Trump's First Trip: Will He 'Stabilize' The Middle East?
President Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel later this month. His meetings in Saudi Arabia will include a presentation on "religious extremism." After pledging to keep the US out of other countries' affairs, it seems President Trump is digging us deeper into the Middle East.
President Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel later this month. His meetings in Saudi Arabia will include a presentation on "religious extremism." After pledging to keep the US out of other countries' affairs, it seems President Trump is digging us deeper into the Middle East.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today, Daniel Mink Adams.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good to see you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
I understand our president is getting ready to make a trip, and there's a lot of excitement about that, especially in the media.
And he's going to make a trip to the Middle East, and I guess in theory, he's going to help stabilize the Middle East.
It's been destabilized since about 1990, you know, in a concerted effort, I think, to remake the Middle East.
And we know all about that history.
But it's not very stable, and he wants to contribute.
And I'm sure he has some sincere desires to bring about things.
He's throwing an olive branch out and believes that maybe he can get a peace treaty or a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Let's hope he's successful.
But the media, when they announced it, this is going to be later this month when the meeting's coming up.
But when the media started writing about it, they say, it's almost like, finally, it's his first trip, first foreign trip.
This is important.
The tone was, where has he been?
Why doesn't he do this?
And I keep thinking about this assumption that as soon as we get a new administration, the litmus test is, when did you make the first trip?
When did you go to which country?
Whom did you talk to?
This sort of thing goes on and on.
And, you know, they worry about that as if our whole livelihood, our whole freedom in our whole country depends on the president's going over there and promising more goodies for people.
That's usually what happens.
They go over and, all right, we promised to do that.
And then the Congress feels obligated to fulfill those promises.
And, you know, he's been doing a little traveling from Washington since he's been in office.
You know, he's gone.
I think he has contacts in some golf courses around the country.
And he loves golf.
And the media said, no, this is terrible.
You're playing more golf than Obama did.
So they're critical.
You know, sometimes I think I wish our presidents would play more golf, you know, and just leave this stuff alone.
But anyway, the media is happy right now.
He's making this trip.
So we have to talk a little bit about where is he going and what does he think he's going to do and what do we think he's going to accomplish.
I think there must be some symbolism here because he's visiting what you would consider, I guess, a capital of the three monotheistic religions.
He's going to Saudi Arabia, then he's going to Israel, and then he's going to stop by the Vatican on his way out.
So that seems to be what the idea is.
You know, as a candidate, Trump, of course, sounded a lot better.
He talked about how we should be staying out of these places, don't get sucked into remaking the Middle East and everything.
And here he is, just like all of his predecessors, being sucked into that area as if he is going to be finally the one to sort it out.
Well, you mentioned the three religions, but there is, some people would say there is another religion, and it looks like maybe at the end of this trip, end of May, the 24th, I think, he's going to stop in Brussels.
He's going to go and visit with his friends at NATO.
He's a lot friendlier with NATO now.
I doubt if he's going to walk in there with a bill.
But in some ways, you know, the neocons and the internationalism and the warmongering is supported almost with a religious zeal.
And of course, that is what I find the most offensive because it's such an attack on our civil liberties at home, the constitutional government that we're supposed to have.
And I think that is really dangerous that we do that.
But, you know, he's going to go over there and he will visit Saudi Arabia.
And he wants to mend fences.
And the claim by some is that the fences were torn down, that Obama was a bad guy, and he was probably a little less friendly.
But when you think about it, I mean, was he totally cool to supporting the Saudis in Yemen?
I mean, I think he was sort of involved in that.
I don't think he was too concerned about the Saudis being involved in trying to get rid of Assad.
Matter of fact, he sort of went along very quickly.
He says, Assad has to go.
And that satisfied, guess how?
Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia and Israel.
They were both happy to have that.
Indeed, and actually, it's funny about Obama.
I mean, that was his first trip, too, to Saudi Arabia.
So the whole idea that he was somehow hostile to Saudi Arabia and Israel is sort of a myth.
But, you know, it's interesting, candidate Trump was pretty harsh on Saudis, and I think because that plays well in America, he said things like, the Saudis blew up the World Trade Center, and they want women as slaves, they want to kill gays.
He said all these bad things.
But then as soon as he got into office, he really sort of flip-flopped.
