NATO is in Iraq

I wish to let you my readers know that I was wrong about NATO and Iraq - NATO, as of January 2017, has been in Iraq training the Iraqi Security Forces.

I wish to apologize for not finding this information out sooner and doing enough research into NATO's involvement in Iraq since Trump became President. Iraq is going to be another NATO project, as Afghanistan is.

This is likely to have several repercussions. It is clear that Iraqi oil is likely to be the great monopoly for not only America, but for all NATO partners. It is also clear that NATO spending will ease American finances in Iraq, which will greatly help America. It will force Russia out of eyeing Iraq as a potential ally and sees western-Iraqi relations increasing to new heights.

Whether Trump will expand NATO intervention into Libya and Syria or not is unclear, as this may hinder Trump's desire to 'get along well with Putin,' as the most effective forces in both these countries are backed by Russia. Yemen is even more illusive.

Israel's allies in the Middle-East under Trump

I have predicted some sizable outcomes for the future of the Middle-East. I have predicted that Syria will stabilize under President Bashar Al-Assad; I have predicted Iraq will become stable under Trump's leadership, that Iraq will become the main Arab oil exporter; I have predicted Libya will stabilize under Haftar Al-Khalifa with American and Russian support; I have predicted that, should Trump get a second term, Afghanistan will stabilize under an anti-Iranian dictator.

In light of all this, where would Israel's main Arab allies be? My thoughts:

1) Jordan. The Hashemi ruling elite in Jordan has been backed into a corner by the West. After world war 1, the West has removed the Iraqi and Hijazi kingdoms from the Hashmites and replaced them with dictators and the Saudi royal family in each region respectively. Because of this, King Abdullah of Jordan has been forced into the difficult position of dealing with the largest border with Israel, while maintaining positive relations with Palestine, Palestinians in Jordan, ethnic Jordanians, the entire Middle-East and America.

True to being a Hashemi, King Abdullah of Jordan has managed to beautifully balance all of these requirements and has kept relations with Israel cordial. They remain in good relations while Jordan also maintains good relations with Palestine.

2) Egypt. Egypt has had a history of defeat at the hands of Israel during the 6-day war, while also signing peace agreements under Mubarak, the previous dictator of Egypt. With Islamism on the rise, Abdul Feteh As-Sisi is desperate for anti-Islamist allies, including Israel. Trump has called for not only an alliance but a friendship with Sisi, and this, together with strong ties to Israel, should see relations improve strongly between the three countries.

Currently, relations between Egypt and Israel are good; relations between Palestine and Egypt have turned sour. Sisi has done this to contrast from Mohammed Morsi, the last President of Egypt, who was from the Muslim Brotherhood and loved Palestine and Iran. Sisi likes neither country, and seems intent on not only maintaining but increasing good relations with Israel. This would be why Trump has extended such a warm invitation of friendship to Egypt under Sisi.

3) Saudi Arabia. While relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are at an all-time high, I do not expect this to last at all. This is not because Iran will no longer be a regional threat, but rather because Mohammed Bin Salman is likely to increase relations with Israel to an unbearable point for the Saudi people. Like Iran in 1979, Saudi Arabia runs the risk of revolution should Mohammed Bin Salman work towards not only strong relations with Israel - which Saudi currently enjoys - but more public relations with Israel.

So while in the short-term relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel will be maintained and also increase, in the long-term Saudi Arabia is likely to turn violently anti-Israel. Whether this surfaces in an ISIS takeover of the country, or an Al-Qaeda takeover, or a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, or a more conservative branch of the Saudi royal family taking control, is irrelevant: relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel are likely to deteriorate.

4) Iraq. Currently relations between Iraq and Israel are terrible. Like under Saddam Hussein, the current Iraqi government has no desire to improve relations with Israel.

