Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘More wars in the pipeline: Bannon exit bodes ill for US aggression opponents’

RT | August 19, 2017

With the firing of anti-globalist Steve Bannon, neo-conservatives and hawks may take complete control of US foreign policy, says investigative journalist Rick Sterling, adding that it’s not a good sign when hawkish Senator John McCain is smiling.

US President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon – viewed as a key figure in Team Trump – has left the White House.

After the firing, Bannon, 63, resumed his role as head of conservative website Breitbart News, and announced that he was “going to war” for Trump.

“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up: I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents – on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,” he told Bloomberg News Friday.

The departure is just the latest in a series of shake-ups since Trump took office.

What will Bannon’s firing mean for the Trump administration and how it could affect policymaking? RT discussed with investigative journalist Rick Sterling.

“Bannon was an anti-globalist strongly opposed by hawkish senators like John McCain… While liberals and neo-conservatives may be cheering, it may bode ill for those who oppose US aggression and think the US should not be the world’s policeman,” he said.

The now-former White House chief strategist was in favor of a trade war with China and “ratcheting up economic contention,” but he was against conflict with North Korea, Sterling said.

Just a couple of days before his exit, Bannon said in an interview that there is no military solution to the North Korean problem. The comment was rebuffed by both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Bannon’s stance was also in “sharp contrast with National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, who said that North Korea poses a direct military threat,” Sterling said. “The very dangerous thing right now is that neo-conservatives and the hawks take complete control of US foreign policy… we are going to see a lot more war coming down the pipeline.”

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) reacted to the decision by saying in a statement: “there is one less white supremacist in the White House.”

Commenting on the matter, Sterling opined that “they’ve manipulated the situation where Breitbart and Steve Bannon were allied with right-wing nationalist forces within the US.”

Ironically, he went on to say, “these forces are much more resistant to US wars of aggression.”

“So, we’ve got key issues coming up now. In the coming period, we’re going to have decisions on whether the US is going to escalate the troop involvement and the intervention in Afghanistan; we’ve got the situation with North Korea; the situation with Syria is coming to a head. Steve Bannon, as an anti-globalist, was arguing against the US escalating military intervention and now the situation seems to be controlled by the generals in the White House, and it’s not a good sign when hawkish Senator John McCain is smiling and very happy,” Sterling said.

August 19, 2017 - Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, War Crimes |

13 Comments »

  1. I don’t know in what universe wanting to tear up the Iran deal and possibly creating the possibility of a pre emptive strike of some sort is considered non interventionist and dovish, but not in mine. That’s what Bannon advocates for, along with turning over Afghanistan policy to private contractors such as Erik Prince of Blackwater infamy. On top of that Bannon pushed Adelson’s hard line Israel policy in meetings with Trump. Bannon is no patriot or non interventionist.

    Comment by G M | August 19, 2017 | Reply

    • Making one or another extreme pro-Zionist statement from time to time is ubiquitous in the US political realm. If one were to abstain from doing so one would never become a participant. It’s maybe like Cameron and his pig head.

      What is more telling are actions.

      Comment by aletho | August 19, 2017 | Reply

      • True, and Bannon/Breitbart are far more hawkish on Iran than Hillary Clinton could ever be, and on Israel as well. He doesn’t make these comments from time to time, but constantly via his pushing of Adelson’s Israel policy during meetings with Trump as well as through his years of control at Breitbart which he is now back to running. This is extremely important and should not be dismissed as just another example of someone making rhetoric, this is serious and Bannon is waging “war” on the administration in part to ensure that Trump gets out of the Iran deal and moves the embassy to Jerusalem. This is not something that should be downplayed AT ALL.

        Comment by G M | August 20, 2017 | Reply

        • Bannon is waging “war” on the administration

          ?

          Comment by aletho | August 20, 2017 | Reply

          • There has been constant talk in the media of Bannon and Breitbart waging “war” against people in the admin who they oppose, particularly McMaster who has been criticized by right wing Zionists for not being hawkish enough on Iran/Israel.

