Another way America can preserve its influence
The President of the United States Donald trump signed the bill on new sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea. In Congress for a new law voted with such an overwhelming majority that the powers of the President trump to impose on him his veto was reduced to a complete zero.
Even antiinterventionist minded member of the house of representatives from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard Tulsi voted “for”, proving once again that Republicans and Democrats always find a common language when it comes to beating the drums of war against sovereign States that took the slightest unreasonable actions — if they even took any action against the United States.
But it’s just about sanctions, not military action, not acts of war, right? In fact there is nothing wrong with cost-to scare other countries and force them to surrender again to uphold global order, right?
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Few know it, but the Japanese attack on pearl Harbor in 1941 was a response to America’s attempts to crush undergoing a boom in Japan’s economy using a set of multiple types of embargo and asset freeze. Trade relations with Japan were terminated, and such desperation provoked the attack.
And in August 1990, the U.S. imposed sanctions regime against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. In 1990 the U.S. invaded Iraq, killing a large number voennosluzhaschih the Iraqi armed forces and largely destroyed the civilian infrastructure of the country. After the destruction of the United States expanded and deepened previously existing sanctions as further punishment of Iraq. According to the UN, these sanctions led to the deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis from among civilians, including 500,000 to 600,000 children.
When Secretary of state in the Clinton administration Madeleine Albrightsville about the statistics, she said frankly that the price “was worth it.”
These sanctions were stopped only after the second US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the international sanctions were fully lifted only in December 2010.
Libya also had to experience the America imposed sanctions beginning in 1990. And we all know how that ended.
In may 2004 the US imposed economic sanctions against Syria — officially for support by Syria of terrorism, and for its “failure to stop the introduction of fighters into Iraq” — a country that the United States themselves and destabilized. In reality, these sanctions were a response to Syria and Iran over the development of bilateral relations to the extent that these countries, as reported in the same year, agreed to sign a joint defense Treaty.
Syria have become the target of operations for regime change back in 2006, the US openly bombed the territory of this country and Barack Obama, and Donald trump. Just last year, the United States repeatedly bombed by the government forces of Syria. If not for the intervention of Russia, USA, most likely, would be overthrown the Syrian government by force before the power came trump.
Iran has for many years struggling with sanctions. Anti-Iranian sanctions regime serves as a smokescreen in the same way as the same routine before — in Libya, Syria and Iraq.
In the case of Iran, the underlying motivations are quite clear — a set of renewed sanctions aimed at undermining the nuclear agreement, 2015, the so-called Joint comprehensive plan of action (SVPD). Although the administration of the trump, we know exactly what Iran was fully committed to SVPD, the trump as its own official political line adopted a targeted disruption of this agreement.
Why would he want it?
In his book “What is the path to Persia? The options for a new American strategy toward Iran,” explains one former CIA analysts, who advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003, “those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (by the US or Israel), there is a strong argument in favor of the first to take advantage of this option. Incitement to regime change in Iran will be very backed up if the Iranian people to convince that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do useful things for people, but instead grabs a policy that can only destroy the country. The ideal scenario would be one in which the US and the international community would set a positive enticing incentives, which tempted the Iranian citizens and were supported by them — only to the mode of this set of incentives was rejected. In a similar vein, any military action against Iran would be very unpopular around the world and will need the proper international context — both for logistics support of this operation, and to minimize the impact. The best way to minimize international confusion and maximize support (even miserly or covert) is to strike only when it is to be a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given an excellent proposal that was rejected. Must be convinced that the proposal is so good that only a regime, set a goal to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire it for a wrong purpose, could reject this proposal.”
This example brilliantly demonstrates why the hawks in the team’s trump entirely opposed to trump unilaterally buried SVPD. These officials don’t want the U.S. blamed for the destruction of the nuclear deal with Iran because it will create new tensions in the international community and directly will hit the U.S. dollar.
Thus, if the U.S. government will continue to wage against Iran’s subversive activities, applying sanctions against very powerful in Iran the Islamic revolutionary guard Corps (IRGC)), the United States may be able to do so, that Iran will release itself from the nuclear agreement. In such a scenario, the U.S. will get a result that they have long desired.
North Korea for many years, suffering from sanctions organized by the United States. And all these years the American bombers violated the airspace of this country, provoking the DPRK to respond to it militarily.
The main question now is — who will trump America on the warpath against Iran, or against North Korea?
According to some sources), trump creates the conditions for confrontation with Iran in October. He chose a new strategy of demonization of Iran, if sanctions will not lead to war in a way that is preferable for trump, and before the expiration of the 90-day period certification of compliance with Iran. This strategy suggests that trump will instruct his team to form on-site inspections to verify Iran’s nuclear facilities in hopes of finding evidence of noncompliance by Iran AGREEMENT.
Meanwhile, America will continue its unilateral policy of intimidation to her contumacious States, more remaining isolated from its traditional allies. Germany, for example, without the approval looks at sanctions against Russia, because they infringe its own national interests.
Don’t be surprised by the fact that the sanctions imposed by the United States, pushing the country unhappy with the current situation in each other’s arms. So, in early August, Iran and Russia signed a deal for two and a half billion dollars. For them it is good business as usual, but, thus, they show Donald Trump’s middle finger.
If the U.S. continues the tactics of stifling the global financial markets as a tool to weaken other countries, then these countries, too, will have no choice but to abandon the dollar and switch to alternative currency, with which they will conduct their transactions. Not surprisingly, Russia had already said it.
And make no mistake — the United States are at a crossroads from which a road takes you to the paragraph that says “the status of a dying global superpower.” In order to stay afloat, it can take only one real option — to continue on the warpath, which she to herself has chosen, and to work towards a confrontation with the countries wishing to ascend in the international order that will arise after the withdrawal from the pedestal of the United States.
The newly established sanctions regime is only a start. Ahead — a long road. In the end, cooler heads may prevail, as is already clear, what will be the impact of these sanctions.
The American public all these wars it is almost impossible to sell. But the international community already sees evidence that the US has acted hastily and recklessly, against the interests of the rest of the world. However, if the US can provoke Iran or North Korea for something unfortunate, Washington, in the end, will justify themselves by saying that it was the war in which he desperately needed.
And when that happens, can happen anything.