Our Friday News Analysis | How Do You Love Your Enemies? Have None! (Part 10)

Click Here to Watch Video (1 minute, 33 seconds)

Why did Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalize Iran’s oil industry?

Click Here to Watch Video (3 minutes, 30 seconds)

Oil and the Shah of Iran (1974) | 60 Minutes Archive

Click Here to Watch Video (13 minutes, 10 seconds)

1974 Mike Wallace traveled to Iran for his first interview with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The Arab oil embargo was ongoing, and Wallace asked the Shah about Iran's oil profits.

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen.

EDITORIAL |

Historically Europe has been in the Regime-Change business for Millennia.

Compared to Europe, America is still wet behind the ears when it comes to Regime-Change,
but America knows enough to be dangerous – lethal.
In modern times, Europe has an eager ‘boy scout’ – the United States Military – to fight its wars.
Of course, some Americans benefit handsomely from fighting Europe’s battles.
In Iran’s case, the US did the fighting.
Europe did the grabbing.
Oil, that is.
Liquid gold.

Why is America Europe’s whipping boy?

Europe has got what America wants.
Foreign capital to feed America’s opiate to its people: credit.
Europe owns the largest banks in the world.
Europe owns the largest oil and gas companies in the world.
Europe, not China, owns much of the United States.

The industries that profit most from wars are:

Those in money in money, not only banks.
Those in all forms of natural resources, not only oil and gas.
Those steeped deeply in the military-industrial complex. Destruction!
Those grounded in mega-companies that build cities and countries. Construction!
Those in control of information, all forms, including social media.

War is about wealth and power. Otherwise, why perpetrate war?

Where is the wealth of this world?
Which region is the most powerful on earth?
Who dictates the world?

Follow the money trail.

In 2015, the economy of the European Union, aka the United States of Europe,
exceeded the economies of the United States and China COMBINED.
(Read: A European Agenda to the World’s Stage,
by Abraham A. van Kempen, October 09, 2015.)

In recent years, China has been catching up. Worse (from the EU-US/NATO perspective), so are the GDPs of Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa, the BRICS countries!

The five BRICS countries together contribute nearly 31.5 percent of the global GDP,
compared to 30.7 percent by G7 countries.

The development has come when Western countries struggle with the clouds of a recession.

Nonetheless, the combined EU-US GDPs still exceed those of China and Russia. Why become enemies if we can become friends? To quote President Abraham Lincoln: “Destroy your enemies by becoming friends.” Not long after he made this profound statement, he was assassinated.

Read more: ‘Dreaming of a New Iran – Diaries of Three Young Women,’ by Farnaz Fassihi

               “To better understand how daily life in Iran has transformed, we (NY Times) asked three young women to keep a diary for five weeks. Their entries have been edited for length and clarity, and their last names are being withheld for their safety. Like many Iranians, they are trying to figure out what their lives should look like as they continue to fight for and dream of change.”

He risked being jailed for life
for helping end America’s mass slaughter in Vietnam.

An e-mail from Michael Moore:

               I‘d like to share a sense of loss and sadness I have felt over the weekend.
My friend and personal hero, Daniel Ellsberg, died on Friday at 92. During his remarkable and brave life, he saved our country — not once, but twice. He risked being jailed for life for helping end America’s mass slaughter in Vietnam. And his very presence helped to bring down Richard Nixon and end his presidency.

Not bad for a kid raised in Detroit.

               He also inspired me — and millions of you — for decades. In our ways, we must be Daniel Ellsberg, taking the nonviolent risks and actions needed to save our Democracy. The threats still loom large, but never forget that there are many more of us than there are of them, those who would destroy what Ellsberg and numerous others have fought for over the years. Let us use this Juneteenth to recommit ourselves to all that is right and just and necessary for a thriving, vibrant society of, by, and for the People.

               Thank you for allowing me to share Daniel Ellsberg with all of you.

-- Michael

THE BOOK I NEVER GAVE DAN ELLSBERG

On Stephen Wright’s Vietnam War novel 'Meditations in Green.'

By Seymour Hersh
21 June 2023

Daniel Ellsberg with author and activist Kay Boyle in San Francisco, 1975. Photo by Janet Fries/Getty Images.

