Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs Arming the Kurds to Fight Iran Is Madness It will achieve nothing but instability and carnage. The Trump administration may have planned a rapid fall of the Iranian regime after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a quick victory that would force Iran to agree to its terms. They may have planned for a precision victory that would be quick and not spread across the region, like the mission in Venezuela. But it seems not to have happened. Iran is losing the war, but the regime has not collapsed, the people have not risen up, Tehran is not yielding to U.S. demands, and there is a great danger of the war spreading and destabilizing, not only the region, but beyond. Washington faces the possibility of leaving a devastated Iran with its regime still in place to rebuild its civilian nuclear program, its missile program, and its ties with its regional proxies, potentially leading to another war in a few years. Searching for a plan B among a whirlwind of changing justifications and goals for the war, the Trump administration is considering one that would risk a war that would last longer and spread wider. There are multiple reports that the U.S. is considering arming Iranian Kurdish opposition forces in Iraq in support of an invasion into Iran. The Kurds make up a large ethnic minority in both Iran and Iraq. Their ancestral land covers parts of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. There are thousands of Kurdish soldiers inside Iraq along the Iraq–Iran border, primarily in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.   The Trump administration has reportedly been “in active discussions with Iranian opposition groups and Kurdish leaders in Iraq about providing them with military support.” On March 1, President Donald Trump spoke with Kurdish leaders in Iraq and asked them “to enable Iranian Kurdish fighters based in Iraq to move into Iran.” One Kurdish party he spoke to says “Trump was clear in his call. He told us the Kurds must choose a side in this battle—either with America and Israel or with Iran.” Though the call reportedly went well, the Kurdish leaders “expressed reservations about getting involved in any ground invasion into Iran.” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned of “terrorist movements” at the border with Iraq, and hundreds of Kurdish fighters have crossed from Iraq into Iran in preparation for a possible attack. Part of the bombing of Iran has focused on targets in western Iran and Kurdistan Province. Kurdish leaders say the bombing is meant to facilitate an infiltration from Iraq. The strikes have hit Revolutionary Guard facilities, police stations, and border guard posts. According to video analysis by the New York Times, “the strikes have been concentrated on locations near highways that run from the Iraq-Iran border into Iran.” The CIA began work to arm Kurdish forces several months before the war. They have provided “small arms to the Iranian Kurdish forces as part of a covert program to destabilize Iran.”  The strategy is meant to provide a menu of outcomes. Kurdish forces could be used to increase pressure on regime change or to encourage an uprising in Iran. According to one U.S. official, the goal would be to “take over a specific territory in the Kurdish region inside Iran in order to challenge the regime and inspire a broader uprising.” An incursion from Iraq could also force Iranian forces to respond, drawing them out into the open where they could become targets for fighter jets. Others suggest that the idea would be for Kurdish armed forces to occupy Iran’s security forces, helping Iranians to take to the streets without getting massacred. An invasion from Iraq and a Kurdish uprising could also create instability and a security crisis. The status of the plan remains unclear. The New York Times reports that American officials are still “debating the utility of a Kurdish invasion” and that “the White House had not yet decided whether to send the Kurds into Iran.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denies it, insisting that, though “Trump has spoken with Kurdish leaders,” he “has not agreed to any plan to arm them to overthrow the Iranian government.” A senior Iranian Kurdish official told CNN that “Iranian Kurdish opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in Western Iran, in the coming days.” Axios reports that Kurdish, American, and Israeli officials told them that “several Kurdish Iranian factions are preparing for a possible ground offensive against Iran’s regime in the northwestern part of the country.” Government officials in Iraq tell a different story. Kurdish regional government officials deny involvement in plans to send armed fighters into Iran. Nechirvan Barzani, president of the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region, said it “must not become part of any conflict or military escalation that harms the lives and security of our fellow citizens.” According to Iraq’s national security adviser, Qasim al-Araji, Iraq will not permit Kurdish groups “to infiltrate or cross the Iranian border to carry out terrorist acts from Iraqi territory” and says that the “Kurdistan Region’s Interior Ministry has sent Peshmerga security reinforcements to the border strip with Iran” to prevent it. Iraq’s Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has also said that “the Iraqi government will under no circumstances allow any threat to be directed at Iran from Iraqi territory.” The New York Times reports that officials in Iraqi Kurdistan “seem to have complied” with an Iraqi government order “not to allow Iranian Kurdish militants to cross the border.” One of the Kurdish leaders who spoke to Trump, Bafel Talabani, also received a call from Araghchi. On that call, Talabani “emphasized the importance of finding peaceful solutions to the issues.” If the plan proceeds, the result could be catastrophic. A ground invasion from Iraq could prolong the war and increase the number of deaths. It could also make the war harder to contain and spread it to other regions. It could potentially draw in, not only Iraq, but Syria and Turkey. Turkey could also be problematic because, as Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and