Title: John Bolton: We May Punish Europe If They Don’t Pull Out Of Iran Deal Too Source:
YouTube URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osyxJFa6188 Published:May 20, 2018 Author:Kyle Kulinski Post Date:2018-05-20 09:57:00 by A Pole Keywords:Iran, Europe, sanctions Views:4522 Comments:31
Have to agree Trump is overplaying the US hand, acting like we have a full house but only holding 2-pair. He's making Russia look friendlier to Europe.
Have to agree Trump is overplaying the US hand, acting like we have a full house but only holding 2-pair.
Hooey. The EU will whine and complain, dodge and weave and look for some dodge, then they'll finally fall into line.
Like the colonies of the American empire that they truly are.
Trump won't even have to threaten to withdraw all NATO forces from Europe. But he could do that and a lot more if he wanted to. And our Congress and our allies could do nothing about it. Zero.
Like the colonies of the American empire that they truly are.
That is indeed the truth. The risk, however, is that they learn this. Certainly there is no desire by any developed country to be perceived as a US vassal.
Trump won't even have to threaten to withdraw all NATO forces from Europe.
Good thing, as Trump would never want to do such a thing, though I certainly wouldn't object, as there is no defensive reason to have them there.
But he could do that and a lot more if he wanted to.
No he couldn't. The US **wants** troops in Europe. Pulling them out would be cutting ties & control of Europe. It won't happen until countries in Europe demand they leave, or the US economy collapses. Trump would face huge R backlash for even threatening to do such a thing. Won't happen.
And our Congress and our allies could do nothing about it. Zero.
With our massive national debt, the US is vulnerable economically. Russia already sold off their holdings of US debt, about $100 billion worth, in the aftermath of the Skripal case, Syria bombing and sanctions, which no doubt contributed to Treasury yields rising above 3%. The USA only holds about 5% of the world population, and pissing off our allies will only give them reason to WANT to stop doing business with the US, and looking for ways to do the same. As it's said: "Seek, and ye shall find".
Alienating US allies is something the US can't much afford to do. We may be happy to see a president act as his own man, not taking orders from other countries, but we still have one giving orders to other countries.
Though on second thought, if such actions put the US on course for severing unnecessary ties around the world, I guess I could view this as a means to a better end.
No he couldn't. The US **wants** troops in Europe. Pulling them out would be cutting ties & control of Europe. It won't happen until countries in Europe demand they leave, or the US economy collapses. Trump would face huge R backlash for even threatening to do such a thing. Won't happen.
You forget our trade relations and banking dominance. We don't need the NATO threat to bring them into compliance.
With our massive national debt, the US is vulnerable economically. Russia already sold off their holdings of US debt, about $100 billion worth, in the aftermath of the Skripal case, Syria bombing and sanctions, which no doubt contributed to Treasury yields rising above 3%. The USA only holds about 5% of the world population, and pissing off our allies will only give them reason to WANT to stop doing business with the US, and looking for ways to do the same. As it's said: "Seek, and ye shall find".
Japan and China won't be selling our debt any time soon and the large majority of it is US-held anyway. The Europeans hold a tiny fraction of US debt, mostly because their own financial house is in such bad shape.
All of Europe combined holds about $1 trillion in US debt. If they combined wanted to hurt us, they could, without firing a shot. Even half that amount would hurt a lot. Certainly the first order of business would be ceasing to buy more, which we're giving them political reason to do.
The US has a massive debt. It's our Achilles Heel. Believing out of pride that we are invulnerable is dangerous.
All of Europe combined holds about $1 trillion in US debt. If they combined wanted to hurt us, they could, without firing a shot. Even half that amount would hurt a lot. Certainly the first order of business would be ceasing to buy more, which we're giving them political reason to do.
