The Dangerous Crisis in Southwest Asia: One of the Costs of Not Exonerating Lyndon LaRouche

Jan. 7, 2020 (EIRNS)—One of the costs of not exonerating Lyndon LaRouche can be seen in the way the British orchestration of a strategic pincers operation to unleash war across Southwest Asia—including the very real danger of thermonuclear war—and to carry out a coup d’état against President Trump, is playing out. As usual, the British are playing all sides of the game, setting a trap for Trump which he walked into with the assassination of General Soleimani and his repeated threats of attacking cultural sites in Iran, a trap which the British would now slam shut with the sanctimonious sophistry issuing from leading Democrats, the New York Times, and the British themselves (see separate slug). This is the kind of British trap which LaRouche repeatedly exposed, for example in his feature-length film “Storm Over Asia”:

“The British always have two policies. Never try to find out what British policy is; they always have two, which seem directly opposite: They’re for you, and they’re against you. They’re buttering up your waistcoat, while they’re putting a knife in your back, neither of which is good for you, either cosmetically or otherwise. Hm?”

LaRouche also uniquely provided solutions to defeat such British games, solutions echoed in Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s latest call for Presidents Trump, Xi and Putin to meet and address the crisis. Had LaRouche been exonerated, the current British geopolitical insanity would probably have been defused a long time ago.

Instead, Trump was not only induced to order the assassination of General Soleimani, but to also threaten to target Iranian cultural sites. That whole issue has unleashed a firestorm of opposition from friend and foe alike. Speaking aboard Air Force One on his return to Washington on Sunday from a holiday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump repeated his earlier threat: “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites. It doesn’t work that way.”

In further comments at the White House today, Trump somewhat backed away from the threat: “If that’s what the law is, I like to obey the law. But think of it. They kill our people. They blow up our people and then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I’m OK with it. It’s OK with me.”

Defense Secretary Mark Esper was hammered by the media about Trump’s raising the threat of attacks on Iranian cultural sites, and he responded that the U.S. would not target cultural sites. The New York Times reported Esper saying: “We will follow the laws of armed conflict,” at a news briefing at the Pentagon when asked if cultural sites would be targeted. When the reporter asked if that meant “no,” Esper repeated: “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo preferred to deny Trump had ever said it: “President Trump didn’t say he’d go after a cultural site,” he told Fox News. “Read what he said very closely.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, an ally of President Trump’s, called Trump on Jan. 6, and later told the press:

“We’re not at war with the culture of the Iranian people. We’re in a conflict with the theology, the ayatollah and his way of doing business.... I think the President saying we will hit you hard is the right message. Cultural sites is not hitting them hard; it’s creating more problems. We’re trying to show solidarity with the Iranian people.”

And, of course, the Obama Democrat crowd did their sanctimonious best to parlay the matter into their ongoing coup d’état. For example, Jeh Johnson, a former secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, said: “Certainly, in aggravated circumstances, it should be considered a war crime.”