First thing he did is he removed the restrictions on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that Obama had placed over the slaughter in Yemen, which the Saudis are responsible for.
He did that, and then he started making more friendly sounds toward the kingdom.
You know, and Trump obviously was very political in his campaign, and he really touched a lot of people, and he knew what they wanted to hear.
But what I find interesting about this whole thing on Saudi on the Saudis is the fact that there's a lot of criticism, and you know, their civil liberties record is pretty bad, and yet they get appointed to the commissions to monitor civil liberties for the United Nations.
But then again, anybody that would suggest some type of conspiracy association with the Saudis in 9-11, you have to be really, really out there, and you have to be discredited.
But just think of this recent vote.
Now, I understand you have pretty good evidence about how much money the Saudis spend on lobbying.
But in spite of their efforts, in spite of their need for us to get along with them on oil and these other things, no, the Saudis, including the bin Laden family, got a free ride out here before anything else within days.
They were the first ones that were allowed to get on airplanes.
And yet, yet anybody who would suggest some type of a collusion, that was really way out.
But what amazes me is that they had a vote to allow the American people who believe there has been a collusion, the families who suffered losses, were able to sue the Saudi government, and it passed unanimously.
So I would say there's something really, really amazing about that in spite of all the lobbying, all the support, and all the cover-ups.
And now we really didn't get the full answer of the 9-11 Commission report.
So this to me tells us something major that goes on that leads us to this.
You know, our presidents and our real, the people who are really in charge feel very obligated to go over and kowtow to the Saudis.
Yes, true.
And Saudi Arabia exports the Wahhabi philosophy, the Wahhabi, a very, very repressive, extremist form of Islam.
And you're right, you know, thanks to the efforts of our friends like Walter Jones and also people like Brian McLinchy, who put a huge effort into get those 28 pages out, those secret 28 pages.
And while, as you say, we didn't see the whole thing and there was still a lot of redactions, we saw enough in those 28 pages to know that it wasn't just some random Saudis that were involved.
It was people at the highest levels of the Saudi government involved in the 9-11 attacks.
But here are a couple of humorous things, actually.
You think about the radical philosophy of the export, being involved in 9-11, the other things.
I hear something from a news thing we both read this morning.
In Riyadh, Trump will attend a gathering of Muslim leaders that will focus on the threats of terrorism and religious extremism.
It almost doesn't pass the left.
It just goes by, and nobody gets too excited.
And of course, he can't go to Mecca because Christians aren't allowed there.
Talk about religious extremism.
Well, you know, we're talking so far a lot about the Saudis and their infractions and what they're up to and how we generally go along, and oil has a lot to do with this.
But I think in many ways, a much bigger picture is this obsession about to exist is not covering up mistakes by the Saudis and going along with them.
It's this obsession that's been going on for a long time.
Matter of fact, it started in 1953 with Iran.
And, you know, we point out when we believe that Trump is totally inconsistent and he flip-flops, which isn't hard to find the flip-flops.
But I don't think he's been a flip-flopper on Iran.
I mean, he bashed him during the campaign.
He continues to bash him.
And this is one of the things.
So he has picked his team, hit the size on here.
He's with the Saudis.
No matter what he said in the campaign, I didn't really mean that stuff.
But I do mean that stuff that I said and continue to say.
And Tillerson, you know, just recently gave his speech about how terrible the Iranians are, even though they haven't broken the agreement, the nuclear agreement.
But it's this obsession with Iran and the way these ducks get lined up for all the Middle East as well as, especially in Syria, this whole thing.
It's Iran and it's the Saudis and the Russians are involved, this sort of thing.
And unfortunately, he doesn't listen to people like the Leverets, you know, who are on our board, two professors who are experts on Iran.
Doesn't listen to them because there's a confluence of interests.
There's, as you pointed out, there's Saudi Arabia.
There's Israel under Netanyahu, very anti-Iran.
There's the neocons in the U.S., and these are the people that he surrounded himself with now, and he's getting all this information on Iran.
He's not seeing the positives, the potential positives, not just for peace, but for American business, for Americans to get involved over there.
And, you know, he's simply sided with the experts.
You know, it'll be interesting to see what comes of it.
I think Trump may be stopping and visit with the Palestinians.
And he's thrown a few fillers there of more friendship.
