Image by Irham Setyaki.
The portly man at the next table finished his breakfast, leaned in my direction, and asked: ”What’s in the news that’s so interesting?” “Iran,” I said, adding that the U.S. seemed about to attack it. “Over in a day,” he said, snapping fingers for emphasis. Having spent two years at Beirut’s Daily Star when Iraqis dragged the pro-West prime minister’s body through Bagdad’s streets to celebrate the monarchy’s overthrow, I know the Mideast’s ferocity against Western domination for exploitation.
A war with Iran would never be over in a day—a month, or year anymore than it was in Vietnam. It took more than eight years for American revolutionaries—aided by the French— to end British rule.
The next day it was my favorite bus driver. He reminded me that the Crusaders were Europeans who did pretty well in 500 years (1095-1571) of saving the Holy Lands for Christianity. They were finally vastly outnumbered and ousted by global Muslim fecundity and fanaticism threatening to conquer Europe itself.
So when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to outgoing oil ships, somehow Trump’s war planners once again seemed to overlook the ancient contempt by Westerners for foreign militants as factors in wars. They soon learned that aroused “inferiors” made wars endless and monumentally expensive in lives and treasure for arrogant “superiors.”
The current Pentagon strategists certainly overlooked Hormuz initially as being crucially important choke-point for Iran’s global oil and gas trade. Those West Point and Annapolis-trained alumni apparently never bothered to study the yearlong battle on Gallipoli peninsula over the well-armed Dardanelles channel blocking allies (Britain, France, India, New Zealand, and Australia) from occupying Istanbul in the 1915-16 Crimean War. Its eerie similarity to Hormuz is its years of well-guarded defenses, mountainous terrain, and a warlike population.
Commonwealth casualties at Gallipoli numbered 213,980, an eye-popping figure for any Trump military expert for seizing Hormuz—unless the idea is to ensure it remains closed to keep oil’s scarcity reaps extraordinarily high profits. That tactic would benefit his oil donors and save American troop’s lives. Too, many polls these days before the mid-term election show how unpopular his unitary war is. One of the latest, Reuters/Ipsos poll , “found that just 7% of US voters support the idea of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran—but 65% of Americans believe that Trump will order such an operation anyway.” Such is his grandiosity. Some 79 percent of his MAGA voters want to end the war even before boots get laced up to march into Iran.
And key officials are starting to abandon his ship, such as a top right-wing intelligence official whose resignation letter said he couldn’t support Trump’s war on Iran: “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
That Trump also is using U.S. troops without Congressional approval required by the Constitution he swore to uphold. He aims to pacify and rule Venezuela , Ecuador on so-called drug-cartel raids, and Cuba indicates a power-mad psychopath ignorant of our failed history south of the border. Only a few days ago he was gloating about U.S. policy to economically strangle Cuba: “…whether I free it, take it—I think I can do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth….I’ll be having the honor of taking Cuba.”
As Shakespeare wrote about the tyrant Julius Caesar before the Roman Senate publically assassinated him: “he doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus.”
But now known as a paper tiger—and bully—who changes his stripes when endangered, Trump seems to be frantically seeking a quick exit strategy from his “war of choice.” His aides have to be equally frantic to save his face and quickly end the war without blood on the ground. Common Dreams coauthors Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares helpfully theorized: “only if global revulsion at U.S. and Israeli aggression force these countries to stop.”
When he looked for support from George Bush’s “coalition of the willing” in the Iraq war, he quickly found payback for failure to inform NATO nations—or almost anyone—about privately declaring war on Iran.
Spain was the first, refusing to permit its bases used as U.S. refueling depots. Next, it was Germany refusing help to open Hormuz and participate in “Trump’s war” because it wasn’t defensive, as NATO’s charter stipulates. It favored a diplomatic solution. Britain initially refused its bases, and its minesweepers needed approval to open Hormuz. France’s foreign ministry agreed with Britain’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer who said his country “will not be drawn into the wider war [with Iran].” Both nations’ leadership probably remember Gallipoli’s casualties.
Trump exploded in an “after-all-I’ve-done-for-you-ingrates” rant. Though he needed their military and political support, he raged about U.S. financial contribution and political support to NATO with its “shocking” lack of reciprocity. As he whined in his social media column:
“I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need…, Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”
The EU (European Union) foreign ministers responded immediately with a firm “no” to Trump’s demands for military support (“This is not our war”), tartly reminding him NATO was a defensive, not offensive, organization. As an economic power, the EU was working on opening Hormuz only, not joining Trump’s so-called “limited” war. As for mutual action over the waterway, the EU would not submit to U.S. leadership. Moreover, because their primary cause is helping Ukraine, the U.S. had to reapply hard sanctions on Russia, not permit it to make 6 billion euros off global oil sales.
Coauthors Sachs and Fares see perhaps the only peace plan the U.S. and Israel will be forced to sign and apply is when “the weight of global opposition and economic catastrophe leaves them no choice but to accept it.” It has to come from an outside, rising powerhouse other than the United Nations, in their estimation: the BRICS coalition. As they explained a few days ago:
“Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and the bloc’s expanded membership, which now includes the UAE, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Indonesia, represent approximately half of the world’s population and more than 40 percent of global GDP (compared to 28 percent for the vaunted but overblown G7 countries). The BRICS have the credibility, the economic weight, and the absence of the historical complicity in Middle East imperialism to bring the world to its senses. The BRICS should convene an emergency summit and present a unified framework incorporating the conditions for peace and security, which in turn would be pressed at the UN Security Council. There, world opinion would tell the US and Israel to stop pushing the world towards catastrophe, and would remind all countries to adhere to the UN Charter.”
It may be the best face-saving off-ramp available to Trump for reversing course and saving our blood and treasure before the mid-term elections.’
The post An Off-Ramp for Trump to Reverse the Iran Disaster appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Barbara G. Ellis.