Mr. Anthony Cartalucci was reached by Payman Yazdani of Mehr News International Service just after Donald J. Trump swore in as the new president in the White House.
Trump’s rather unconventional election campaign positions regarding the US pressing issues in foreign policy garnered for him the criticism as well as raising concerns over the new uncharted territory the world would be with him in the White House. His policies toward China, aggressive and critical as it is, poses new questions to the future of trade the world had been relying on during Obama’s administration. His equally unconventional positions on Iran’s nuclear program which he believed he would tear down the deal, but he modified his position and believe the deal would be renegotiated are issues of concern as well.
Mr. Cartalucci believed however that the major line of US policy would be intact. He predicted that the US would seek regime change in Iran as a long-standing policy option within the Establishment and that the proxies in Syria which were effectively stopped by Iran, would have been aimed at Iran. On China policy, Cartalucci held that the US had systematically failed in containing China and the famous One China policy was a cover to change the failed policies the US had been perusing in the past.
Trump has declared that NATO members should pay for their membership. In the past, US paid for the NATO countries which could not pay their membership shares. In response, European countries announced that they would make their own defense treaty. Would you think that US-NATO relations will go through difficult times during Trump presidency?
Considering President-elect Donald Trump's nominees for key positions in his administration, it is clear that continuity of agenda will persist, as it had from President Bush's administration (2000-2008) and throughout President Obama's administration from 2008 to present. Regarding NATO, if drastic changes are to take place, it will be because of already ongoing tensions between Washington and European powers - particularly in regards to the counterproductive posture the US has pressured Europe into regarding Russia.
Special interests in both Washington and throughout European capitals may also perceive their current methods as unsustainable, and they are seeking ways of continuing their agenda through other means. I believe that whatever the US and Europe decide regarding NATO, the final outcome will still be consistent with Trans-Atlantic aspirations of projecting hegemony across Eastern Europe, into Russia, across the Middle East and North Africa, and even into Asia.
Trump said the US would leave the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). This has discomfited countries like Japan and South Korea. It was for this reason that Japanese PM was the first foreign official who visited Trump in his tower. Will the “Pivot to Asia” strategy fail in Trump era? Will Trump leave TPP?
Just as is the case with NATO, the TPP will only be abandoned if the special interests on Wall Street and in Washington who crafted it feel it is no longer sustainable. I believe that an alternative will be pursued, which - while limited relative to the TPP - may be just as unpopular, divisive, and disruptive in Asia Pacific. The US has deeply rooted, so-called "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs) working hard across Asia to subvert national sovereignty and install governments and policies favored by Washington. It is highly unlikely that these programs - persistent for decades - will suddenly end under Trump. These programs have been a key part of the Obama's policies toward Asia.
It should also be noted that the TPP is - above all other things - a measure to confront, encircle, and contain China. Trump has openly declared his intentions to do all three of these things upon taking office - so if he is taking the TPP off the table, it's only because his foreign policy advisers are making room for something to take its place in this regard. I would expect increasing tensions in Asia Pacific - started during Obama's "Pivot to Asia," and continuing with Trump's "Confrontation with China."
Trump first declared he would abolish JCPOA (Iran’s nuclear deal). Then he said new negotiations should take place. What will be his stance on JCPOA? If he abrogates the deal, will Washington allies follow this decision?
Like NATO and the TPP, the Iran deal is a product of US foreign policy created by corporate-financier special interests, and transcends politics and even US presidencies. As clearly stated in Brookings Institution's 2009 report, "Which Path to Persia?" a deal such as the JCPOA would be used by the US to pose as being "reasonable" with Iran, before claiming Iran failed on its part of the deal and taking more drastic measures - such as military-backed regime change - to accomplish Washington's long standing goal of removing the current political order in Tehran from power.
There is no desire among any of Washington's allies to see the rise of any powerful, independent nation, anywhere on Earth, least of all in the Middle East. Iran's current and growing influence in the Middle East, particularly in regards to the defeat of US proxies in Syria, has become an increasingly embarrassing and urgent issue among US policy circles. Any sense of rapprochement is simply a means of luring Tehran into complacency. Tehran certainly realizes that the terror battalions it helped stop in Syria were ultimately aimed at Iranian territory. While those terror battalions have been reduced significantly, the political will across the West which first arrayed them against Tehran is stronger than ever.
Trump has contacted Taiwanese, president which was a challenging measure. What would Trump achieve through this meeting? How will the China-US relations be in Trump era?
In reality, the US has - for decades now - trampled the One-China policy in every way imaginable except openly from official podiums. This includes substantial military aid to Taiwan, subversive political movements funded by the US everywhere from within China's territory in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong, to along its borders including - according to the Pentagon Papers - the Vietnam War itself. The US strategy for containing China is increasingly a failure, and thus the United States has responded by attempting to provoke China into a conflict sooner - when it is perceived the US could defeat Chinese forces - than later when the US admits it will be unable to defeat Chinese forces. A similar containment strategy vis-a-vis Japan also deteriorated into what eventually became the Pacific theater of World War II. Just as I have hinted at regarding Trump and the TPP, Trump's taking of office is an excuse for Wall Street and Washington to cut policies that no longer work, and experiment with a more hardline approach. Contacting the Taiwanese government is part of this process.
Anthony Cartalucci is a Global Research fellow and a critic of the American military-industrial complex and imperialism.
Interview by: Payman Yazdani