Dan Ellsberg passed away last Friday—not sure I can get away with the word “peacefully” since Dan spent most of his adult life working for peace and found it mostly in his personal life. He was never discouraged—pained, yes, but never discouraged.

Dan wrote often and brilliantly about the dangers of nuclear weapons. He never despaired, even as nuclear-armed nations grew, and the recent war between Russia and Ukraine, a proxy war between Washington and Moscow, led to talk of possible nuclear intervention. His 2017 study of that madness, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, is required reading for those who worry about the bomb, as any rational person should.

Dan and I began our friendship bitching about the stupidity and horrors of the Vietnam War and the immense “collateral damage”—a phrase out of a Zombie dictionary, where words no longer resemble their actual meanings—that led to hundreds of thousands (by American estimates) or as many as two million (by Vietnamese estimates) noncombatant Vietnamese deaths. I made what turned out to be a massive mistake in the 1980s by taking Dan to see Oliver Stone’s Platoon. In the making, a brutal scene of a Vietnamese ambush had Dan twisting and turning in pain with memories. He kept on saying, “No, no, sir,” and stayed bent over, unable to watch as the scene unfolded. Last weekend I was glad to read an essay by his granddaughter Catherine noting that tears came to Dan often when the two of them went to the movies.

Dan and I never went to the movies again. Instead, we occasionally traded stories of the murderous policies in Vietnam that he had witnessed firsthand while the war ran hot and cold. I had unearthed in my reporting from the safety of the United States. We rarely talked about the novels or memoirs written about the war simply because I was convinced no one knew as much about the realities as Dan, and, as I think about it, we always stayed in the present when talking about Vietnam. It was a missed opportunity.

TO DE-ESCALATE US-CHINA TENSIONS, DECOUPLE DIFFERENTLY

Imposing trade restrictions to address national security concerns is at the heart of today’s heightened tensions between China and the United States. Instead, the two countries should establish new agreements on arms control and industrial policies, which will require rebuilding trust.

Wing Thye Woo
Project Syndicate
19 June 2023

KUALA LUMPUR – Tensions between the United States and China have reached such a high level that the G7, led by the US, recently changed its objective in its relations with China from “decoupling” to “de-risking.” But the reality is that de-risking, like decoupling, requires the participation of both sides and a common agenda. And while the objective of de-risking may be clear, its substance is not, besides keeping communication channels open.

The first step toward a productive dialogue is to recognize that the interaction among three types of competition – trade, technology, and geostrategy – is driving the spike in US-China tensions. To stop this vicious cycle, these three types of competition must be decoupled, and, to the extent possible, the policy instruments applied to each segment must be kept distinct.

For example, weaponizing trade policy to address national security matters has only reduced mutual benefits from the economic relationship without easing geostrategic tensions. China banned rare-earth exports to Japan in 2010 over a territorial dispute and restricted a range of imports from Australia in 2020 after the country called for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19. Yet such retaliation was ultimately ineffective.

Likewise, the US ban on exporting advanced microchips to China – a similar form of economic coercion – is unlikely to guarantee America’s technological dominance in the long term unless all advanced economies commit to containing China permanently.

The successful segmentation of geostrategic competition requires that national security not be viewed as a zero-sum game. Efforts to gain strategic dominance over the other party only inflame bilateral tensions and bring about the lose-lose outcome of an arms race. Instead, each country should regard its national security as being adequately safeguarded when there is only a tiny chance that the other side could achieve victory after a first attack.

Interdependence – Adam Smith’s mechanism for maximizing wealth creation – need not make a country less secure. Governments should undertake direct negotiations about force projection against others and conclude security treaties that include arms-control agreements and the creation of buffer zones. Unlike economic coercion – an inefficient instrument because it does not directly affect a country’s capacity to inflict harm (just look at North Korea) – an arms agreement is a win-win solution because it addresses national security concerns without undermining the economic relationship.

Segmenting technology competition boils down to installing guardrails against the negative spillovers of industrial policy. Every country enacts industrial policies; the US, for example, has its recent Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, tax credits for investment in research and development, National Science Foundation grants, and Defense Department procurement practices. The fact is that only a handful of countries have implemented industrial policies successfully, and even then, most of their industrial policies fail to produce the desired results.

