Trump Is Doubling Down On Saudi Arabia And The UAE, But Congress Won’t Give Up

Donald Trump joking about U.S.-Saudi arms sales with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (Shealah Craighead/White House)

By Erica Fein

President Trump has vetoed five bills this year. Four of them have dealt with U.S. support for the Saudi and Emirati (UAE) monarchies and their role in the now four-year-old brutal war and humanitarian nightmare in Yemen. Just last week, the Senate failed to override vetoes of back-to-back resolutions disapproving of Trump’s so-called emergency sales of weapons to these countries. Despite that failure, these vetoes aren’t the last word.

A bipartisan majority in Congress is fed up with Trump’s deference to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which has allowed those countries to act with impunity under his administration’s watch.  We should expect Congress to continue to try to counter his approach and provide needed oversight of how U.S. policy toward these countries damages long-term U.S. security interests, undermines human rights, perpetuates the suffering and destruction in Yemen, and could lead to war with Iran.

The Arms Sales Veto Override Failed—Now What?

Congress’s next move will come in September, when the House and Senate conference their versions of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The House version includes language that both suspends precision guided munitions transfers, sales, or licenses to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for one year, and prohibits all U.S. military assistance for the coalition’s fight against the Houthis in Yemen.

The first provision, sponsored by freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), who has made his career advocating for human rights, received support from the entire Democratic caucus and six Republicans and Independents. And the latter, sponsored by progressive foreign policy leader Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), passed with even more Republican/Independent support: 13 in total, with five Democratic defections. Importantly, it’s much harder for a president to veto an NDAA than it is standalone legislation. The question is whether either of these provisions can survive conference negotiations where the trio of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch stand in their way—alongside an adverse Trump administration. 

The Saudi/Emirati-led coalition’s airstrikes, using U.S.-made precision-guided munitions, have been a leading cause of civilian deaths in Yemen—responsible for  over 8,000 of the approximately 11,700 fatalities reported in connection with direct targeting of civilians in Yemen. Armed with these facts, the Senate and House have sought to use the United States’ considerable leverage to change the coalition’s behavior and push them to end the war.

Take for example, the bipartisan legislation led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Ranking Member Bob Mendendez (D-NJ) and Senator Todd Young (R-IN)—and co-sponsored by none other than uber Iran hawk Lindsay Graham (R-SC)—the Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act. That measure recently passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations by a vote of 13-9. In some respects, the bill goes farther than the House NDAA language in that it suspends arms sales to Saudi Arabia for two years, rather than one. It does not, however, include a ban for the UAE. Even still, given this strong bipartisan and ideologically diverse support, it should not be out of the realm of the possible to retain the House language in the NDAA.

Similarly, given the House and Senate have several times now passed bills to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition, in the form of aerial refueling of coalition aircraft, it would not be hard to imagine this language be included in a final NDAA.

Don’t Expect a Yemen-Less NDAA

So what happens if these provisions don’t stay in? While it would undoubtedly be a loss, there are other items that we should expect will be retained. An NDAA amendment by Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Ted Lieu (D-CA), for example, prohibits certain military assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE if it is used for war in Yemen. In fact, the House passed so many Yemen-related NDAA amendments that we can’t name all of them here. And not to be ignored: the House-passed defense appropriations bill also contains the exact language of S.J.Res.7, the war powers bill passed by Congress and vetoed by Trump, which would be difficult but not impossible to keep in a final spending bill.

Holding Saudi Arabia and the UAE Accountable

Even in a world where most of these provisions can’t overcome an intractable Republican Senate and a Trump veto threat, we now live in a world where Congress won’t just give up. More work to end U.S. complicity in Yemen will be done even as Congress continues with other accountability measures. A bipartisan cadre in the Senate and House continueto introduce bills related to curtailing unfettered U.S. assistance with a Saudi civil nuclear energy program (that could easily one day become a weapons program), for example. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is conducting its own investigations into undue Saudi and Emirati influence over the Trump administration.

Does Congress Matter?