However, a revolution in Saudi Arabia would likely change all that. While needing security from Iran and America - in an attempt to perhaps show America that Iraq is not dominated by Iran - secret efforts to increase cooperation with Israel might be implemented. This was how Saudi Arabia began its relations with Israel - Iraq would likely do the same should Saudi Arabia implode.


These are the four countries which I believe are worth observing regarding Israel. Watch this space!

NATO, Russia and America in Libya

Very interesting developments are occurring in regards to Libya, Russia, America and NATO.

Other members of NATO are not paying their fair share. NATO is, in many ways, obsolete, with America always having to bear the brunt of the burden and financial cost, and with NATO mainly directed to Russia and not to radical Islamic terrorism.

Libya is the ultimate way for Trump to revolutionize NATO. How? By abandoning it. Instead, Trump would wage a war for Libyan security with a Russian-American alliance.

Russia and America share an ally in Egypt. Abdul Feteh Sisi has strong ties to Russia, dating back to the beginning of Sisi's military coup in 2013, when Obama wanted nothing to do with Egypt but Putin did. Now that Trump is promising not only an alliance but a friendship to Sisi, in Libya we see American and Russian interests are very similar: stability in Libya to protect Sisi to his west, which means Haftar Al-Khalifa.

Thus it may be in Libya where American-Russian relations bud to fruition rather than in Syria. In Syria it is a quagmire like no other, and should America bomb ISIS with Russia in Syria, it would be perceived to benefit Iran.

Not only so, but such a Libya strategy would result in a serious wake up call to NATO. They would know that America has other options, unless they pay their fair share of the wage and focus more on radical Islamic terrorism than Putin.

Thus would be a win-win situation for both Putin and Trump, but particularly for Trump: it would improve ties with Russia, force NATO to pay their fair share, stabilize Libya and fulfill his promise to Egyptian President Sisi to not only alliance but friendship.

This is the likely outcome for Libya. And it is one that would show that the Trump-doctrine is just what the world needs right now.

If John Waver had been Barrack Obama

Forget that I'm not Barrack Obama, but let's just imagine that I, John Waver, had been in 2008 elected to be President of the United States of America, as I am today. What would have President John Waver done in Foreign Policy?

I would have been different from Obama in a number of ways. However, on Iraq, I would have been in accord: it was time to get out, or at least leave a residual force behind if allowed by the then Maliki government.

From the start of 2008 in Afghanistan, however, I would have implemented a vastly different policy to that of Obama's. Rather than give in to demands for a troop surge in Afghanistan, I would have surged airstrikes in Afghanistan to support existing American/NATO troops and bolster morale for Afghani troops.

From the beginning, I would have implemented an "Iraq War in Reverse" mentality in Afghanistan. I would have allowed - and even encouraged - then leader of Afghanistan Hamid Kharzai to remain in power indefinitely as a dictator so he could crack down hard on the Taliban.

I would have had a "no tolerance" approach to the Taliban, who had harboured Al-Qaeda preceding 9-11. I would have pushed Hamid Kharzai for mass arrests of Taliban members and for members of the Taliban to be held in high security prisons. Rather than putting lots of money into Afghani infrastructure - that was so frequently blown up again and again - I would have put the money into border security between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to make sure no Pakistani Taliban would come through to Afghanistan.

I would not negotiate with the Taliban. I would make sure that a dictatorship under Kharzai was fiercely anti-terrorism and anti-Taliban, and - once a much stronger country - encourage for Kharzai to stand up to Iran, like Saddam Hussein did, to assist America in that regard.

While withdrawing from Iraq in 2011, I would have marked the war as a defeat, not a victory. I would tell the American soldiers that their fight was tough and was not in vain, but that as of now, America had lost the Iraq War. I would encourage them to stiffen their resolve in fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan and that, should the Iraqis ever need our help, the United States would be their top ally and friend and return swiftly.