The problem with industrial policy is that its effects can be felt beyond national borders. When a small country’s industrial policy fails, it only hurts itself. But the failed industrial policy of a big government hurts itself and its trade partners during the implementation period by lowering the price and volume of the targeted product traded in the world market.

One way to decrease the excessive risk-taking of large countries’ industrial policies is to conclude a new World Trade Organization agreement banning “unfair industrial-policy practices,” just as the organization currently prohibits “unfair trade practices.” A starting point for global negotiations would be the duration of industrial policy.

The most effective industrial policies focus on the supply side: a country will achieve better results by strengthening its capabilities than by trying to impede innovation elsewhere. The US, for example, would do better if it focused primarily on improving STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education in high schools, incentivizing domestic firms to pursue R&D, and attracting foreign talent, rather than on hindering trade, investment, and academic engagement with China.

After decoupling geostrategic, technological, and trade competition, trade-policy instruments could be used solely to expand business. That could mean countermeasures to discourage protectionist tariffs and creating WTO-plus trade areas like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The US and China must rebuild mutual trust before they can forge new agreements on arms control and industrial policies. Even if both countries are ready to take a leap of faith, the first side to make a move faces the risk of rejection by the other, which would almost guarantee a severe domestic political backlash.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) could mitigate this “unrequited love” risk by inviting China and the US to participate actively in the group’s economic development, environmental protection, and climate action projects. All are designed to achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5° Celsius.

The US and China also committed to these objectives in 2015, so accepting ASEAN’s invitation would align with their national interests and international obligations. US-China cooperation would be virtually sure to succeed because pooling the resources of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the G7’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment would create vast economies of scale. Successful cooperation would lead to greater bilateral trust, setting the stage for negotiations on separating geostrategic and technology competition from trade competition.

Economic interdependence does not undermine security; decoupling is far riskier. Rebuilding relations may test our creativity, but achieving greater security and prosperity for all is undoubtedly worth the effort

DON’T COUNT ON A LASTING THAW BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA

Despite a meeting between top Beijing and Washington diplomats finally taking place, America isn’t interested in reconciliation

By Timur Fomenko, Political Analyst
RT Today
20 June 2023

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Chinese President Xi in Beijing, China, Sunday, June 18, 2023. © Leah Millis/Pool Photo via AP

Over the weekend, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken officially visited China.

It’s the first trip by a senior US representative to the country since 2019, just as relations between the two powers began to fall off a cliff. Since then, the global geopolitical environment has deteriorated. Covid-19, the Ukraine conflict, the Taiwan crisis, you name it. The world has changed.

In Blinken’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang, there was little well-wishing, no forgiveness or self-reflection, only talk of “guardrails” and “lines of communication.” The idea is that the US, while pursuing aggression against China, at least wants to talk and ensure things don’t go “really wrong.”

Even the most optimistic view of ties between the two countries will note that little was achieved in this meeting, and things will certainly not change. The US will continue sanctioning Chinese companies, sail warships in the Taiwan Strait, build new alliances, and force countries to accept more military bases. There was no commitment to stopping any of that.

However, the US has now softened its stance or is pretending to do so. Beijing had refused any engagement with Washington since the start of this year after an alleged Chinese “spy balloon” sent US officials into a frenzy, and the original date of Blinken’s trip was postponed. Beijing sought to teach Washington a lesson by making a point that if hostility is the prevailing wisdom of the day, there isn’t much to be discussed.

The US has since been making peaceful overtures, not just because of China’s position. There is a sense that allied countries may also have “pushed back” against Washington for going too hard on Beijing in a way that threatens their fundamental interests. At the recent G7 summit, the US adopted the term “de-risking,” invented by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as a softer alternative to “decoupling” from China. Washington wants to reassure its allies it isn’t aiming to force Beijing out of the global economy or divide the world into two distinct blocs.

In line with that, the US also made some minor concessions. It is letting chip-making firms in South Korea and Taiwan expand their capacity in China, despite vowing to coerce them into not doing so. US chipmaker Micron, recently subject to a ban on participating in Chinese infrastructure, will also build a new plant in the country and a Swiss company. The US may have temporarily relented from its efforts to completely crush China’s semiconductor industry, judging that it wasn’t working, and was angering too many of its friends.

