Iranian journalist based in Tehran, told The Media Line. “Indeed, this tactic is successful because the European Union is now trying to do more and more work to appease Iran.”

ايران وطن من . IRAN My Homeland@IranHomeland

Iran Gives Ultimatum, Threatens to Abandon Nuclear Deal (with AUDIO INTERVIEW) https://themedialine.org/top-stories/iran-gives-ultimatum-threatens-to-abandon-nuclear-deal/ … via @TheMediaLine

Iran Gives Ultimatum, Threatens to Abandon Nuclear Deal (with AUDIO INTERVIEW) - The Media Line

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has issued a stern warning to European powers, saying that Tehran would “in the coming days” further scale back its commitments to the 2015 nuclear agreement.

themedialine.org

4:39 PM - Sep 5, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

See ايران وطن من . IRAN My Homeland's other Tweets

Trump’s great gambit

In an effort to understand Trump and his balancing act between a government loaded with hawks, and a geopolitical chess game rigged to dynamite, there are at least three dynamics at play – ‘3D chess’ if you like.

First, Trump the relentless businessman, whose talents are to be found in the boardroom as opposed to the battlefield, understands the need for strong-arm tactics in order to get the best possible deal. This he hopes to accomplish by putting notorious Neocons like Bolton, Pompeo and Abrams on the government payroll. Their mere presence sends an unmistakable message to Trump’s opponents: Cut a deal with me or I will remove the leash from these warmongers, who will be only too happy to do the bidding of the deep state. Thus far the nerve-rattling strategy, despite the unfathomable risks involved, has worked like magic against North Korea.

Next, by keeping snarling Neocons on the payroll, Trump gives the deep state the ‘false security,’ as it were, that another regime change operation is just one false flag attack away. Despite the string of chemical attacks in Syria, and the attack on foreign vessels blamed on Tehran, thus far Trump has managed to avoid a full-blown military scenario in places like Syria and Iran. Of course all that could change in a millisecond, but for now a very tense ‘peace regime’ is in place.

Finally, by keeping some of the most prominent members of the deep state under his wing, Trump not only works towards his own self-preservation, but facilitates his campaign pledge to drain the swamp. The importance of a ruler keeping his enemies close was laid out millennia ago by Sun Tsu, the Chinese military strategist. The question at this time is whether Trump is sincere, or still up to the task, of carrying out his incredibly ambitious plan.

Considering the untold humiliations he has suffered since entering the White House, at the hands of a media that has been completely co-opted by the deep state, it seems doubtful Trump will forego his house-cleaning campaign. In that event, the likes of Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams and other Neocon officials will be less useful against foreign adversaries than they will be against battling the D.C. swamp creatures, even if they, the neocons – Trump’s eternal enemies that he has deemed to keep close as the sage Chinese strategist advised – are wholly unaware of the contributions they will make to the main event.

Robert BRIDGE

American writer and journalist.