RETHINKING GEOPOLITICS

How might US foreign policy change following Donald Trump’s crushing electoral defeat?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

“No, this changes everything, mate.” That was the reply I got from an old friend who used to work as a liaison for the Foreign Office’s special branch in Washington, following a chat in the wake of the ‘orange bloke’s’ crushing defeat. This reshuffles several pieces on the geopolitical chessboard, and although many in London are playing it down, it will affect them too before long.

It is not just the defeat of Trump and his neoconservative allies that is the big news. Behind this lies an economic loss for those who invested in Trump’s campaign such as the tech companies backed by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, who poured over 600 million US dollars into a venture that has gone straight into the bin. The ‘blue wave’ (Democratic) has brought to power candidates that the powers that be in Washington could never have imagined in their wildest dreams. Latino, African-American and Muslim governors are developments that are causing great unease amongst influential figures within the Establishment, such as AIPAC and its proxies including these charming guys Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, Zionist representatives of all those who populate the government structure.

Do not be fooled by these spectacular posturing. The Democrats are merely propping themselves up on the foundations laid by the Republicans’ mistakes and appalling foreign policy, in which the Palestinian genocide is a humanitarian scandal that will go down in history. Let us not delude ourselves: they will do little to stop a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

The consequences have sent shockwaves through the region, affecting all the American governments that are members of the MAGA club. From the Bolsonarists who hoped to operate with impunity from the US, through to Milei in Argentina and Paraguay’s Santiago Peña amidst the plundering of his citizens’ bank accounts they are currently feeling the tremors beneath their feet of what could be a political earthquake. In every case, this is due to their dependence on financial policy, which ultimately hinges on the geopolitical agenda set out in Washington DC.

But the shockwave has also struck within the White House itself. Just a few hours ago, Vice-President JD Vance himself issued a statement pointing out that the clearest reason for the electoral defeat was the war against Iran – which, let us not forget, was instigated from Tel Aviv by Bibi Netanyahu (despite what Danny Danon may say) and his AIPAC henchmen in Congress. Only now, in the face of such a calamity, has the American electorate realised that the monstrous annual financial transfers to the State of Israel must be halted (obviously for the time being).

Another consequence has been the deathly silence throughout the administration, particularly within the State Department and, more directly, from its Secretary, Marco Rubio, one of the pillars of the aggressive and illegal policy of violently interfering with the sovereignty of other states. Not to mention the Pentagon or its head, Mr Pete ‘Puritan’ Hegseth, a key cog in the entire costly warmongering policy that has sparked more futile wars than any of his predecessors. According to my colleague, following the Democrats’ landslide victory, it is highly likely that Senate committee hearings will begin to pave the way for Hegseth’s very probable dismissal.

It is true that the US agenda extends beyond any one president. The attempts to seize Iran’s resources will not cease with Trump’s departure. We are witnessing a pendulum effect in Washington’s domestic politics, which is being projected abroad through all manner of destabilising interventions.

As far as London is concerned, Andy Burnham’s cabinet should already be taking note because, whilst it is true that Donald Trump has diminished NATO’s influence (as a European security body), thereby creating scope for Britain to establish a sphere of power and influence in European military affairs particularly in Ukraine the economic consequences, especially for the commercial transport system, logistics and the national financial system itself have already become unbearable for the public. The protests spreading across the continent on the other side of the Channel and which remain simmering on the islands are a consequence of this.

Those whose interests will remain unshaken, however, are the arms manufacturers and their contracts. Just to bear this in mind: whilst preparations for the US elections were underway and promises of a ceasefire were being widely reported in the media, the FAU, with British assistance, launched attacks on Russian refineries such as LUKOIL-Nizhegorodnefte, in Bakhchysarai, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod and other remote regions that would be impossible to reach without the strategic intelligence provided by the British acting as delegates for the Americans.

This last point makes it abundantly clear that the orange bloke has been lying right up to the very last minute, and although this was already old news in the Kremlin, they know that lifting a finger against a political corpse is a waste of time.