Will it last? Don’t bet on it. The US doesn’t do reconciliation. It does temporary reprieves, détente, and strategic patience but never relents on its fundamental strategic goals. The US still views China as its biggest geopolitical competitor, a rival to be contained and subjugated, and no amount of warm rhetoric or calls for a “constructive relationship” will ever change that. Even if the US strategy is a failure, the US will continue to double down on that failure for a long time. Just ask the Afghans how long it took for the Americans to give up and go home.

Consequently, if the US is reconciliatory now, it will only become hostile again when the time suits it. Of course, that isn’t too far away because by the end of this year, the US election cycle starts again, and what is that election going to come down to? It will be about who can shout the loudest on China, who can be the most hawkish or the least soft. Despite Biden’s pursuit of being tough on Beijing, do you think those Republican contenders will give Joe a pat on the back and say, “Well done?” No! They will deride him for “appeasing” Beijing and “betraying” America.

So what that means is that any so-called constructive engagement resulting from this meeting just won’t last. New sanctions will be on the way as the silly season of US hysteria, paranoia, and frenzy is whipped up again, and politicians play to the gallery. China’s foreign minister Qin Gang called for a constructive relationship. Still, to the US, a productive relationship is just building more bases around China and… making sure nothing silly happens, like an accidental war over Taiwan while Washington is still in the process of containing Beijing.

ANALYSIS |
DMITRY TRENIN: THE US AND ITS ALLIES ARE PLAYING 'RUSSIAN ROULETTE. ' YOU'D ALMOST THINK THEY WANT A NUCLEAR WAR

If the Ukraine conflict continues on its current trajectory, it will end in a total disaster for humanity

Dmitry Trenin is a Higher School of Economics research professor and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

US President Joe Biden. © ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP

The Debate Inside Russia

Professor Sergey Karaganov’s Point:

               ‘Tough-but-necessary decision’ article – which claims that using its nuclear weapons, Russia could save humanity from a global catastrophe – has provoked plenty of reaction both at home and abroad.

               Partly because of the author’s status – he has been an advisor to both President Boris Yeltsin and President Vladimir Putin – and also due to the belief that his opinion may be shared by some people in positions of power.

Professor Dmitry Trenin’s Counterpoint:

Professor Sergey Karaganov’s recent article brought into public focus the thorny issue of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict. Many reactions to the piece boil down to the well-known reasoning that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and thus it cannot be fought.

Against this background, President Vladimir Putin, responding to a question at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, said that nuclear weapons are a deterrent and the conditions for their use are defined in a published doctrine. He explained that the theoretical possibility of using these weapons exists, but there is no need to use them now.

In principle, nuclear weapons have been "on the table" for Russia from the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict to deter the US and its allies from becoming directly involved. Nevertheless, repeated public reminders from Putin and other officials about Russia's nuclear status have so far not prevented a growing escalation of NATO’s participation. As a result, it has become clear that nuclear deterrence, on which many in Moscow have relied as a reasonable means of securing the country's vital interests, has proven to be a much more limited tool than they expected.

The US has now set itself the task – unthinkable during the Cold War – of trying to defeat another nuclear superpower in a strategically important region, without resorting to atomic weapons, but instead by arming and controlling a third country. The Americans are proceeding cautiously, testing Moscow’s responses and consistently pushing the boundaries of what is possible regarding arms supplied to Kyiv and their choice of targets. The US is pondering transferring F-16 fighter jets and long-range missiles, from starting with anti-tank' Javelins to eventually cajoling allies into sending actual tanks.

This US strategy is likely based on the belief that the Russian leadership would not dare use nuclear weapons in the current conflict and that its references to the nuclear arsenal are nothing more than a bluff. The Americans have even been calm – at least outwardly about the deployment of Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons in Belarus. Such "fearlessness" is a direct result of the geopolitical changes of the last three decades and the change of generations in power in the US and the West in general.

The fear of the atomic bomb, present in the second half of the twentieth century, has disappeared. Nuclear weapons have been taken out of the equation. The practical conclusion is clear: there is no need to fear such a Russian response.

