Trump Renews the Axis of Evil

In 2001, George W. Bush named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as his axis of evil. Five months later, his Undersecretary of State, John Bolton, added three more states: Cuba, Libya and Syria.

Two questions arose. How extensive and serious is the evil of each? How should the U.S. government deal with the evil?

Bush vastly exaggerated and lied about the evils of Iraq, present at the time and prospective. He attacked Iraq, committing evils, really war crimes, against that country that are far greater than anything Iraq had ever done to America. His attack fomented new evils within Iraq that are still present. Bush placed an enormous tax and debt burden on Americans because of this futile aggression; and American forces are still in Iraq. Bush can congratulate himself, however, that Saddam Hussein has been removed and executed. Was it worth the price to us and the Iraqi people?

Obama decided that Cuba didn’t belong on the list, whatever its evils, because the Cold War was over. Cuba went off the list. Urged on by his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Obama decided that the government of Libya should be overthrown. Gaddafi had mitigated many important evils in the eyes of the U.S., but Obama and Clinton claimed that he was about to inflict a new evil, that of genocide. He wasn’t, but little did that matter. Gaddafi was brutally killed and Libya went off the list.

Syria, seen by neocons like Bolton, as the portal to Iran, remains a target of the U.S. Obama was ready to bomb the infrastructure back to the Stone Age over the preposterous excuse, backed by no evidence, that Syria’s President Assad was a chemical warfare danger. Chary of another Iraq War, Obama tiptoed into Syria via allies, the CIA and some Special Forces, the idea being to support assorted “moderate” rebels against the Syrian government. In Syria’s case, the U.S. didn’t bother to make a truly persuasive case that its evils were at such a high level that it demanded a U.S. war initiated on Syria. The State Department’s indictment can be read here. The case against Syria was seriously weakened when Russia brokered the removal of Syria’s chemical weapon stores and when recurrent news reports suggested that rebel groups were using chemical weapons. Obama held back his forces.

By contrast, Trump intensified the U.S. presence in Syria. He blamed Assad for a chemical attack. His team has openly spoken of Assad’s removal. His team is more eager for war and more aligned with the perennial neocon warmongers. Trump’s moves could be regarded as part of a larger game he’s playing to place his foes at a disadvantage and solidify his shaky presidency. Time will tell. However, at the moment, his whole team is so belligerent and his own demeanor and motivations so rash that these suggest a real attachment to the neocon view of the world.

The neocons typically use any excuse of evil behavior as a warrant for a massive attack. There is a huge discrepancy between the relatively minor events that trigger neocon demands for large scale attacks on a country. A terrorist attack, a missile test launch, an inflammatory statement by some government official, a hot air threat, the movement of some small patrol boat, financial support to some anti-Israel group — all such events are deemed by neocons to be such serious evils that the U.S. should either attack the offender or cut it off entirely from world trade through stringent sanctions. Neocons have no sense of measure, no sense of reasonableness, no sense of diplomacy and no sense that the costs of war far exceed the gains in most cases.

This leaves two more axis of evil designees: Iran and N. Korea. A lengthy indictment can be assembled against Iran, such as here. The same two questions arise: How serious are the activities or evils, and do they warrant military responses, even war? In this case, a U.S. initiated war cannot be a rational choice because the costs would be so enormous and the ramifications so widespread and so unpredictable. This is well-known. Even halfway measures are extremely expensive. Obama was at his best in negotiating with Iran, diffusing the nuclear issue and avoiding the extremes that characterize neocon sentiments toward Iran. They are nothing short of madmen when it comes to Iran. The fact is that no matter how impressive the list of evil incidents associated with Iran and no matter how great the cost they have inflicted in innocent lives, they are tiny in comparison with what it would cost to launch a military effort to create a new regime in Iran; and such an effort would have no guarantee of success. Among other things, it would require many hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground forces, with all the attendant deaths and injures. The bombing of Iran would create large casualties among Iranians and drive them toward the national leadership and against Americans. Another Iraq, Libya or Syria is a likely result. Are the prospective costs worth the illusory gain of removing whatever evils that Iran is accused of perpetrating?

In this light, both Trump and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, are barking up a barren tree on Iran. Imposing sanctions again is precisely the wrong thing to do. Revisiting Obama’s agreement is precisely the wrong thing to do. Iran is living up to the accord. The negotiation wisely left off the table the other issues that divide the U.S. and Iran. If they are to be addressed, do so without the nuclear issue. The inspection agencies are there to see that the agreement is fulfilled.

In the case of N. Korea, there is no casus belli present. Bluster, bellicosity and moving ships around aren’t effective at attaining any end. They are not serious tactics. N. Korea is a Chinese satellite and has to be dealt with in that light. Naming N. Korea as an especial evil-doer was always a stretch and still is.

Share

1:51 pm on April 19, 2017