With Trump digging in, and the death toll and humanitarian crisis in Yemen increasing, one has to ask whether all of this congressional action really matters. The answer is that as long as the United States under Trump continues to put its thumb on the scale in the region, a congressional counterweight is vital—for its constitutional duties both in matters of war and peace and oversight of U.S. laws and policies. Despite the persistence of the Yemen war, congressional influence helped lead to a tenuous interim deescalation agreement between the warring factions in December. And the UAE’s recent announcement of a drawdown of forces can also be attributed to a combination of unrelenting congressional (and international and non-governmental) scrutiny, plus a very valid concern that it could get caught in the crosshairs of a Trump-initiated war with Iran.

The people of Yemen, and others throughout the region suffering from human rights violations at the hands of the Saudi and Emirati governments, deserve much better than they’re getting from the Trump-led U.S. government. Many in Congress understand the United States’ unique ability to create accountability for these abuses and want to do what they can to blunt the path we’re on. The NDAA provides that opening and it’s now up to the champions inside and outside of Congress to fight for it.

Erica Fein is the advocacy director at Win Without War, a diverse network of activists and national organizations working for progressive foreign policy in the United States.

Tulsi Gabbard says war with Iran would be “far more devastating” than Iraq war

TEHRAN – Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard believes that war with Iran would be “far more devastating” to the U.S. than the war in Iraq was.

Speaking with CBS News, she said President Donald Trump was “pushing us closer and closer to war with Iran.”

Gabbard said that Trump was wrong to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration. She said that while she was pushing for a “stronger” deal, that it was better than no deal.

“I think there are some flaws right now with it. But ultimately, when it came down to it, that nuclear agreement prevented war. And that’s the danger of what the Trump administration is doing right now, pushing us closer and closer to war with Iran by ripping up that deal,” Gabbard said.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated in recent months. In June, Iran shot down a U.S. drone after it entered Iran’s airspace on the coasts of the Persian Gulf. Reportedly, Trump had approved a strike on Iran, but he said he backed off at the last minute. 

Trump also signed new sanctions against Iran at the end of June, and the Department of Defense has sent thousands of troops to the region.

“Deploying U.S. troops to the region, they basically set the dynamite fuse and lit it, for another war that will be far more devastating [than what] we saw throughout Iraq, the war that I served in,” said Gabbard, who served in Iraq as a member of the Hawaii National Guard.

In a new spiral of escalating tensions, Iran has reportedly announced it is set to increase the level of uranium enrichment beyond the threshold allowed under the 2015 nuclear agreement. July 7 marked the end of the 60-day deadline Iran had set for Europe to deliver on financial incentives contained in the nuclear deal.

Tehran revealed its first instance of surpassing the limits set by the nuclear deal on Monday, announcing it had begun stockpiling low-enriched uranium beyond the 300kg limit allowed, a year after Trump withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions.

Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser on international affairs to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Iranian officials were unanimous in their decision to raise the level of uranium enrichment.

“We need uranium enriched to 5% for use in the Bushehr [power plant] and this is a completely peaceful purpose,” Velayati said.

Velayati said the decision is a “result of consensus” in the Iranian establishment in response to the “violations” committed by the remaining parties to the deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Iran has been urging European signatories to the deal to combat the U.S. sanctions, which it says are a form of “economic warfare” and are taking their toll on the Iranian economy.

Iran’s chief demand is that the country be permitted to export crude oil at the same levels before the U.S. reimposed sanctions.

In May, Iran announced that the country had partly suspended its obligations under the nuclear deal, giving the other JCPOA signatories 60 days — until July 7 — to save the accord and protect Iran from the crippling impact of U.S. sanctions.

War with Iran is not Trump priority: expert

By Javad Heirannia

TEHRAN - Research Assistant at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, says war with Iran is not only Trump priority, but he is personally against it.

Sina Azodi adds “Next presidential elections will be important because anyone who challenges Trump will use these issues to attack Trump’ policies on these issues - Trade war with China will hurt average American consumers.”

Following is the full text of the interview:

Q: Some argues that going to war with Iran is not President Trump policy preference. What is your opinion?

