DOES AN ELITE CARTEL CALL THE SHOTS ON TRUMP’S FOREIGN POLICY?

A very interesting interview on the Tamar Yonah Show (Israel Newstalk Radio) about Trump’s Foreign Policy Makers: 

The Following is only part of the Historical and Investigative Research website. It is advised to visit HirHome: Trump and read what this Investigator has accumulated. He gives the reader the detailed background on each of Trump’s Administration appointees. An Eye Opener. Despite all these opposing forces and people actually working against him, at some point Trump may surprise everyone and the world and do the opposite of his ‘advisors’ and in fact spark the final Redemption [the great Purim Turnabout V'nahafoch Hu]. IY”H


From HIR.home:

As I write, Donald Trump is in the Middle East, making his way to Israel. What can we expect? We have predicted that, on the substance, Trump will be another version of Obama. Since this claim clashes with almost everybody’s perception of the world, we are forced to defend it.

As they campaigned for the US presidency, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were represented in the media, and indeed behaved in public, as diametrical opposites. Aside from dissimilarities in etiquette and personal style, Trump loudly repudiated not only Obama’s specific decisions but their very philosophy, holding Clinton—the public face of Obama’s foreign policy—personally responsible for fostering the growth of radical Islam and, in this manner, undermining Israeli security.

The extreme contrast between Trump and Clinton makes it difficult to imagine them playing on the same team, so Trump’s electoral victory is a clear challenge to the idea that the US system is run by a political cartel, the core claim in the HIR model. This is, therefore, a ‘natural experiment’: the scientist does not control it, but the variables of interest align fortuitously, as if he had organized it all himself to test his hypothesis.

Foreign policy will here give the sharpest possible test. On the nature of the US political system, there are two possibilities of special interest:

1) If it is a free market, and Trump and Clinton are genuine rivals, then we expect Trump’s foreign policy to exhibit sharp differences.

2) If a power elite-cartel controls both main parties, then we expect, as outlined in Part 1, that Trump—quite despite his loud protestations to the contrary—will walk down the traditional path of previous administrations.

That traditional path, as documented in Part 2, has long been pro-jihad and anti-Israel (← not an editing error).

So far, Trump’s head fakes in immigration policy, the missiles he dropped on Assad, his declared intention of assisting the Rojavans, and his summit with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have convinced many people that Trump really does mean to deliver on his campaign promises. To these people, the first possibility looks right.

We are not convinced. In Part 3 we contributed the relevant (though mostly unknown) historical context in order to dispel the impression created by the Trump-Netanyahu summit, exposing Trump’s continuity with the anti-Israeli policies of his predecessors. Since then, Trump has hardly contradicted our analysis.[0] And in Part 6, we will expose the true bias of his presumed ‘anti-jihadi’ policies.

Should you find our analysis persuasive, we will then need to explain this consistency in US policy—immune to any and all election results.

In Part 4, we began to outline one such explanation. We examined the history and structure of the US policymaking system and found that the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller networks are heavily involved in several key think tanks, chief among them the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which they helped create. Year after numbing year, working outside the democratic process, the CFR produces recommendations that—regardless of who wins at the polls—reliably become US foreign policy. It walks and talks like a cartel.

This implies that elections in the US, though utterly necessary to preserve the appearance of a functioning democracy, are irrelevant to policy, and that’s why the pro-jihadi and anti-Israeli tradition can persist despite the election of Donald Trump. This is the HIR model.

How useful is it? The evidence will judge.

The model predicts, as mentioned in Part 4, that Trump will recruit his foreign-policy team from the same pro-jihadi, CFR circles that supplied the key policymakers for previous administrations. To provide continuity with Obama/Clinton policies, Trump’s handlers will not hesitate to re-hire them.

We shall now see how well these expectations match the evidence. I shall examine those positions most relevant to ‘international security’ and therefore to policies regarding the growth of radical Islam and the defense of the State of Israel.

As I conduct this survey, I will keep score for the CFR.


█ FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR (Richard Haas)

█ FOREIGN MINISTER (Rex Tillerson)

█ CIA DIRECTOR (Mike Pompeo)

█ #2 AT THE NSC (K.T. McFarland)

█ #2 AT THE NSC (Ricky L. Waddell)

█ NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR (Michael T. Flynn)

█ (ALMOST) NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
(Robert S. Harward)

█ NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR (H.R. McMaster)

█ DEFENSE SECRETARY (James Mattis)

█ DEPUTY ADVISOR ON COUNTERTERRORISM (Sebastian Gorka)

█ WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST (Steve Bannon)


Visit the HIR.HOME link above and read the background and political positions of the above.