This is an extremely dangerous misconception. The trajectory of the Ukrainian war points to an escalation of the conflict both horizontally (by expanding the theater of military action) and vertically (by increasing the power of the weapons used and the intensity of their use). It must be soberly acknowledged that this momentum is heading toward a direct armed confrontation between Russia and NATO. If the accumulated inertia is not stopped, such a clash will occur, and in this case, the war, having spread to Western Europe, will almost inevitably become nuclear. And after some time, a nuclear war in Europe will most likely lead to an exchange of blows between Russia and the US.

The Americans and their allies are indeed playing Russian roulette. Yes, so far, the Russian response to the bombing of Nord Stream, the drone attack on the strategic Engels airbase, the entry of Western-armed saboteurs into the Belgorod region, and many other actions by the Washington-backed and controlled side have been relatively restrained.

As Putin recently made clear, there are good reasons for this restraint. The president said Russia could destroy any building in Kyiv but would not stoop to the methods of terror used by the enemy. But Putin added that Russia was considering various options for destroying Western warplanes if they were based in NATO countries and directly took part in the war in Ukraine.

So far, Moscow’s strategy has been to allow the enemy to take the escalator initiative. The West has taken advantage of this, trying to wear down Russia on the battlefield and undermine it from within. It makes no sense for the Kremlin to go along with this plan. On the contrary, it’s better to clarify and modernize our nuclear deterrence strategy, considering the Ukrainian conflict's practical experience. The existing doctrinal provisions were formulated before the current military operation without a precise idea of what might happen during such a situation.

Russia's external strategy includes a basket of foreign diplomacy, information campaigns, and other aspects – in addition to the military elements. The main adversary should be given an unambiguous signal that Moscow will not play by the rules set by the other side. Of course, this should be accompanied by a credible dialogue with our strategic partners and neutral states, explaining the motives and objectives of our actions. The possibility of nuclear weapons in the current conflict must not be concealed. This authentic, not just theoretical, prospect should be an incentive to limit and stop the escalation of the war and ultimately pave the way for a satisfactory strategic balance in Europe.

Regarding Russian nuclear strikes against NATO countries, as raised by Professor Karaganov: Hypothetically speaking, Washington would most likely not respond to such an attack with a nuclear response of its own against Russia – for fear of a Russian retaliatory launch against the US itself. This would dispel the mythology surrounding Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for decades, leading to a profound crisis for NATO – possibly even the organization's dissolution. It is possible that, in such circumstances, the Atlantic elites of NATO and the EU would panic and be swept aside by patriotic forces that would see for themselves that their security does not depend on a non-existent US nuclear umbrella but on building a balanced relationship with Russia. It is also possible that the Americans could decide to leave Russia alone.

It could well be that the calculation just described would ultimately be correct. But it is unlikely.

Yes, a US nuclear strike on Russia would probably not follow immediately. It is unlikely that the Americans would sacrifice Boston for Poznan, just as they were not going to sacrifice Chicago for Hamburg during the Cold War. But there will probably be some sort of response from Washington, perhaps of the non-atomic type, which, without speculating too wildly, could be sensitive and painful for us. It is likely that with it, Washington would try to pursue a goal similar to ours: paralyzing the Russian leadership's will to continue the war and creating panic in our society.

Moscow’s leadership is unlikely to capitulate after such a blow since, at this stage, Russia's very existence would be at stake. It is more likely that a retaliatory strike would follow, and this time, one can assume, against the main adversary rather than its satellites.

Before this point of no return, let us pause and summarize our analysis tentatively.

Should the nuclear bullet be demonstrably inserted into the revolver cylinder that the US leadership is recklessly playing with today? To paraphrase a late American statesman: Why do we need nuclear weapons if we refuse to use them in the face of an existential threat?

On the other hand, there is no need to scare others with words. Instead, we must prepare practically for any possible events by carefully considering the options and their consequences.

The war in Ukraine has become protracted. As far as we can tell from the actions of the Russian leadership, it expects to achieve strategic success by relying on Russian resources, which are many times greater than those in Ukraine. It also depends on that Moscow has much more at stake in this war than the West. This calculation is probably correct, but it should be considered that the opponent assesses Russia's chances differently than we do and may take steps that could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and the US/NATO.