A: I think that not only it is not his priority, but he is personally against it. He ran on the campaign of pulling the U.S. out of the Middle East and he has repeatedly said that it is not in the U.S. interests to be engaged in the region. For example, at his State of the Union address he emphasized that great powers do not engage in perpetual wars.

Q: Some argues that President Trump priority is his trade wars. Recent trade wars with EU, China, and other are examples for this argument. What do you think?

A: I don’t think it is the trade war; rather he sees everything in transactions - that is it is a give and take - his business mentality has influenced his FP decision making: subcontracting foreign policy. In case of China, it is not just Trump that is concerned with China, U.S. views China as a potential competitor and seeks to contain China. For example one of the reasons that the U.S. pulled out of INF treaty was that China was rapidly increasing its missile capabilities while the U.S. was chained to the treaty limitations. Going back to Trump, he sees everything in transitions: you give me money I give you security. This applies to South Korea and NATO too: Pay me to protect you

Q: Based on the priority of trade war, some says President Trump’s foreign policy toward Iran will not be close to John Bolton who wishes war with Iran. What do you think?

A: I think a potential war (in form of a very limited clash- not all out) with Iran is unlikely but still possible under three scenarios  

A- Miscalculation and accidental fires that no body intended (a standoff situation with one side accidentally doing something)
B- A false-flag operation  someone does something and puts the blame on Iran- could be anything - attack a ship and say it was Iran
C- Force Iran to the corner so much that it decides that it has no option but to fight its way out of misery. (This is very unlikely, but has historical precedence - Japan facing the same situation decided to take on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor)

Q: Some argues if President Trump cannot reach to his goals on Iran until the beginning of the presidential campaign, maybe he fires an odious persons like John Bolton. What is your assessment?

A: Trump has the tendency of firing people that he doesn’t like or disagrees with- We know that he has some disagreements with Bolton on how to deal with Iran - But I don’t know about the timing - It could be next week - Problem with Trump is his unpredictability (which I think he does it on purpose)

Q: As Trump fights Trade war with China, North Korea negotiations, Venezuela and Iran cases are the main issues in President Trump’ foreign policy. How much do you think the upcoming elections cycle to choose the next presidential of U.S. will affected by these issues?

A: The next president will inherit a lot of foreign policy problems for the U.S. Rise of Russia and China are certainly troublesome for the U.S.

U.S. as the sole superpower since 1990s is under a lot of structural pressures- that is we are moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world.

Next presidential elections will be important because anyone who challenges Trump will use these issues to attack Trump’ policies on these issues - Trade war with China will hurt average American consumers. Relationship with allies are strained because of Trump’s pressure and the rise of China and Russia, as mentioned will put the U.S. under further pressure.

How Mainstream U.S. Media Is Failing Us On Trump And Bolton’s March To War With Iran

Foundation for Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz

by Ben Armbruster 

The Trump administration and its allies are slow-walking the United States into war with Iran, and, with a few notable exceptions, mainstream U.S. media is helping them.

Much of this assistance has been overt. Just like during the run-up to the Iraq war, outlets like CNN, NBC, and the New York Times have in recent weeks simply parroted without scrutiny claims from Bolton and other administration officials of a dire Iranian threat based on intelligence no one has seen (these claims would in turn compel officials within the U.S. intelligence community to tell reporters that the intelligence in question shows nothing new or that it was being blown out of proportion).

But the media is also failing us in other, less overt ways, namely by quoting and promoting those pushing for regime change and/or war and presenting them as, at best, neutral “experts,” or at worst, proponents of a “strong” or “tough” U.S. policy vis-a-vis Iran.

In a story earlier this week about how President Trump is showing signs of souring on Bolton, particularly because of Bolton’s quest for war with Iran, the Times gave Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) CEO Mark Dubowitz prominent billing to praise Bolton as the one giving Trump the “diplomatic space for him to go back and forth between a very hard-line position and holding talks.”

Except the reality is that Dubowitz has no interest in the U.S. holding talks with Iran. In fact, over the past decade or so, he’s essentially been the titular head of the pro-regime change/Iran war movement that worked to prevent President Obama from reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran, and subsequently pushed to destroy it.