In the 2010 Iraqi elections, I would have pushed for Ayad Allawi to become the Prime Minister, as he was supposed to be. Though I would have supported Iraq no matter the Prime Minister, I would have at that time criticized Al-Maliki for his policies which alienated Sunni Arabs from belief in Iraq, and blamed him for Iranian takeover of Iraq, to weaken him and strengthen Allawi. Assuming I failed in diplomacy, I would still have remained in support of Iraq under Maliki.

I would not have endorsed the Arab Spring at all. I would not have overthrown Gidaffi in Libya, nor pushed to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, nor would have I encouraged the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. I would site the Iraq War as the top reason.

The result of this would have meant no ISIS in Syria or Libya, and no Al-Qaeda there either.

With no S in ISIS - S for Syria - the Islamic State of Iraq, under Al-Qaeda, probably would have still reared its ugly head in 2014. I would have immediately put in a "safe zone" in Nineveh Province to prevent Christian and Yazidi genocide and, if necessary, would have put in American ground troops in that safe zone to prevent it.

But I would not expand military operations in Iraq beyond the Nineveh safe zone until Allawi were made Prime Minister of Iraq, as he should have been in 2010. I would have repeated my claims about Nouri Al-Maliki's leadership. Perhaps then, Allawi would become the Prime Minister following the crisis in 2014.

Had Allawi become Prime Minister, I would then give him firm and strong support via airstrikes to protect Baghdad and the oilfields of Kurdistan. I would have prioritized northern Iraq before Anbar Province, to make Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan work hard to prevent infiltration from ISI, while securing Christians and Yazidis from genocide and slavery.

The result may have been that ISI would have been driven out of Iraq by the end of my second Presidential term, because there would be no significant amounts of funding from the US to ISI to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad, but also because ISI would not exist in Syria and not exist as a Caliphate.

While destroying ISI - or at least driving it underground - I would tell Allawi I planned to prioritize oil exports from Iraq over every other country. I would have drastically increased the oil exports from Iraq, and drastically decreased them from countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to bankrupt them so they would be no longer able to fund their projects.

Thus, in my view, Afghanistan and Iraq would have been drastically more stable than they are today. Yes, Obama: I could've beat you on Foreign Policy in the Middle-East.

Positioning NATO towards radical Islam PART TWO

Now that Trump has been President for almost 1 month, his intentions behind NATO are more clear.

It seems that Trump intends for the Afghan War to become purely a NATO war, not an American-NATO war. It is in Afghanistan that Trump sees his idea of positioning NATO towards radical Islam to be the easiest to implement.

It would force all partners within NATO to work towards a solution to the Afghani conflict - which will only occur once all members of NATO are convinced to prioritize stability over democracy. America under Trump sees this - so does, interestingly, Erdogan of Turkey. But few other NATO allies do.

It is very unlikely that NATO would be positioned within Syria or Libya, as Trump seems content for these conflicts to end up in Russia's hands. Putting NATO in Syria and/or Libya adds risk to conflict between NATO and Russia, which Trump is against.

It is also unlikely that NATO would be positioned in Iraq. NATO would get in the way of Trump's desire for a largely American victory in Iraq.

As for Yemen, that is the now uncertain arena in regards to NATO. At the moment, Trump is happy to work with the Saudi government against the Iran-sympathetic (but not Iran-backed) Houthis, but will that last after stability is reached elsewhere? Will Trump betray Saudi Arabia after stability returns to Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan? Or will he increase NATO involvement on the southern neighbour of the Arabian Peninsula?

The first is more likely, but with Trump, things are not always as they seem.

The only solution to the Afghan War

It should be obvious to pundits that the only country who really has the right idea about how to defeat terrorism is Russia.

Their historic 'Iraq War in reverse' in Syria has seen drastic levels of stability reached all across the country. Once ISIS and Al-Qaeda are cleared out from Syria, Bashar Al-Assad will make sure that his country will no longer be a terrorist haven.

