Several days ago US President Donald Trump told CBS' "60 Minutes" that the US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis "may leave" his administration and that he thought the retired Marine Corps general was "sort of a Democrat." Could it be an accidental remark? Or does it actually point to another reshuffle? If so, why could the US President fire a loyal and popular Secretary of Defense?
Inforos addressed this question to a German politician and expert in government counseling Christoph Hörstel.
"This is the special Trump way to fire a minister: Talk bad about him in public, hint he’s “on the way out” – and help raise the level speculations about potential successors. All of this happens these days to US defense minister James “mad dog” Mattis. In the Mattis case, the US president even went so far as to to describe his MoD as a "Democrat", which, to his constituency three weeks from the midterm elections may very well sound like "high treason".
What's the problem anyway with James Mattis, a very popular marine general? Looking at what the man actually does these days is awesomely helpful to US interests: He's seeking better military ties with China, to take that area of government out of the hot troubles in the economic sphere. Which appears a wise thing to do right now, after very serious trouble in the South China Sea between naval forces of both countries. And, guess what? Officials in Washington judge his efforts as "successful", reports the New York Times, a paper not really friendly with the president. And, to top this story, Mattis has visited Vietnam on Wednesday, a former American air base in southern Vietnam to be exact, that will soon become the biggest-ever U.S. cleanup site for contamination left by the defoliant Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
The real reason is, that the factual powers in Washington are ordering war on Iran, not just the ultra tough sanctions announced globally. To make the sanction story stick, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo even bothers to announce an article he's going to write for, with quotes like this: "We intend to get global imports of Iranian crude oil as close to zero as possible by Nov. 4.” The way reach this goal: Any company doing business with Iran is automatically excluded from doing business with the US. And in order to shift the world's attention away from the truly shocking splatter-type murder in Istanbul, committed by a team of Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) confidantes, Washington issued a few of their new sanctions planned for November already last Tuesday. Already beforehand, the Iranian leadership, prime minister Rouhani, warned last Sunday in a public speech, that the US has never been as hostile as today. And afterwards, Foreign Minister Zarif reiterated that stance, adding, the US was "addicted to sanctions".
But MoD Mattis stands in the way, if it comes to the war agenda. Among many others, analyst Mark Perry is sure, Mattis uses his popularity to stop the planned US-Iran war - and is clever enough to use harsh language against Iran and support the sanctions agenda. In the early years of this decade, German chancellor Merkel got this lesson straight from Washington: 'If you refuse to go tough on sanctions, the pro-war fraction within the US administration will get an upper hand. War will then be the only choice left to us.'
Fact is, as not only Iranian military personnel has it: War against Iran may very well have disastrous consequences for all attackers. That opinion was and is all around the military circles in the US as well, and still lingers not only there - strongly - but all over conservative circles.
To analyze correctly, we will have to return to the Khashoggi slaughter. The Khashoggi killer team comprised not only four security personnel very close to "MBS", they also reportedly brought a bone saw to the Istanbul consulate, not really the kind of tool one needs to prepare marriage documents. Since there isn't a single movement possible in Ryadh and royal circles without the CIA knowing, it is time to state: Washington knew what MBS was heading to - and has not stopped him, as they would have done, had they wanted to, this is what history teaches us. Washington is hell-bent to push MBS to war against Iran, the whole 110 bln US$ 10-year arms deal with the Saudis, so much defended by Trump and so dear to the cartels, is about war preparation. MBS has always seeked to oppress opposition at home - he needs this, because many in his people are not convinced, that being on the front line against Iran may serve Saudi Arabia's interests well. This gruesome murder will certainly stifle opposition. And, as to cartel matters: They always seek to make sure, that their terminators are fall guys - without a cushion of public sympathy.
Main question: How close is the war against Iran? Sometimes these days, tasks like war predictions get easier: In case the successor to MoD Mattis is an anti-Iranian war monger, the war is to start within the tenure of president Trump, quite possibly during his first tenure"