Dubowitz himself has called for regime change in Iran and the organization he runs, FDD, has been underwritten by right-wing billionaire funders Bernie “I think Iran is the devil” Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, who’s on record calling for the U.S. to nuke Iran. FDD has also been the leader in promoting the false narrative that Iran is in league with al-Qaeda, and its staffers regularly publish op-eds and papers pushing a militaristic approach or outright calling for war with Iran. Indeed, Bolton recruited one of his most hawkish staffers, Richard Goldberg, from FDD. Months before joining the administration, Goldberg wrote a piece urging Trump to attack Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

The Times story mentioned none of this. It actually portrayed FDD somewhat positively, identifying it only as a “group that advocates a tough approach to Iran.”

USA Today made a similar mistake this week in a piece about Bolton’s relationship with Trump on Iran. The story identified Dubowitz as an “expert” and quoted him praising Bolton’s aggressive push toward conflict with Iran as “a well-orchestrated campaign,” and downplaying any worries that Bolton has outsize influence over Trump and his Iran policy.

Of course Dubowitz would want to downplay any public perception that Bolton is controlling Trump’s Iran policy, not only to calm concerns about a potential war with Iran, but also to placate Trump himself, who has a penchant for firing aides after conventional wisdom emerges that they have more power than he does.

Again, USA Today made no mention that Dubowitz is a regime change proponent or that employees of his organization have called for war. Instead, the piece identified FDD favorably as “a Washington-based foreign policy research institute that supports strong pressure on Iran.”

And if “strong pressure on Iran” and a “tough approach to Iran,” as the Times put it, are euphemisms for FDD’s militaristic positions, why are USA Today and the New York Times portraying a hawkish Iran policy as “strong” and “tough”? Is pushing for regime change in Tehran or war with Iran—one that would likely dwarf the catastrophe that was the invasion of Iraq—a “tough” position? Do we look back on the Iraq war and say George W. Bush’s policy was “strong?” Or rather, is it strong and tough to organize and unite a broad international coalition—including U.S. adversaries China and Russia—to pressure Iran into an agreement that boxed in its nuclear program so that it could not build a nuclear weapon?

Unfortunately, reporters quote Dubowitz all the time without providing the proper context as to what he’s up to. And it’s somewhat understandable. He’s the CEO of an influential and well-funded “think tank,” a position that gives it, and Dubowitz, a fairly thick veneer of credibility. Moreover, oftentimes reporters don’t have time to dig deep into the details of their sourcing, particularly if the source in question is one many of their colleagues turn to, and has seemingly already been vetted.

But the reality is that FDD oozes with bad faith to cover for its subtle push for regime change in Iran. Dubowitz himself famously called for a “nix and fix” strategy with regard to the Iran nuclear deal—in that, he said Trump should withdraw from the agreement and negotiate a better one. While those who closely follow these issues were aware of Dubowitz’s disingenuousness at that time, the fact that he’s now promoting an astroturfed hashtag on Twitter—likely engineered with the help of FDD—calling for no deal at all should put to rest any notion that he, or FDD, has any interest in diplomacy with Iran.

Ben Armbruster is the communications director for Win Without War and previously served as National Security Editor at ThinkProgress.

Trump Aware War with Iran Would Be Disaster for US: American Analyst

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A senior political analyst based in the United States dismissed the possibility of any military conflict between Iran and the US, saying President Donald Trump is fully aware that war with the Islamic Republic would cause a major catastrophe for his country.

Trump Aware War with Iran Would Be Disaster for US: American Analyst

“While he may be a capitalist, nevertheless he is a realist and understands that war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and at this time he is trying to devote all his energies as president towards saving what is now the sinking ship of American dominance in the world,” Mark Glenn, from Idaho, said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“Keep in mind that Trump recently stated--doubtless much to the fury of Israel and her supporters around the world-- that he would be willing to sit down with the Iranian leadership and talk,” he said, adding, “He understands the precarious and dangerous nature of the present political climate between the US and Iran and is out to calm things down and allow things to cool off before they reach ignition in the way that Israel demands.”

