Pat Buchanan Asks "Is Trump Assembling A War Cabinet?"

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via,

The last man standing between the U.S. and war with Iran may be a four-star general affectionately known to his Marines as “Mad Dog.”

Gen. James Mattis, the secretary of defense, appears to be the last man in the Situation Room who believes the Iran nuclear deal may be worth preserving and that war with Iran is a dreadful idea.

Yet, other than Mattis, President Donald Trump seems to be creating a war cabinet.

Trump himself has pledged to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal — “the worst deal ever” — and reimpose sanctions in May.

His new national security adviser John Bolton, who wrote an op-ed titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” has called for preemptive strikes and “regime change.”

Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo calls Iran “a thuggish police state,” a “despotic theocracy,” and “the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East.”

Trump’s favorite Arab ruler, 32-year-old Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, calls Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei “the Hitler of the Middle East.”

Bibi Netanyahu is monomaniacal on Iran, calling the nuclear deal a threat to Israel’s survival and Iran “the greatest threat to our world.”

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley echoes them all.

Yet Iran appears not to want a war. U.N. inspectors routinely confirm that Iran is strictly abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal.

While U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf often encountered Iranian “fast attack” boats and drones between January 2016 and August 2017, that has stopped. Vessels of both nations have operated virtually without incident.

What would be the result of Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal?

First would be the isolation of the United States.

China and Russia would not abrogate the deal but would welcome Iran into their camp. England, France and Germany would have to choose between the deal and the U.S. And if Airbus were obligated to spurn Iran’s orders for hundreds of new planes, how would that sit with the Europeans?

How would North Korea react if the U.S. trashed a deal where Iran, after accepting severe restrictions on its nuclear program and allowing intrusive inspections, were cheated of the benefits the Americans promised?

Why would Pyongyang, having seen us attack Iraq, which had no WMD, and Libya, which had given up its WMD to mollify us, ever consider given up its nuclear weapons — especially after seeing the leaders of both nations executed?

And, should the five other signatories to the Iran deal continue with it despite us, and Iran agree to abide by its terms, what do we do then?

Find a casus belli to go to war? Why? How does Iran threaten us?

A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. Anti-American Shiite jihadists in Beirut, Baghdad and Bahrain could attack U.S. civilian and military personnel.

As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran, would we have to reinstate the draft?

And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.

And would not a pre-emptive strike on Iran unite its people in hatred of us, just as Japan’s pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor united us in a determination to annihilate her empire?

What would the Dow Jones average look like after an attack on Iran?

Trump was nominated because he promised to keep us out of stupid wars like those into which folks like John Bolton and the Bush Republicans plunged us.

After 17 years, we are still mired in Afghanistan, trying to keep the Taliban we overthrew in 2001 from returning to Kabul. Following our 2003 invasion, Iraq, once a bulwark against Iran, became a Shiite ally of Iran.

The rebels we supported in Syria have been routed. And Bashar Assad — thanks to backing from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from the Middle East and Central Asia — has secured his throne.

The Kurds who trusted us have been hammered by our NATO ally Turkey in Syria, and by the Iraqi Army we trained in Iraq.

What is Trump, who assured us there would be no more stupid wars, thinking? Truman and LBJ got us into wars they could not end, and both lost their presidencies. Eisenhower and Nixon ended those wars and were rewarded with landslides.

After his smashing victory in Desert Storm, Bush I was denied a second term. After invading Iraq, Bush II lost both houses of Congress in 2006, and his party lost the presidency in 2008 to the antiwar Barack Obama.

Once Trump seemed to understand this history.


Mercury ZENDOG Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:23 Permalink

I'm sort of done with endless, pointless wars in MENA although, circa 2002 I was a little flummoxed as to why we prioritized regime change in Iraq instead of Iran when Iranians were the only people in the region who demonstrated support for the US after 9/11 and a strong desire to kick their bastard leaders out.

In reply to by ZENDOG

skbull44 oddjob Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:37 Permalink

Consider what US Marine Corps. Major General Smedley Butler, after years of service to the US Empire, argued in War is Racket:

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes…

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.”

In reply to by oddjob

Chupacabra-322 skbull44 Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:52 Permalink

Does a bear Fuck’n Shit in the Woods Pat?


Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Gold, Yuan Exchange.   The Petro Dollar is hanging by a thread.  War is the only option left support it.  Nothing more.

The Chess pieces are being put in place for the coming Global Political Engineered Collapse & realignment of the World Economic System dominated by US Dollars.  


Enter Zionist War Pig Bolton. We’re on the brink of Nuclear annihilation.   The Sampson Option.  



In reply to by skbull44

Luc X. Ifer Chupacabra-322 Tue, 03/27/2018 - 12:06 Permalink

Of course he does. When there is no more place to increase wealth by not aggressive means, mutually agreed trade terms then the party which feels more stronger will initiate violence against the weaker perceived parties - that's how human society works since the times of 1st proto-forms of social organization, wake up people, the world is an easy to understand ecosystem as long as one uses critical, informed thinking principles and Occam's razor.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

Chupacabra-322 Luc X. Ifer Tue, 03/27/2018 - 12:14 Permalink

They’ll attempt to disarm us first & take us to WWIII before any type of Constitutional Convention could be held to hold their asses to the fire.  We’re dealing with complete Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths under Hubris.

