Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Steve Bannon’s removal from the president’s National Security Council earlier this month, followed in close succession by last week’s missile strike in Syria, has generated consensus within the Alt-Right – or at least that portion of it that eschews the 4D chess hypothesis – that likely Mossad asset Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka were the parties responsible for the controlled demolition of the Trump administration’s relations with Russia.
The move against Bannon was attributed to anti-Russian hawk H.R. McMaster, who downplays the importance of the shake-up; but The Hill corroborates the case for the Bannon-Kushner conflict’s centrality to the abrupt shift in Trump’s foreign policy:
[…] chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon is increasingly isolated and will be forced out if he is unable to adopt a cooperative approach.
Several outlets have reported that Bannon is frequently clashing with Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner as well as the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump.
Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner reportedly want a more moderate and results-oriented approach for the White House, while Bannon refuses to find common ground.
[…] Bannon allies are now doing everything they can to save his job, arguing that dismissing Bannon will cost the president his vital “America First” constituency.
Was Bannon ever really the key to a non-interventionist and truly “America First” foreign policy? Breitbart, which Bannon managed from 2012 to 2016, was literally launched in the Jewish state with the intention of offering an “unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel” perspective. Breitbart maintains a headquarters in Jerusalem and has hewed to a Zionist line from its inception. Bannon is hardly the mostly likely of Middle East peacemakers. What, then, is his game if not regime change in Syria?
Bannon is “more ideologist than opportunist,” argues Jeffrey Sommers at CounterPunch:
Bannon believes war with Iran and China are inevitable and appears to delight in the prospect. Thus, Bannon wished to position the Russian bear at his side for these coming crusades. Bannon’s Alt-Right outlook framed Russia as a white Christian nation to join his war on Islam. The fact that Russia is a multi-ethnic federation with millions of Muslims, along with Vladimir Putin taking endless pains to not alienate this population, seems to have escaped Mr. Bannon’s attention. Bannon chose Trump as the impressionable vehicle to implement his ideas.
“Bannon is determined to manipulate the American public’s anxiety about Islam,” Salon’s Behzad Yaghmaian wrote last month, adding that the “operational target is to tame their potential opposition to yet another devastating war.” Further:
The series of events and decisions that followed Trump’s inauguration clearly reveal the administration’s intent to make Iran the central battleground in Bannon’s war. […]
A hasty and unmeasured reaction by the Iranian regime could have led to the realization of Bannon’s war.
The domestic backlash to the travel ban, the botched Yemen raid and other concerns might have helped temporarily pause the reckless train of confrontation with Iran.
Let us not delude ourselves: Bannon’s long-term plan for a war in the Middle East is, however, still in place.
Is peace with Russia conceivable only as a partnership in the “War on Terror”, and was Bannon’s resistance to Kushner and Syrian escalation merely a case of irreconcilable differences in hit list priorities rather than substance and ultimate aims?