Steve Bannon asks Rabbi Wolicki to respond to Tucker Carlson

1 Comment / 1 Comment

1. The problem brought up in the video is that of members of the MAGA movement who are not supportive of Israel and who see support for Israel as in the category of supporting “forever wars.” I don’t know how powerful their voices within the MAGA community.

   Their perspective becomes problematic if it changes what Trump does.

   The Trump doctrine means economic security is national security. Also the Trump doctrine is about delegating leadership for problem solving to other countries wherever possible.

   The latter has worked in some instances and not in other instances. Regarding the Abraham Accords, delegating to various Sunni nations the leadership along with Israel to form a defensive alliance that protects all of them from the hegemonic ambitions of Iran worked well.

   Delegating responsibility for Afghanistan to Pakistan did not work so well.

   The idea of Trump’s to back away from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in favor of some kind of “agreement,” is of concern.

   I had thought Trump’s position was that Iran would be offered the opportunity to destroy their own nuclear facilities and, failing this, they would be destroyed by the US or Israel or both.

   However an article by Majid Rafizadeh, “Trump’s First Big Disastrous Mistake,” implied that Trump (through his Truth Social post) said he would “much rather have a verified Nuclear Peace Agreement.”

   He did say VERIFIED, which is the operational term. But the idea that Trump would use his 4 years trying to get an agreement from the mullahs, at which point they will have already gotten the nuclear capability is very upsetting to Iranians. This is Iran’s track record, and it is hoped that Trump would not be so fooled by Iran so easily.

   Before we get excited and make assumptions that Trump has sold out to the Iranians, I would like to make a plea for waiting and seeing. I’m not suggesting waiting 4 years to see what Trump does, but it’s been a little longer than 3 weeks since his inauguration, so perhaps Trump deserves a bit more time to make his policy position clear.

   I was just wondering if the Tucker Carlson group of isolationists might be having an affect on Trump’s objectivity and judgment on Iran towards the negative.

   As I’ve written before, in the past when I doubted that Trump was telling the truth (ie. when the media said he was lying) it always turned out after several months that Trump was telling the truth and his facts were verified.

   In this situation it is possible that Trump puts out statements that can be read a variety of ways, while he gathers evidence and discusses policy with those he trusts, and eventually comes out with the most clear and comprehensive statement on the subject.

   I am no longer in doubt about Trump’s support for Israel and Netanyahu.

   The question that I will leave as an open question for now is does support from the isolationist MAGA group matter in terms of policies Trump ultimately decides to favor? And if so, how much does it matter?