We’re well past the Constitutional Crises curve.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

Voluntary Exchange Luc X. Ifer Tue, 03/27/2018 - 13:14 Permalink

It takes millions of deceived tax-payers to empower the psychos to enable them for modern global destruction. After we wipe our selves out, maybe a few can remember this utter stupidity and form new anti-state lessons to warn us (if there is a next time).

I hope they can make the warning a bit stronger this next time, even though the Judges of olden times made it quite clear how stupid it was this time around (Bible, book of 1 Samuel, ch. 8-12). Also see 1 Sa 12:17 "...I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king."

People, please learn the lesson! Giving thugs permission to steal from you (taxation) does not protect you from evil! Quite the opposite, it makes your destruction inevitable. There is only one power that has rightful authority over you, and it isn't the criminal psychopaths who seek to enslave you! That which "made" nature made you as well. That is where you should seek for instruction and authority. That is why, concerning earthly authority, all people are created equal. Please, no more kings, no more congresses, no more throwing freedom away! It never ends well.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

Luc X. Ifer Voluntary Exchange Tue, 03/27/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

If you will read Jordan Peterson's '12 Rules for Life' book you would understand why what you propose - and I respect the ethics of it, is impossible, it is an utopia of the same nature like communism, and the explanation is simple, that's not how nature works, the only future without the kind of hierarchical leadership we have known till now in the specie history is possible trough us becoming the next evolutionary version - the synthetic androids. There is only one future if we want to survive as specie - The Borg and resistance is futile.

In reply to by Voluntary Exchange

HRClinton Voluntary Exchange Tue, 03/27/2018 - 14:12 Permalink

The problem with the Human Species hardwired in its very Design/Architecture. It is not a matter of "Freedom of Choice". That is a pure, 100% theological LIE -- no matter what Buybull (OT or NT) proponents claim.

Fact: The very way that our brains have evolved, is problematic:

   a. At the base, you have the Reptilian brain. Think of it as "DOS".

   b. On top of that, you have the Mid-brain, where emotions and social connections live. It's the "mammalian or monkey brain". Think of this part as "Windows".

   c. On top of that is the most recent brain evolution (to improve survival odds): the Prefrontal Cortex. This is where all the abstract thinking and higher cognitive functions occur. Think of it as the Program or App that you installed on your PC.

Given these 3 fundamental layers of intertwined HW and SW, good fvcking luck in trying to create a successful (secular or clerical) model, that will ensure that we all live in harmony for extended periods. It's not possible, unless we can put a super-tight control on our Reptilian and Monkey brains.  Civilizations seeks to do that, but with limited success, mostly because they are poorly designed - typically around the ideas of will of a small group of very limited and flawed men.

Got clarity? Got perspective? Keep it, or get some.

In reply to by Voluntary Exchange

Luc X. Ifer HRClinton Tue, 03/27/2018 - 14:52 Permalink

Kudos. Yup, only taking the evolution 100% in our hands, accept eugenics and bioethics, and become the synthetic android version working together in a hive-like society arbitrated by a synthetic intelligence we will survive and move further as specie. Otherwise, we will engage in a planetary scale conflict driven by resources scarcity, greed and cultural differences which will leave only one cultural family as the winners and owners of what will remain from the planet. That would be a dystopian world full of nuclear oblivion no go zones lead by a techno-science feudal-like oligarchy which will have to struggle with priority to ensure only the very few carrying the best genes would get a chance at reproduction because there wouldn't be too much left to support other wave of overpopulation in the multimillion range. So, eugenics one way or another and the The Borg are unavoidable, resistance is futile.

In reply to by HRClinton

amadeus39 Voluntary Exchange Wed, 03/28/2018 - 03:27 Permalink

Nature is not the end all of things. Obviously mankind is all about overcoming "nature." Nature does not strive to make us comfortable and content. We have to create conditions that ensure our survival in relative peace and comfort. It is a real struggle to overcome nature, and we must never concede to it. "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." should be our motto.


In reply to by Voluntary Exchange

Beam Me Up Scotty Chupacabra-322 Tue, 03/27/2018 - 14:38 Permalink

" After invading Iraq, Bush II lost both houses of Congress in 2006, and his party lost the presidency in 2008 to the antiwar Barack Obama "

Thats an LOL!!  Barack OBOMBA kept the wars going and the bombs falling for 8 years.  He was anything BUT an anti war president!!  Its funny how all of the democrats/liberals were all coming out of the woodwork when Bush was president with chants of END THIS WAR, and when Obomba continued the program the crickets came out.