Crashing the U.S. economy is not in the EU's interest. See what happened for them in 2009. And their finances are still quite shaky. Any such effort would be a MAD scenario (mutually-assured destruction). And they still would hurt themselves overall more than they had hurt us. We would survive it but they would be hit very hard. Don't forget how much they export to us.
Crashing the U.S. economy is not in the EU's interest.
Agreed, but it's not a binary choice. It's a sliding scale between doing everything they can to crash the economy to doing everything they can to keep it afloat. No they won't do everything they can to crash it, but they are probably now less inclined to keep it afloat, which equates to buying more US Treasury bonds. Our continued deficit spending means we **need** loans to keep operating, and countries we piss off will be individually less inclined to play the part.
There is a limit to how far any country can be bullied, and it's a fool's errand to take delight in such a thing, as it won't go on forever.
There is a limit to how far any country can be bullied, and it's a fool's errand to take delight in such a thing, as it won't go on forever.
You forget the extent of America propping up the EU's banking system back in 2009.
As long as the petrodollar rules the international economy, the EU has little real leverage and will hurt themselves a lot more than America. And they know it, even if you don't.
There is a limit to how far any country can be bullied, and it's a fool's errand to take delight in such a thing, as it won't go on forever.
Machiavelli, Discourses I, LIII
[...]
Considering therefore what is easy and what is difficult to persuade a People to, this distinction can be made: either that which you have to persuade them to represents at first sight a gain or a loss, or truly it appears a courageous or cowardly proceeding: and if, in the things that are placed in front of the people, there is seen a gain even though it is concealed under a loss, and if it appears courageous even though it is hidden beneath the ruin of the Republic, it will always be easy to persuade the multitude to it: and thus it will always be difficult to persuade them of those proceedings where either some usefulness or loss is apparent, even though the welfare and benefit (of the Republic) were hidden under it. This that I have said is confirmed by infinite examples, Roman and foreign, modern and ancient.
For, from this, there arose the evil opinion that sprung up in Rome of Fabius Maximus, who could not persuade the Roman people, that it was useless to that Republic to proceed slowly in that war, and to sustain the attack of Hannibal without engaging in battle, because that people judged this proceeding cowardly, and did not see what usefulness there should be in that, and Fabius did not have sufficient cause to demonstrate it to them: and the People are so blinded on these ideas of bravery, that although the Roman People had made that error of giving authority to the Master of the horse of Fabius to enable him to engage in battle, even though Fabius did not want to, and that because of this authority the Roman camp would have been broken up except for the prudence of Fabius which remedied it;
this experience was not enough for them, for they afterwards made Varro Consul, not for any of his merits but for having promised throughout all the plazas and public places of Rome to rout Hannibal anytime he should be given the authority. From this came the battle and defeat of Cannae, and almost caused the ruin of Rome.
[...]
In Greece in the City of Athens, Nicias, a most serious and prudent man, never could persuade that people that it would not be good to go and assault Sicily, so that this decision taken against the will of the wise caused the complete ruin of Athens.
[...]
On this proposition an example can be given of our own City, as it was when Messer Ercole Bentivogli, commander of the Florentine forces, together with Antonio Giacomini, after having defeated Bartolomeo D'Alvino at San Vincenti, went to besiege Pisa: which enterprise was decided upon by the People on the brave promises of Messer Ercole, although many of the wise Citizens censured it: none the less there was no remedy, being pushed by that desire of the general public which was based on the brave promises of the commander.
[...]
I say, therefore, that there is no easier way to ruin a Republic where the People have authority, than to involve them in a brave enterprise: because where the People are of any importance, they will always accept them, nor will there be anyone of contrary opinion who will know any remedy. But if the ruin of the City results from this, there also and more often results the ruin of the particular Citizens who are in charge of such enterprises: for the People having expected victory, if defeat comes, they do not blame fortune or the impotence of those who commanded, but their wickedness and ignorance, but most of the times they either kill or imprison them, or exile them, as happened to infinite Carthaginian Captains and to many Athenians.