by William Skink

My interest in American foreign policy is one of the main factors that soured me on the Obama regime and the Democratic Party. All it took was a change in tone and slight change in tactics to lull Democrat supporters into complacency regarding the lethal use of military force across the globe.

I watched in disgust as “progressives” lined up behind Obama and Clinton to support a humanitarian intervention in Libya and color revolution in Ukraine. I couldn’t understand how a change of semantics could magically change opposition to the use of military force into support.

One of the reasons I wrote critical post after critical post during the Obama years is because I knew failure to address how the Obama regime used military force would mean his successor would inherit the Democratic codification of Bush Juniors abuses in the wake of 9/11.

Trump exploited the foreign entanglement aversion of Libertarianism to out-maneuver HRC on foreign policy. Now that Trump is in office those positions will mean nothing, just like it didn’t mean a damn thing to Obama supporters when Obama shifted gears to interventionist policies once elected.

One of Obama’s early tests was the social unrest in Iran that broke out in 2009. While the social unrest hinges on legitimate grievances, there will also be efforts to use the unrest to enact regime change. Google color revolutions if you want to see other examples of how this is accomplished.

How will the Trump regime respond? How accommodating will Trump be to the Zionists and Saudis in their lust to start a war with Iran? And, as Trump grows into the militancy required of the office, will his supporters raise any objections?

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.