McShitStain was right, 100 years of war.  Or, maybe not, we might all be dead if a nuclear exchange happens.  Might not be anyone around to fight.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

Chupacabra-322 WakeUpPeeeeeople Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:55 Permalink

All in the name of The Yinon Plan.


Advancing Israel's Yinon Plan is the Goal.


“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.


Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.


The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.


“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” (Yinon Plan, see below)


Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion.


In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hizbollah constitutes a significant setback for the Zionist project.

In reply to by WakeUpPeeeeeople

analyzer_66 chunga Tue, 03/27/2018 - 11:59 Permalink

Brother, can the reason for Afghanistan be so hard to see now ?

US foreign policy supports the workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly blurred.

The heroin business is not  “filling the coffers of the Taliban” as claimed by US government and the international community: quite the opposite! The proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth formation, largely reaped by powerful business/criminal interests within the Western countries. These interests are sustained by US foreign policy.

Decision-making in the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in commodity value after oil and the arms trade.

The Afghan drug economy is “protected”.

The heroin trade was part of the war agenda. What this war has achieved is to restore a compliant narco-State, headed by a US appointed puppet.

The powerful financial interests behind narcotics are supported by the militarisation of the world’s major drug triangles (and transshipment routes), including the Golden Crescent and the Andean region of South America (under the so-called Andean Initiative).

In reply to by chunga

swmnguy chunga Tue, 03/27/2018 - 12:50 Permalink

Chunga, I recommend a decent atlas and a pirated PDF copy of Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard."  And a good supply of your mood-altering chemical of choice.  I'd suggest a dry red wine of some sort, but I'm no expert.

Afghanistan has a lot of natural resources, mineral mostly; weird metals that are critical to electronics.  But more than that, it's location, location, location.  There's been talk of oil and gas pipelines from Iran to China.  And from the -stan countries south to the Pakistani ports on the Indian Ocean.  None of that can happen if Afghanistan is a flaming dumpster fire.  Also Afghanistan is right in the middle of the -stan countries Russia still considers their area of control, China, Pakistan, Iran, India; with huge-mongous mountains in the way every other way to get from Point A to Point B.  There may not be a more strategically-located spot, if one is of a mind to dominate southern Asia.

Syria and Iraq are similarly strategically-located.  Libya has a lot of oil, just across the Mediterranean from Europe.  After Libya fell, all of a sudden there was a lot of trouble with "Jihadis" in Algeria, also with lots of oil, also just across the Mediterranean; and in Nigeria and Chad.  Nigeria has a lot of oil, and there's talk of a pipeline from Nigeria north to the Mediterranean, crossing...Chad and either Algeria or Libya.  Interesting

Heading East in Africa, there's a lot of oil in the south of Sudan.  Now there's a totally feckless "independent" state of South Sudan there.  And where that oil would want to go to get to market would go through Somalia.  Every time anybody gets the upper hand in the chaos in Somalia, the US bombs the shit out of them and the other side gets a lot of weapons.  Interesting.

The Chinese had built a lot of oil infrastructure in all those places, and that investment has been among the first things bombed by "Jihadis" whenever they show up.  Almost like "Jihadis" hate money.  Which they don't seem to anyplace else; curious.  And it's weird how the "Jihadis" seem to hate everybody the US wants dispossessed.

The strategy is for the US to control Europe and China's access to energy.  Meanwhile, surrounding the EU, Russia and China with little dumpster fires, arming the most unreasonable and violent people in every area, demolishing civil society and making the perimeter of those rivals to US supremacy in Eurasia dangerous and unstable, applying pressure to every fracture line in societies on those areas.

The US can't just invade Eurasia, but it can splinter it and create so much chaos Russia, China and the EU have all they can handle just staying afloat.  That increases internal tensions in those areas, which the US can exploit.  The goal is to break up all those nations and associations so the smaller, bickering groupings can be set against each other under the Pax Americana.

Yes, it's some crazy-ass shit.  But Brzezinski made that his life's work, and I haven't seen anything in US foreign policy these past 40 years that doesn't conform to it.

In reply to by chunga

chunga swmnguy Tue, 03/27/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

Thanks, as far as I know there has never been any "official" explanation whatsoever.

That's probably why I go against the grain whenever we get tweets about football players and proper national anthem conduct. People cheering about things, and demanding others do too, without the slightest idea or care for what it's about.

In reply to by swmnguy

11b40 Chupacabra-322 Tue, 03/27/2018 - 19:03 Permalink

not Yep...excellent summary by swmn, and if you want to see the most disgusting show on TV, just tune in to Morning Joe and watch Scarborough try to see how far he can stick his nose up that pathetic Brzezinski Bitch's Butt.  That clown show has members of the multinational think tanks fawning over each other every morning, while Joe sucks up to them - when he isn't busy talking about himself.  Without using personal pronouns, he could carry on a conversation.  That wannabe hayseed shames himself daily trying to act like a full-fledged member of the 'big club's' Southern branch.

Then, on top of it all, these two paramours break up their families to shack up, then turn around and lecture us on morality.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322