Glenn is a writer and co-founder of the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, an interfaith forum dedicated to uniting Muslims and Christians against Zionists. He has his own blog The Ugly Truth.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: As you know, the US government’s hostility toward Iran has recently entered a new stage. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has formed a dedicated group to coordinate and run the country's policy towards Iran following President Donald Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran. Pompeo announced the creation of an Iran Action Group (IAG) at a news conference, naming Brian Hook, the Department of State's director of policy planning, as its head. What do you think about the group and its objectives and do you think that it would be able to reach its goals?

Glenn: Our first inclination should be to look at the timing involved in all of this. Trump is just about to unveil the details of his much-discussed ‘peace deal’ involving Israel and the Palestinians that is sure to result in a tidal wave of typical screeching from Israel who wants ‘peace’ in the same way that Syphilis wants penicillin. Now, what we have seen since before Trump became president has been an over-the-top display of affection towards Israel when the mics and cameras are on, which have included many of his official acts such as the Jerusalem decision and his pulling out of the JCPOA. My personal interpretation of all of this is that these are all things which Trump knows he must do in order to lubricate the gears of his ‘peace deal’ machinery, after having established with the Jews his ‘good will’ towards Israel.

Now, having said that, it makes perfect sense then why he would maintain the appearances of hostility towards Iran in order to neutralize or at least minimize the inevitable tidal wave of screeching that will arise out of those elements in Israel when he unveils his ‘peace deal’. Does this mean that Trump is a friend to Iran? No. Trump is at heart an American capitalist and who believes that all countries should bend the knee towards the United States on all matters. But does this mean that he intends war with Iran? No, it does not. While he may be a capitalist, nevertheless he is a realist and understands that war with Iran would be a disaster for the US and at this time he is trying to devote all his energies as president towards saving what is now the sinking ship of American dominance in the world.

Tasnim: The Trump administration recently threatened to cut Iranian oil exports to zero, saying that countries must stop buying its oil from Nov. 4 or face financial consequences. Washington later softened its threat, saying that it would allow reduced oil flows of Iranian oil, in certain cases. Since oil is a strategic product and countries around the world always demand it, do you think that the US is able to carry out this threat at all?

Glenn: This is typical Trump strategy, talking loud and tough one minute and then the next minute backtracking entirely and taking a much softer or even opposite approach from the original. Keep in mind that Trump recently stated--doubtless much to the fury of Israel and her supporters around the world-- that he would be willing to sit down with the Iranian leadership and talk. He understands the precarious and dangerous nature of the present political climate between the US and Iran and is out to calm things down and allow things to cool off before they reach ignition in the way that Israel demands. At the same time, however, he has very little room to maneuver, given the chokehold that organized Jewish interests have over the media, economy and the political process here in America where day by day he hounded with the threat of impeachment.

And of course, we have to look at this from the ‘business’ end of things where Trump--as a highly successful international businessman excels. Yes, putting western-based sanctions on Iran has the obvious effect of depriving Iran from doing business with the West, but which has the opposite effect of bolstering Iran’s business ties with the East, including Russia, Central Asia, China, India, all of which need Iranian oil desperately and some of whom, due not only to their growing industrial might but as well--as in the case with China--are flush with cash as a result of the trade deficit they maintain with the US, and therefore, the only ’harm’ that comes to Iran vis a vis any western-based sanctions is that the manipulative tentacles attached to the Jewish money that dominates the West economically, politically, culturally, etc., is not afforded an entryway into the otherwise well-protected systems of the IRI.

Tasnim: Trump's threat is part of his walking away from the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He also plans to fully reinstate anti-Tehran sanctions from November 4. In the meantime, the EU has vowed to counter Trump’s renewed sanctions on Iran, including by means of a new law to shield European companies from punitive measures. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently said Europe should set up payment systems independent of the US if it wants to save the JCPOA. What do you think about the EU’s role in reducing Washington’s pressures against Tehran and saving the deal?

