American Herald Tribune |Robert Fantina: In the 2016 presidential election, among the two prominent political parties, the hapless United States voter had to choose between a Zionist war-monger and a Zionist war-monger. Deciding that Democrat Hillary Clinton had far too much baggage to take back to the White House, the voters decided, through the bizarre institution known as the Electoral College, to install as president a reality-show television star and business tycoon, the thrice-wed blowhard, Donald Trump.
Although President Trump wasn’t too interested in keeping intact many of his predecessors policies (see: health care), on the topic of war, he seemed more than enthusiastic to continue. His legacy in that area from former President Barack Obama was the constant bombing of six, mostly Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan). Mr. Trump seemed, like Mr. Obama, oblivious to the unspeakable suffering caused by U.S. bombs.
Additionally, the support of ‘rebel’ groups in Syria was to continue. Syria was making gains in defeating the outside groups which were supported mainly by the U.S., Britain and Israel, and that had wreaked havoc in the country for the last several years; many areas were returned to Syrian control, with the residents joyfully welcoming the Syrian army.
Then, on April 4, it was revealed that a chemical gas had killed at least 80 Syrians, including many children. Pictures of the dead victims were shown around the world and, while in some corners, the United Nations, for example, there was a desire to learn who had perpetrated this crime, in the White House, no such deliberations were necessary. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was to blame, and for this he must be punished.
One thinks that, just perhaps, there might be some merit in looking at a few facts. First, since the U.S. had been rattling its saber at Syria for years, more belligerently since Mr. Trump took office, why would the Syrian government risk U.S. wrath by gassing its own citizens? Second, before bombing innocent people (since World War II, 90% of the casualties of war have been unarmed civilians), shouldn’t all the facts be known? Mr. Trump was very quick to send U.S. bombs; one would think that doing all that is possible to prevent war would be in the national and international best interest, but apparently Mr. Trump sees things differently. And third, with Russia allied with Syria, and U.S. – Russian relations at their worst point since the Cold War, isn’t there some benefit in restraint?
Apparently not. This, at least according to Mr. Trump, seems to be how he is going to ‘make America great again’. Despite the many faults of President Obama (too long to list here), at least some of the hatred and hostility that much of the world felt towards the United States due to his predecessor’s actions were reduced, and now Mr. Trump is determined to bring it all back. And, like Mr. Obama, President Trump seems happy to have the Middle East hate the U.S., as long as Israel is satisfied. That apartheid nation has long seen both Syria and Iran as a threat to its existence, and the monies that pro-Israel lobbies flood into the campaign coffers of U.S. elected officials ensure that Congress will do Israel’s bidding. The attack on Syria is seen, at least in neocon circles, as not only punishment to the Assad regime, but also as a warning to Iran, Israel’s other bugaboo in that part of the world.
The role of the media in all this can’t be excused. When Israel uses chemical weapons against Palestinians, there are no pictures of the victims on CNN, MSNBC or in The New York Times. When Palestinian children playing on a beach are shot and killed by IDF soldiers, no one in the media proclaims ‘We are all Palestinians’. When a young Palestinian, lying wounded on the ground, motionless, is shot in the head by an IDF soldier, and that soldier is sentenced to an 18-month prison term, no one compares that with the 15-year prison term Palestinian youths receive for throwing rocks. Fortunately, social media and the alternative press provide facts on the ground.
So what comes next? There are a few possible scenarios, and none of them are pretty. How Russia will respond is anyone’s guess, but one is naïve indeed if one thinks Russia is willing to back down from this challenge from the U.S. Iran, banned from having nuclear weapons (this writer feels fewer such weapons are better than more, but wonders why Israel can have them but Iran can’t), may decide it’s in its best interest to develop them anyway, to better protect its citizens. And hostility toward the U.S. is sure to increase once again. It has been said that for every innocent person killed by U.S. bombs, several potential ‘terrorists’ are created. This writer is also puzzled by how someone defending their nation is a ‘terrorist’, and the people invading it are somehow heroes.
One possible outcome is an increase in President Trump’s dismal approval ratings. The U.S. citizenry always seems happy when the country is bombing someone, forcing down the throat of some nation the U.S.’s bizarre brand of democracy. Syrians can now expect the same great ‘benefits’ that U.S. ‘liberation’ did for the Iraqis: poverty, unrest, a huge refugee population, unemployment, corruption, violence, destroyed infrastructure, etc., etc. But hey, at least Saddam is gone!
With no one to check his murderous impulses, and with Congress only too willing to please not only Israel, but the arms manufacturers as well (the U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of weaponry), President Trump can bomb the world to his heart’s content. The suffering that this will cause at home and abroad won’t be felt in his gilded New York City penthouse, the halls of Congress of the White House. History will condemn him, even if his monstrous ego is fed today, and, sadly, that seems to be what is most important to him.