And he claims that he can bring about peace.
And I keep thinking that's been attempted for a long time and what's going to happen.
So it'll be interesting to see how that goes because we know that there's powerful forces that won't allow too much peace between Israel and the Palestinians on both sides of that fight there.
You know, the Palestinians aren't about ready to roll over, especially the ones who feel like land has been taken from them and continue to be taken from it.
And then Israel's not going to roll over.
And this is going to continue.
And the Saudis, the Saudis are an ally in this.
The Saudis aren't ever going to resist.
They're going to take the position that they're going to be close allies with Israel.
So we have Saudis.
Israel and the United States is a bloc that has a lot to do with foreign policy in the Middle East.
It's been that way a long time.
And I don't think this trip is going to change much.
Think it's going to remain that way.
I think that's what they want to strengthen, you know.
And even if the, even though there was not a sharp break under Obama, there's, you know, sort of an image that goes around.
Well, Obama wasn't friendly enough with Israel, but behind the scenes, we know that Israel really didn't come up really on the short end of the stick, even under the Obama administration.
Sure, and you know, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who we both admire, his work, he had a great article we put up on the website, and he made the point, and it's such an important point.
He made the point that if other outside forces had not meddled in the Israel-Palestine situation, they probably would have found a solution a lot earlier on.
And the way he puts it, people without skin in the game, meaning people who are so far removed, like the U.S., continuously getting involved in the process really prevents peace.
And we talk about this a lot in North Korea and elsewhere.
It prevents it from happening.
So that doesn't bode well for the trip.
We're continuing to do the same thing, intervening in this, giving both sides an excuse not to come to an agreement.
Does it surprise you a little bit about the stalemate?
In a way, we maybe can describe it as a stalemate with the Saudis in Yemen.
Because, of course, they claim that they're really fighting Iran and Iran has a loose association there.
But nothing compared to the Association of the United States and Saudi government and the weapons we provide for them and the strategic information that they have.
But they're still, I mean, in a way, it's amazing that has continued.
And right now, they don't seem to be winning.
Matter of fact, I think Saudi is losing.
And we're not going to put troops in there under the worst circumstances.
I hope not anyway.
But you know what is really amazing with the price of oil being down and with the Saudis believing that their wealth would continue forever, they have a welfare state built up and they're in negative balance.
They're spending more money than they take in.
And now they're spending a lot of money on this war.
So once again, it goes back to my contention is that most of these things end for economic reasons.
And, you know, if we ever withdrew the support that we give Saudis and let them just go on their own and spend all their money, you know, there's going to be somebody someday that's going to move in and challenge the current government of Saudi Arabia.
And that would be not stabilizing the Middle East.
That would be a destabilization by individuals who have been frustrated over the many years.
Yeah, they would be terrified if democracy broke out.
You may have seen this the other day.
This was a mainstream publication, but an al-Qaeda commander in Yemen said, yeah, we fight alongside the U.S.-backed troops all the time.
We're allies here in Yemen, so this is what we're supporting in Yemen.
I don't think most Americans understand that.
This is a Saudis war to put someone back in power in Yemen.
It's none of their business at all.
And here we are supporting a group that says, hey, yeah, we fight with the Americans.
Why Non-Interventionism Matters00:01:26
Okay, tell me how you would summarize this little event coming up, our president going to the Middle East.
And can we look for signs of optimism or should we just keep our fingers crossed?
Well, I like what you said earlier.
The president going to play golf, you said before we started, invite him over for a barbecue, maybe something like this.
Why does he have to act like the Roman emperor going to visit the outskirts of the empire?
Yeah, there you go.
I hope that comes about because we don't need an empire and our empire will dissipate and we will go broke just like Saudi Arabia is going to go broke and just as the Soviet Union went broke.
So it's going to be messy and it will get a lot messier than it is now, but I don't think that stability is going to break out over this visit, although I don't think it's going to totally deteriorate.
The biggest challenge that we will have on our program here, as well as many looking for what really is happening and seeking out the truth in the positions that we hold, what will the position be, that would help us a whole lot if we spoke clearly.
That's one thing really nice about non-interventionism.
You can define it, you can describe it, and you can stand by it, and you can feel good about sticking to principle and the Constitution and what's best for America.
That's the kind of policy I like.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.