This lesson has profound implications for Afghanistan. Meanwhile, other journalists are calling for bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table as part of the peace process. The Taliban! The group who harboured Al-Qaeda and caused 9-11!

Of course, Trump will not focus on Afghanistan until Iraq is stabilized. His plan to stabilize Iraq involves destroying ISIS, giving Sunni Arabs more of a say in their government, quenching Iranian influence from the country, and upping oil relations between Iraq and the West. Let's hope it works.

But the solution for Afghanistan is clear: an 'Iraq-War in reverse' must be waged. Rather than engaging in dialogue with the Taliban, the Taliban need to be ruthlessly driven out of Afghanistan into Pakistan - either that or mass Taliban imprisonment.

A strong man must take charge of Afghanistan; whether he be an Afghan general or someone else, a coup must be supported by the United States to enable strong government to exist in Afghanistan, to the detriment of terrorism and benefit of the Afghani people.

Why the Arab Spring was worse than the Iraq War

The Arab Spring destroyed more countries than the Iraq War did.

To be sure, George W. Bush's invasion in 2003 totally and completely destroyed Iraq. It increased persecution of Iraqi minority groups, especially Sunni Arabs and Christians, and gave birth to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2004), the organisation which became the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006.

However, when Obama inherited that big mess, he could have very easily left Iraq without sending money to Islamic State of Iraq. Yes, you heard that right: Obama sent money to the Islamic State of Iraq to get them to be allies in overthrowing the secular Syrian Government.

Did you know that the same year the Iraq War ended, Obama endorsed the Arab Spring and funded terrorists, including ISIS, to overthrow dictators?

In Syria the results have been obvious, because most of the "moderate rebels" defected to then Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), the organisation which expanded from the Islamic State of Iraq. ISIS would never have existed in Syria had Obama not supported the Syrian Opposition.

In Libya, much less is seen in the Media, but it is nonetheless horrific. The violence escalated about the same time as ISIS invaded Iraq and declared their Caliphate. In 2014, the remnants of the Libyan Government moved to Tobruk to wage war against mainly Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda militants based in Tripoli. This war, while not as intense as the current Syrian-Iraqi conflict, has still caused untold suffering for the people of Libya.

Yemen is also a very sad story. Obama gave the kingdom of Saudi Arabia the green light to wage a war against the Houthis, a Iranian-friendly (but not Iranian-backed) group hell-bent on destroying Al-Qaeda in Yemen and giving the country much-needed stability. However, Saudi bombing has ended that possibility, with now 7 million Yemenis in famine as we speak,

All three of these conflicts could have never existed had Obama not endorsed in then "Arab Spring." Had Gidaffi crushed the rebellion in 2011; had Assad been able to crush the "moderate rebels" in Syria, the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly dried up.

Syria, Libya and Yemen together affect more people than Iraq does. Iraq has a population of 30 million; the combined population of Syria, Libya and Yemen is 60 million, double that amount.

The difference is that less American ground troops were sent into Syria, Libya and Yemen. This is the reason why Obama's intervention (or compliance over actions of American allies) in Syria, Libya and Yemen has been (until recently) more popular than George Bush's Iraq War. Americans saw Iraq as if it was outside their window - Syria, Libya and Yemen they do not.

But it seems likely that the Obama legacy - and the legacy of the Arab Spring - will be in Russian takeover of each of these 3 conflicts. Russia plans to stabilize Syria by fully allying and cooperating with the government there; in Libya, Russia is currently working with Egypt to stabilize the country by working on a solution through Haftar Al-Khalifa and the remnants of the Libyan Government in Tobruk; in Yemen, Russia is patiently eyeing for the right moment to intervene, likely to occur after significant levels of stability are reached in Syria and Libya.

Thus will it be that Trump's own legacy will be more aligned with that of America: end the Iraq and Afghan Wars properly and proceed to focus on America First. Should Trump remain President for 8 years, I expect he will accomplish these, and these without worrying about Russia cleaning up Obama's mess.