Program Director for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco told The American Conservative, since Turkey and Iran work together “in their suppression of Kurdish fighters in their two countries, the U.S. would essentially be undermining a NATO ally.” So the plan could create division and strife in NATO. Since the Persian majority in Iran “would not welcome a Kurdish incursion,” the strategy could lead to ethnic strife and civil war in which different ethnic and other groups are pitted against each other in a fragmented and weakened Iran. Granted, this may well be part of the American intention. Zunes says that supporting the Kurds may be one way of America achieving its goal of turning Iran into a failed state. It could also hurt the Kurds. Trump is not arming the Kurds to support them in their quest for a homeland. Consistent with a long pattern of history in American-Kurdish relations in which the Kurds are used as an instrument and then abandoned, including by Trump, the danger is not only that Kurds would get killed in the fighting, but that they would, once again, be abandoned—leading, as Zunes says, “only to more suffering.” Though ethnic strife could serve American goals, the Kurdish plan could subvert them by also working the opposite way. The Iran expert Trita Parsi says that “Tehran believes a land invasion will help unify the population against invaders and separatists.” The war against Iran has already destroyed Iran, destroyed international law and killed too many people. Arming a Kurdish incursion from Iraq would not likely change the outcome of the war. It is a mad idea that mocks history and risks bringing Iraq and other countries into the war, while further destabilizing the region and Iran. The post Arming the Kurds to Fight Iran Is Madness appeared first on The American Conservative.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Politics So Much for the Anti-War Left! How AOC shows why the future of the antiwar movement must be on the right. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), America’s foremost socialist, raised eyebrows during her recent appearance at the Munich Security Conference with surprisingly hawkish, internationalist statements. The antiwar left heavily criticized AOC for her speech, viewing it as an endorsement of the foreign policy of the Democratic establishment. “AOC sounds almost identical to Hillary Clinton or Madeleine Albright in her defense of NATO, except less articulate and confident,” the journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted, expressing the position of many people on the subject.  On one panel, AOC criticized the Trump administration for not being sufficiently active on the world stage. She charged, They are looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world so that we can turn into an age of authoritarianisms… where Donald Trump can command the Western Hemisphere and Latin America as his personal sandbox, where Putin can saber-rattle across Europe and try to bully our allies there, and where authoritarians essentially control their own geographic domains. Of course, there are factual issues with this analysis: Despite the dovish platform that carried Trump back to the White House, the United States has become more aggressive abroad, continuing to provide escalatory assistance to Ukraine in its war with Russia and striking Iran last June (and now, of course, launching a war against Iran last weekend). Notwithstanding this, AOC seems to think that the antidote to America’s ailments is but more foreign entanglements in the service of combating “authoritarianism” and in the name of a “class-based internationalist perspective” (a term she used in a subsequent appearance in Berlin). While AOC’s support for foreign policy internationalism may be disappointing to our friends on the antiwar left, she is in many ways just following in the footsteps of earlier progressives. While the American republic was founded, nurtured, and thrived under the principles of geopolitical nonintervention, it was America’s progressives who abandoned this principle and went abroad to search for monsters to destroy. The first of these progressive interventions took place against Spain in 1898. William McKinley, remembering the brutality of the Civil War, favored a peaceful resolution to the Cuba crisis. Following the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor by an internal explosion, the progressives got their war. Progressives sold the war to Americans as an ideological crusade against reactionary Spain, and in a pattern that would be repeated by progressives to the present, portrayed it as a war to liberate various peoples in the name of “democracy.” A decade and a half later, the American people wanted no part of World War I, but a combination of America’s then-Anglophile elite, American business interests tied to the Entente, and pro-British propaganda, aided by the German blunders of unrestricted submarine warfare (although itself no more a violation of neutral rights than Britain’s blockade), and the intercepted Zimmermann telegram in which Germany’s government proposed military ties with Mexico led the United States into the world’s most destructive conflict to date. Once at war, progressives, from Woodrow Wilson on down, rhetorically turned the war into a crusade to “make the world safe for democracy” (never mind that Germany and Austria had extended the suffrage wider than even Britain), and Wilson promoted his “League of Nations” as a utopian solution to Europe’s problems. “Regime change” in Berlin made things worse; toppling a stable constitutional monarchy led ultimately to the anarchy of Weimar and the totalitarianism of the Nazis.  Witnessing its bitter fruits in the trenches of the Western Front, Americans turned away from progressivism. They realized that they had been duped into fighting a war on England’s behalf and noninterventionist Republicans were swept into power in electoral landslides in 1920, 1924, and 1928. By the time that Democrats retook the Oval Office in 1932, they too had rhetorically embraced noninterventionism. However, during the Second World War, progressives again worked to involve America in a European war. U.S. opposition to the conflict was fierce (most notably from the bipartisan America First Committee), forcing the Anglophile administration of Franklin Roosevelt to lie when he ran for re-election in 1940 and claimed to keep American troops out of foreign wars. While Roosevelt attempted to enter the war through things such as aid to Britain and France or escorting allied shipping with “Neutrality Patrols” (named with an Orwellian flair), it was Roosevelt’s oil blockade on Japan (and Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor) that would ultimately enable him to bring about his desired outcome. Once at war, Roosevelt foreclosed the possibility of a negotiated peace (the only way to have alleviated the suffering of peoples under German and Japanese occupation sooner) through his demands of “unconditional surrender.” While justly decrying the totalitarianism of the axis powers, Roosevelt aided Stalin’s Soviet Union, oftentimes at the expense of American interests, and gave half of Europe to Stalin at Yalta. Rather than benefiting the U.S. or American ideals, it only aided the totalitarian systems that Americans opposed. As TAC’s co-founder, Patrick J. Buchanan, wrote: In 1917 Wilson had gone to war to make the world safe for democracy, and had made the world safe for Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler. In 1941 Roosevelt had gone to war to make Europe and Asia safe for democracy, and had made Europe safe for Stalinism and Asia safe for Maoism. Harry S. Truman deepened U.S. involvement in the affairs of Europe. While many Americans viewed the best counter to communism as allowing Europe to rebuild and rearm, so as it could defend itself, (with even Robert Taft backing the Marshall Plan for this reason), Truman created NATO instead, which though intended to be temporary, has transformed into a permanent vehicle involving America in the petty grievances of the European continent. While FDR could at least have been credited for going to Congress to get approval for Lend-Lease, his successor, Harry S. Truman did no such thing in Korea, claiming that American involvement there was merely a “police action.” The progressive streak of military adventurism was reprised in the Vietnam War. Embodying the managerial spirit of American progressivism at the time, Lyndon Johnson believed that our government could transform Vietnam through a technocratic approach to war, just as he was attempting to transform America. The cost of this folly was 58,000 American lives and a significant blow to American prestige. The backlash against the Vietnam War caused many of the more hawkish of the Great Society liberals to move towards the right, and by the 1980s, this group had entered the GOP, where they began to purge non-interventionist Republicans. By the time of the second Bush administration, these Wilsonian “neoconservatives” were the dominant force in Republican foreign policy.  These neocons used 9/11 as an excuse to attempt wars of nation-building during the Global War on Terror. With these wars came massive growth in the security state and the creation of new programs of government surveillance that would have shocked earlier generations of Americans. During the Obama years, these policies were continued, as was the commitment to regime change. Obama’s administration played a major role in the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy, terrorism, and slavery, and in the Syrian Civil War, where the Obama administration made common cause with Al Qaeda terrorists against Syria’s secular Assad government. Seen in this light, AOC’s Munich appearance, rather than representing a breach with the antiwar left, in many ways represents a continuation of over a century-and-a-quarter of American progressive hawkishness. But why do leftists (including former leftists like the neocons) trend towards supporting wars abroad? While conservatives, since Louis de Bonald, have recognized that “all politics is local” (and only religion is universal), leftism blurs these lines, universalizing politics, and viewing political goods and rights as applying to humanity as a whole, rather than within specific contexts.  An example of this can be seen in the difference between the American and French Revolutions. While the Jacobins (as leftists) saw themselves as fighting primarily for universal “Rights of Man” and were in open hostility to their inherited traditions, America’s patriots saw themselves as going to war to defend and conserve their inherited rights as Englishmen. Indeed, Americans traditionally saw that intervention abroad poses a threat to our patrimony and way of life. George Washington understood this, warning Americans to avoid “permanent alliances,” as they would “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.” John Quincy Adams admonished Americans against going abroad “in search of monsters to destroy,” as it would doom our free government and render America “the dictatress of the world” rather than “the ruler of her own spirit.” The later writers of America’s “Old Right,” such as Garet Garrett and Albert J. Nock made similar arguments against foreign entanglements and in defense of American identity. Thus, conservatism is complementary to noninterventionism in a way that leftism is not. While our friends on the antiwar left may be earnest and good allies, ultimately these reasons point to the future of the antiwar movement being on the right. Relatedly, if American conservatism fails to be noninterventionist and antiwar, it ceases to be conservative. This has happened before. During the George W. Bush years, the right’s foreign adventurism led to the abandonment of fiscal conservatism (with massive increases in federal spending), while the incorporation of neoconservatives into the Republican Party empowered a new conservative elite less committed to social conservatism. This may very well happen again.  It is accordingly in the interests of both American conservatives and the antiwar movement to work together to create a strongly noninterventionist conservative faction. This is entirely doable—indeed it has been done before—and presents the best chance of both conserving the American tradition and keeping the United States out of destructive wars. The post So Much for the Anti-War Left! appeared first on The American Conservative.