Glenn: As I have stated on many occasions, my position as regards the JCPOA is identical to that of His Excellency Ayatollah Khamenei when this ‘agreement’ was first proposed, which was that it was/is an inherently dangerous move whose intended end result was the subjugation of Iran’s rights as a sovereign nation and the entryway of Western/Zionist toxic influence over Iran’s political, cultural, military and economic independence in return for the ‘freedom’ of doing business with the West. The entire charade was for all intents and purposes a modern-day replay of the age-old tale by the Latin poet Virgil featuring the Greeks offering the Trojans a ‘gift’ in the form of a large wooden horse, within which were secreted Greek soldiers whose job was--upon the horse being brought within the protected walls of the city, to wait until nightfall, crawl out of the horse, open the gates to the invading Greek army.

Having said that, I personally welcome Trump’s pulling out of the JCPOA and the fact that this large wooden horse has been destroyed, at least as far as any American involvement with it is concerned.

Now does this mean that Trump will renegotiate a ‘better deal’ with Iran as he has promised? Possibly, and although I certainly understand and sympathize with Iran’s leadership in not trusting America in any such future ‘deal’, at the same time I think that given the very turbulent political weather that presently exists that it is in Iran’s interests to talk with Trump, even if it is through back channels and away from public view, as Iran’s recalcitrance in refusing to talk with Trump is exactly the kind of background scenery that Israel WILL utilize in writing a believable script in the aftermath of something blowing up that ‘Iran did it’ and which will be swallowed whole-hog by a mentally incapacitated American public that has already been taught to hate Iran and to see this magnificent country as the world’s largest ‘exporter of terrorism’.

Trump’s Iraq: Why the President Wants War with Iran

Trump’s Twitter tirade is dolled up interventionism, as his words scontinue to spark further tensions between the United States and Iran.

By Spencer Kellogg 

“I open up my wallet and it’s full of blood.” – Godspeed You! Black Emperor

On Sunday morning, following a speech by Iranian President Rouhani that threatened the United States with ‘the mother of all wars,” President Trump rattled off an incendiary verbal warning against the Iranian State via Twitter. In a message that was written in all caps for the world to see, the President demanded that Iran “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.”

This gaudy show of juvenile bullymanship is only the latest in a string of petty and dogged counter-intellectualism that has come to characterize a President who practically embodies “If it bleeds, it leads.” On the topic of American interventionism and a global democracy, Trump’s watery stance has seen him use Bush’s failure in Iraq as a campaign placard while also quietly stroking the dogs of war in response to Iraq’s wealthy and theocratic neighbors to the East. Trump’s blatant messages of unabashed aggression are similar in tone to those of every American President’s position (outside of Obama) when addressing Iran since the fall of the Shah. It brings a consistent and malignantly manufactured campaign of fear and mistrust with Iran that is striking in its uniformity of allegiance from both political ruling classes over the past century.

Americans were quick to lambast and mock the President by editing the tweet to include lyrics to their favorite pop songs. The flippant response from users is telling in its suggestion of two disconcerting truths: first, that the American people don’t take a word Mr. Trump has to say seriously, and more importantly, that they don’t believe they have a real and honest voice in the endless, bloody, transnational pursuit for ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ that has symbolized and consistently dotted American foreign policy throughout their lifetimes. The sad poetry of the anti-imperialistic American politico is written in the meme markets of absurdity and anger.

Of course, much of the discussion regarding Iran is actually, at its core, an uninterrupted debate about Israel. Though we boast about a ‘special relationship’ with The United Kingdom, it is our ‘open secret relationship’with Israel that has informed so many missteps in the region. Relations between The United States and Israel have only strengthened under Trump’s presidency as he moved the American embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Many see this action as a symbolic gesture of the unyielding political, ideological and military support for the Zionist state that has often sparred with Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was said to be pleased with the tweet and called the President’s stance on the ongoing geopolitical unrest “strong.” As long as The United States has a financial and military obligation to Israel, these sorts of complex foreign entanglements will never cease. The complexities of the Iran-Israel relations in no way, shape, or form have any resonance with the fundamental ideas of an American republic and the simple aspirations of common Americans for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In their beds at night and in the fields of Idaho where wheat grows, Americans do not worry about Israel, Iran, or whichever cold war proxy that is drummed up next on the list. These decent people know inherently that it is the elite showmen of the political and media class that demand we place our foreign policy of death and imperialism before the domestic interests of food and family. They know it is rarely the neocolonialist class that is called upon to suffer the toils. It won’t be the President or Congressman’s children who end up dead on the battlefields across the sea.