We must be prepared for such a development. To avoid a general catastrophe, it is necessary to put the fear of armageddon back into politics and the public consciousness.
In the nuclear age, it is the only guarantee of preserving humanity.

This post was initially published by Russia in Global Affairs

RUSSIAN DEFENSES A CHALLENGE FOR UKRAINE – EX-ESTONIAN SPY CHIEF RAINE SACHS

Kyiv hopes to weaken its opponent from afar after its initial push resulted in no breakthrough. Rainer Sachs believes

RT Today
21 June 2023

FILE PHOTO: A destroyed Ukrainian tank. © Sputnik/Sergey Averin

Kyiv appears to have reservations about launching a major offensive against Russian defensive positions, the former head of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (VLA) Rainer Sachs has assessed, based on the past two weeks' events.

“Ukraine has tried to break through the Russian defense line [in the south of the frontline] in three places. Not using large energetic maneuver units, but rather carefully, with artillery fire,” he told Postimees TV on Tuesday.

“I wouldn’t expect speedy and deep progress from such an attack,”  the former senior official predicted.

Sachs believes that Kyiv has not deployed its main forces in the counteroffensive, which it launched earlier this month. After failing to reach a breakthrough in the initial push, it has seemingly taken a break and is “trying to thin out the Russian forces” with longer-range attacks and covert operations, he assessed.

The expert said he didn’t expect Kyiv to launch an amphibious operation across the Dnieper River, considering Russian air superiority. One of Ukraine's problems is that Russian attack helicopters can strike targets while keeping them out of range of Ukrainian air defenses.

He added that pilots sometimes risk launching missiles from a shorter distance, which improves accuracy, claiming that this can sometimes lead to Russian losses.

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Wednesday that there was a “lull” in the hostilities due to heavy losses sustained by the Ukrainian side over the past two weeks. Kyiv is regrouping forces and rethinking its strategy now, he suggested.

               “[The Ukrainian] potential for offensive action has not been exhausted so far. The opponent has reserves and considers where and how to deploy them,”  Putin said.

The president added that Russian troops would give Ukraine no chance to turn the tide and that understanding this added to Kyiv’s “confusion” and hesitation.

And Now, Just for Laughs

Satire from The Borowitz Report

MIAMI POLICE ARE SEARCHING FOR DEFENDANT WITH SEVENTY-ONE FELONY COUNTS WHO SKIPPED OUT ON A RESTAURANT CHECK

By Andy Borowitz
New Yorker Magazine
June 16, 2023

Photograph by Stephanie Keith / Getty

MIAMI (The Borowitz Report)—Miami police are looking for a defendant with seventy-one felony counts who skipped out on a check at a local Cuban restaurant on Tuesday.

According to the police, the man, who has been indicted for crimes in New York and Florida and could soon face arrest in Georgia, offered to pay for everyone in the restaurant before beating the check.

Harland Dorrinson, a spokesman for the Miami police, said that the suspect had been on a “multistate crime spree” and should be considered “extremely dangerous.”

               “He is not believed to be carrying a weapon, but he could be carrying documents indicating the location of weapons,” the spokesman said.

He revealed that the police searched for the suspect throughout Miami, emphasizing the city’s bathrooms.

               “He appears to believe those are highly secure locations,” Dorrinson noted.

Read more

Editor’s Note | In the ideal world, a criminal remains innocent unless proven guilty.

The question is criminal intent.

Has the former President of the United States profited from America’s secrets shrouded inside
government boxes on his bathroom floor, photographed and publicized for all?
Has the United States been compromised and harmed
by what could be construed as sloppy housekeeping?
Negligence might be a better word.
If, in the most unlikely event, the former President of the United States is convicted,
won’t the Supreme Court not eventually throw out this case?
Isn’t the timing, one year before the general elections, suspicious?

It’s probably just about politics.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

Our Friday News Analysis | How Do You Love Your Enemies? Have None! (Part 9),' 16 June 2023.

Our Wednesday News Analysis | 'Colonization of Palestine: Crusades and Zionism,' 21 June 2023.

The Evangelical Pope| 'Be Who You Are,' 19 June 2023.

_________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague.