Piece 27; The Specter of War with Iran A Cabinet of the Hard Line By. Raimondo Graziano

The Specter of War with Iran

A Cabinet of the Hard Line

By. Raimondo Graziano

Written in the period just before the inauguration of the 45th President, and directly after. 

The incoming administration and the muddled, albeit highly experienced in their respective fields (save for Doctor Ben Carson, who has no experience in Public Housing policy except for living in the confines of public housing), candidates chosen to head their respective departments are set to bring experience, gumption and hardline stances towards nations who very well may prove to be formidable matches in war against the United States, whether initiated by these nations or our own Commander in Chief and the subordinates beneath him. Most unsettling of all is perhaps Iran, the specter of conflict with the emergent Middle Eastern power grows each day we approach the inauguration of the 45th President. And don’t be conned into thinking this sort of talk is fear mongering. This is not fear mongering. The slow tiptoe to war and conflict can be evidenced by the words and actions of those whom the President-Elect is surrounding himself with. These men, and these few women, have the ears of a man with no government experience who will look to them for much guidance whenever it is that his self-professed great intelligence and know-how is unequipped for the realities of the global community.

The introduction to this piece was written days before the inauguration of President Trump, and upon viewing both the information coming out of the White House and the contradictory statements of administration officials and the views of the man seated in the Oval Office are disconcerting. Much of the President-Elect’s cabinet choices reflect a growing hard line stance in the executive branch. The President has chosen to put Iran ‘on notice’ due to their bellicose reactions and tests of the current President. The choice of the President to directly threaten Iran comes after their ballistic missile test, which many say violates the Iran Deal orchestrated under the Obama Administration. The Iranian regime of course denies it does. Lest we forget the provocations from Iran in the Gulf in the later months of last year, as well as parades espousing the view of ‘Death to America,’ the ayatollahs statements regarding the President; that he has ‘helped to show the world the true colors of the United States,’ all this points to more flare ups between the United States and Iran. Notably, the President’s recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel leads observers to note the growing reactionary response to both the peace process in the Middle East, and Iran, an obviously important regional player. The Prime Minister and the President reaffirmed Israel’s stance that ‘Iran will not gain the bomb’, though the hope of the nuclear deal was to mitigate this issue through diplomacy, instead of through military action, which the Prime Minister seems bent on acting on. Israel has affirmed that it would not shy from acting unilaterally if pressed to, though the current administration not only seems to wish to repair strained relations that unfolded throughout the former administration, but also to strengthen them and test the tenuous nature of the American-Israeli-Palestinian relations. The President has expressed he does not support a two-state solution, which is seen by scholars, diplomats and many Western democracies as the only assured way to ensure an equitable, lasting peace. However, his ambassador to the United Nations, expresses the opposite.

The President also does not shy away from diplomatic controversies, as he has made it clear he wishes to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem, a move which would increase tensions between Jewish and Arab communities. In times when understanding and compromise are the remedy for the ailments that afflict the globe, the President of the United States, the bastion and hope for peoples and democracies world over has chosen to exacerbate tensions overseas. On the home front, he does no better. His continued alienation of Muslim Americans, and the fueling of tensions through subversion, deception, executive order, and silence on the growing number of hate crimes against Muslim Americans, as well as his silence on a terrorist attack at Mosque in Canada, yet his attention and care towards attacks elsewhere towards Westerners shows both his indifference to their issues and his carefully constructed choice to omit, exemplifies his guise as a statesmen, a false representative of the people of this country, and of those who wish to live their lives free of war and oppression. The Administration is also peddling the falsehood that the media is refusing to cover terrorist’s attacks in many European nations and in the United States, Notably, Kellyanne Conway, Chief Consul, repeatedly referenced the Bowling Green Massacre, an attack which never occurred. Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary and acting Communications Director also referenced an attack in Atlanta, which never occurred, three times consistently. Conway and Spicer later walked back their comments, tossing it up to ‘honest mistakes’. This is the permeation of lies from the campaign and from the mouth of candidate Trump, to the halls of the White House. Promoting a culture of lies, misinformation, alternative facts, division and

On a parting note, it is important to recognize the power and influence that Steve Bannon now wields in the West Wing. He is the White House Chief Strategist, and has a coveted seat on the National Security Council. His worldview is evidenced by books, columns written, documentary films produced, and statements made. This man believes that the West is engaged in a war with Islam, that threatens the very foundations of our society. More so, he believes that conflict and hot-war is coming, fast approaching. He has the President’s ear, and with a man who has been cavalier about the use of force conventional and unconventional, advocated for seizing oil fields, boasted of his love of war, and his hard stance he takes towards friend and foe alike on the international stage are all indicative of a growing trend towards volatility and division already evidenced in his first month in office. The question only remains when, not if, will this President push either the constraints of powers too far, or that of an adversary who is willing to call him on his bluff. His own reckless ignorance towards the weight of his office will surely lead to conflict, though we can hope and encourage those in government to continue to leak and keep the public informed of the chaos that has become the Trumpian White House.




Leave a Reply