The major tension between The United States and Iran dates back to the 1950’s when democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized all oil industries of Iran. Mossadegh advocated for secular democracy, demanded sovereignty from the British empire and was a champion of his people. It was the CIA, an unelected body, that overthrew the democracy of Iran in 1953 for their own slighted interests. They installed Reza Pahlavi as Shah against the wishes of the free people of Iran. And the American taxpayer, under the guise of democracy, funded the tyranny of Iran for oil resources through 1979 and the fall of the Shah.

With the triumphs of WWI and WWII at our backs, The New American Empire had taken its unrightful and post-philosophical seat as the ultimate arbitrator of good and peace throughout the free world. The ingrained policy of overextended foreign interventionism has yet to change much in the decades that have followed. Whether Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, or Palestine. “If it bleeds, it leads.”

The list goes on and the names begin to blur. The list grows, the enemies broaden and the financiers get richer. The pitiful truth of our misadventures in the post-classic wars is that they have never been about the intellectual triumphs of our miraculously free society or the merits of our material and philosophical splendor. They have gone against every bold aspiration of peace that lays face up for all to see in our first and bravest documents.

So let us be clear: the good people of the United States have no interest in war with Iran. That 60% of ‘independents’ who have given up on the political process are so disenfranchised by the ballot and the screen that they have given up on an idea without wartime. The American public has no interest in war with Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan, or Russia, or Iraq. We want to be done with all of them. When the American people see Donald Trump tweeting about Iran, they wonder what stake any of us have in the businesses of people more than 8,000 miles from our shores?

They can’t remember Iran ever attacking an American city (because they haven’t.) They couldn’t name Rouhani if you offered them up a million dollars. When has it ever been our duty to be so pathologically involved and mindlessly uninformed as we are in 2018? Is this about nuclear weapons? If it is, how can we be in any position to lecture? Americans see through the blatant hypocrisy of our demands for a neutered Iranian nuclear program when our country currently holds almost half of the nuclear weaponry in existence. Whether Americans are left or right, they all want a few simple things. They want their family, their food, their property and to be left alone.

This brand of conservative isolationism is not rooted in ‘false comfort’ as George Bush warned during his 2006 State of the Union Address. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted during the Second Iraq War, 42 percent of Americans agreed that the U.S. “should mind its own business internationally.” Furthermore, the study found that a staggering 84 percent of Americans preferred “protecting jobs of American workers” to only 24 percent who supported “promoting democracy in other nations.” It wasn’t that George Washington and the founders of our country were cold to the world. It was simply that they understood that bringing justice and peace outside our borders was a fool’s errand with a bottomless pit of unsolvable morality. Washington realized what the scale and scope of global policing meant in its over-extension of resources and personnel.

In his Farewell Speech to the country, President Washington warned of foreign entanglements. Madison, an ideological minarchist, was noted for his belief that the country should possess no standing army unless attacked. When Bush led the makeup war for his father’s disastrous missteps, the President called in over 400,000 reserve troops to fight and die on warm Arabian sands in the name of peace and freedom. Today, the utter size of the United States military is such that there is no going back. The brokers and dealers of blood and tyranny are too entrenched. There will be forever an enemy and Iran is just the latest in a string of foregone conclusions.

The president’s call to action, his drab demand, and fettered foolishness are not representative of Americans I know. They have always wanted, above all, peace. Harmonic, egalitarian, tolerant, loving, peaceful, they seek meaning in their lives. The great lie about contemporary America is this: for all of our terrible, marauding, unjust, vicious, serpentine, blood wars, it is not the people of this country who organize and instruct the death machine. It is not the people who cheer for the denigration of ancient art and the dehumanization of civilized peoples behind the callous drumbeat of ”freedom.’ Wars and more wars. Death and taxes. The ghoulish carousel of private interests and public lies that the American public is made to shoulder. New enemies and faces that never end. Don’t blink, you might miss the next war.