            Comment by G M | August 22, 2017 | Reply

  2. If people don’t see the problem with someone like Bannon being promoted as a non interventionist patriot then there is a problem. Not accusing you Aletho of saying or believing that, but a lot of people who should know better do just that. On the surface it looks like he was pushed out for posing a threat to the “deep state” but a more deep analysis of this along with the ousting of Iran hawk Flynn allies as well as the war against HR McMaster from hard Right wing Zionists paints a much different picture. There is a war going on right now, but It’s not the Deep State vs the non interventionist patriots, but rather a faction of anti Iran/pro Israel hard liners (with significant deep state connections) vs those who want to preserve the foreign policy status quo (also with significant deep state ties). Neither side is better than the other. I focus on the Bannon side because fewer people seem to have an understanding of what it actually represents as opposed to what someone like HR McMaster represents.

    Comment by G M | August 20, 2017 | Reply

    • If I were Zionist I would be sorely wishing there could have been a third term for Obama or that things would have been so much better if Hillary or Jeb had won.

      Again, look at the actual actions and results.

      FYI, in my opinion the JCOP was the best outcome possible for Israel.

      Comment by aletho | August 20, 2017 | Reply

      • Certainly a lot of Zionists feel that way regarding the election of someone like Clinton, and no doubt feel that way about the Iran deal. In no way shape or form do I think that there are not Zionists who feel that the Iran deal is the best thing for Israel. My take on all of this is that hard right wing elements within the Zionist community were and are opposed to both, and were willing to even do something as potentially drastic as support Donald Trump. And in Netanyahu’s case, he did not criticize Trump after Charlottesville and waited three days to say anything, while his son put out a Facebook post criticizing BLM and Antifa while calling White Supremacy a thing of the past. The hard right in Israel and the West love Donald Trump and are hoping that he can fulfill their dreams of allowing unlimited settlement building and moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and likewise oppose people like McMaster who have been cited as being in direct opposition to these hard line policies. I think that there is an unprecedented war going on within the foreign policy establishment, and that Trump is being backed by people who are even more hawkish on Israel than many Neocons are (I never thought that was possible until just recently) which has resulted in people like Bill Kristol and David Frum siding with the DC foreign policy consensus over their right wing brethren in Israel.

        As for the Iran deal, I believe that liberal Zionists see it as the best outcome, but I don’t think that the Breitbart led network which is aligned with organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America, individuals such as John Bolton, and even Sheldon Adelson who’s policy Bannon is said to have pushed during meetings with Trump views it that way, and wants the deal thrown out. I do think that the war against McMaster by Bannon and his allies is largely due to differences regarding Israel and Iran, and while I can’t prove it, I have theorized that the removal of Flynn and more recently Bannon as well as close Flynn allies who have also been forced out of their positions might be due to a push back against those who want to get out of the deal. I’m open to an opposing view.

        Comment by G M | August 22, 2017 | Reply

        • Someone should do a thorough analysis, but in my less than blanket observation the schism on the right seems to break on nationalists v globalists.

          Right now, the danger is the broad center that wants to eliminate all competing powers worldwide, not so much the nationalists.

          Who has been running amok killing millions across MENA? Not the nationalists.

          Comment by aletho | August 22, 2017 | Reply

        • I think that Zionists have many reasons to be uncomfortable with antifa (even though antifa proudly supports them). Concern for Trump being about the least of their concerns.

          Comment by aletho | August 22, 2017 | Reply

        • All of these complaints about JCOP strike me as posturing. The plot all along was for the US to flub its compliance (that’s what Hillary or Jeb would be doing).

          They don’t really want to abrogate because they are betting that Iran will comply anyway. They will just get away with failing to abide themselves, with impunity as always.

          Comment by aletho | August 22, 2017 | Reply

    • I focus on the Bannon side because fewer people seem to have an understanding of what it actually represents as opposed to what someone like HR McMaster represents

      I actually watched Bannon’s 2010 documentary last night. I found his view of the sixties hard to relate to even allowing for cultural deviation. That and his military background seems to be what animates his, what I would consider to be, reactionary attitudes.

      Nonetheless, if Trump announces that there will be an escalation in Afghanistan we can safely assume that Bannon’s departure has a related significance.

      Comment by aletho | August 20, 2017 | Reply

      • Fair enough, I just don’t see Bannon’s solution of allowing people like Erik Prince to have full control over Afghanistan a positive one. Point taken though.

        Comment by G M | August 22, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s