Neither Hamas, nor Gaza Phase Two, that lies predominantly behind Netanyahu’s summit intent – but rather Iran

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In these last days, the Trump Administration has boarded or seized three tankers either loaded with Venezuelan oil or destined for Venezuela (such as the Bella1). The most egregious seizure – in terms of illegality – being a Chinese-owned, Panama-flagged vessel reportedly destined for China – and on no one’s sanctions list.

In a different zone of conflict, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) last Friday claimed that it had struck a Russian so-called ‘shadow fleet’ tanker, the Qendil, with aerial drones in waters of the Mediterranean Sea off Morocco. The SBU did not give further details of the attack, including how the SBU deployed a drone in the Mediterranean (2,000 Km from Ukraine), or the site from which it was launched. The SBU source said the cargo ship was empty at the time of the attack.

President Putin, in midst of his annual question and answer marathon, vowed that Russia would retaliate.

‘Blockades’, seizures and attacks, very plainly, are acts of war (despite the U.S. claim that America owns all oil produced by Venezuela – until all historical U.S. legal claims against Venezuela are satisfied). This tanker-episode is yet another ratchet to the drift to lawlessness in U.S. foreign policy.

These acts pre-eminently are aimed at China (which has large equities in the Venezuelan oil industry) and Russia, which has longstanding ties to both Venezuela and Cuba (now under Trump ‘blockade’ too). Add to that the $11bn in weapons being sent to Taiwan — with a significant amount of medium to long-range missile systems being part of the planned transfer, including 82 HIMARS launchers with Army ATACMS missiles, allowing Taipei forces to hit targets across the Taiwan Strait.

This latter transfer has infuriated China.

What this suggests is that the National Strategy Statement (NSS) in respect to China (it states that Washington views China as no longer constituting a ‘prime threat’, but only as an economic competitor) is meaningless rhetoric. China is being treated as an adversarial threat and will respond as such.

China and Russia will ‘read’ the Trump Administration by its actions, rather than its NSS rhetoric. And the signals speak plainly to escalatory steps.

Put all this into the context of ‘leaks’ by senior Trump officials which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard says are “lies and propaganda”. She says the claims that “the ‘U.S. intelligence community’ agrees to, and supports the EU/NATO viewpoint, that Russia’s aim is to invade/conquer Europe (in order to ‘gin up support’ for their pro-war policies)” — that these are lies being pushed by what she terms “Deep State warmongers and their Propaganda Media … to undermine Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Ukraine”.

“The truth”, Gabbard writes on Twitter, is the opposite:

“[That] the U.S. intelligence community has briefed policymakers, including the Democrat HPSCI member quoted by Reuters, that U.S. Intelligence assesses that Russia seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO. It also assesses that, as the last few years have shown, Russia … does not have the capability to invade and occupy Europe” — and that “U.S. Intelligence assesses that Russia seeks to avoid a larger war with NATO”.

So, what Gabbard is telling us is that there is open intra-warfare at the top of the Trump Administration. On one side, there is the CIA, the hawks and their European collaborators, and on the other, Gabbard’s Intelligence analysts and a larger U.S. constituency.

Where is Trump in this brew? Why is he positioning himself at the cusp of another round of conflict with China? Why would he do that when U.S. economic structures are so fragile, and when China has shown that it has economic leverage with which to fight? Is the explanation the simplistic response that it is a diversion from the release of further Epstein images?

Why too did Trump despatch Messrs Witkoff and Kushner to Berlin when the intent of Europeans to wreck the negotiating process with Russia was quite evident aforehand? The two American ‘Envoys’ did not sign the Euro-proposal. They sat silently; yet neither did they enter a dissent, not even when (NATO-like) Article 5 security guarantees were mooted?

Also who was it who provided the targeting data by which Ukraine (apparently) was able to attack the Qendil off the North African coast 2,000 kms from Ukraine? What conclusion was intended for Putin to draw from the two incidents? Certainly, Russians will have made their own surmise.

And why draw-in Iran too, by seizing the Iranian Bella 1, ostensibly flagged to Guyana heading toward Venezuela? Does this represent the start to another round to the Iranian tanker war originally pursued by Israel? Does it suit Netanyahu’s and certain constituencies in Israel’s purposes to heat up the situation in respect to Iran?

It is worth asking because Netanyahu is scheduled to leave for Palm Beach, Miami, on the 28 December with a view to have one or perhaps two meetings with Trump at Mar-a-Lago during the following days (though the meetings with Trump have yet to be confirmed at time of writing).

It seems that it is neither Hamas, nor Gaza Phase Two, that lies predominantly behind Netanyahu’s summit intent – but rather Iran.

The Gaza and Hamas issues therefore are likely to play second fiddle to the ‘new’ narrative being framed by the Israeli PM’s office: Iran will not be presented to Trump as rushing toward ‘a nuclear breakthrough’ as per the old cliché.

That is the ‘old narrative’. The new one is, as leading Israeli commentator Anna Barsky writes in (Hebrew) in Ma’ariv:

“The more immediate threat here: [more] than the nuclear itself … [is] the systematic [Iranian] reconstruction of the middle layer: the ballistic missile industry, its production lines and the ability to restore the functionality to damaged air defence systems”.

“Not because the nuclear issue has fallen off the agenda … but because missiles are the key that allows Iran to protect everything else – and also to attack. Without missile and air defence shields, nuclear facilities are a vulnerable target. With a shield [by contrast] they become a much more complex strategic problem … And here is a point that often escapes public discourse: Iran is not ‘rehabilitating’ just to return to what it was, but to return differently”.

“In other words: “missile restoration” and “nuclear restoration” are not two separate axes, but one system – and it is of great concern to Israel. The missile builds a shell, the shell enables a nuclear power, and the nuclear power – even if rejected – remains the ultimate [Iranian] goal”.

The message that Netanyahu will take to Mar-a-Lago is that “Israel will not allow Iran to rebuild a missile and defence umbrella that will close the skies over sensitive sites”.

Trump may be more preoccupied with creating a new regional order without being dragged into a war with no clear end. Netanyahu likely will claim nonetheless (as he has been doing for over 25 years) that the ‘window’ in which Iran can rebuild its defence umbrella is fast closing, and will likely gently remind the President that Trump was placed in power, not just to promote Israel’s image, but for the Realpolitik purpose of expanding Israel’s real-world power in the region and control over territory.

Happy Christmas, Donald!