xml:space="preserve">
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 18: British Ambassador Kim Darroch speaks at an Afternoon Tea hosted by the British Embassy to mark the U.S. Presidential Inauguration at The British Embassy on January 18, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 18: British Ambassador Kim Darroch speaks at an Afternoon Tea hosted by the British Embassy to mark the U.S. Presidential Inauguration at The British Embassy on January 18, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images) (Paul Morigi / Getty Images)

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that The Sun, under the byline of former foreign correspondent Frederic Hill, would actually attempt to defend the indefensible, now-public cables of ex-British Ambassador Kim Darroch. (“Trump ‘inept,' ‘clumsy’ and above all ‘insecure,'" July 16). But nonetheless, it’s as outrageous as it is disingenuous.

The sleight-of-hand employed in the mainstream media coverage, Mr Hill’s account included, is to approvingly highlight the string of insulting adjectives used by Mr. Darroch to characterize the Trump administration while conspicuously omitting a far more substantive matter: The British diplomat is upset precisely because President Donald Trump has been stubbornly holding out against the regime-change warfare agenda that his predecessors, the presumably more “stable” and “secure” George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, pursued with such reckless abandon.

Advertisement

There is no need to interpolate or read between the lines. Mr. Darroch frankly expresses his ire that the America is not “fully onboard” with an attack on Iran, but consoles himself with the thought that President Trump is now “surrounded by a more hawkish group of advisers," undoubtedly referring to the ambassador’s friend, National Security Adviser John Bolton who never met a war he didn’t love. He even goes so far as to suggest: “Just one more Iranian attack somewhere in the region could trigger yet another Trump U-turn. Moreover, the loss of a single American life would probably make a critical difference.”

This is no mere exercise in hypothetical scenario-mongering. Every indication is that Her Majesty’s government is actively creating the very situation of which Mr. Darroch is so desirous. First, the British seized an Iranian tanker on the open seas on July 4, a clear act of piracy. Five days later, they made the highly dubious claim that Iran had unsuccessfully attempted to retaliate. It all strongly reeks of a Gulf of Tonkin type of set-up to overcome President Trump’s opposition to a new war. In one of his later cables, Mr. Darroch even brazenly asserts that British policy is to “flood the zone” of the president’s close advisers with their operatives so as to manipulate him in the direction preferred by the permanent warfare crowd!

Apparently, none of these astounding revelations are considered worthy of coverage or comment by Mr. Hill or just about anyone else in the major U.S. press. Instead, the war provocateur disguised as a diplomat is being hailed as an anti-Trump hero.

It’s upside-down and inside-out. The two previous presidents who got us into the successive debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and almost Syria as well are being nostalgically depicted as models of decorum and rationality. But the current one, who has so far held the line, albeit imperfectly, against any further such misadventures is somehow dangerous and unstable. And, as historian Graham Allison has duly noted, just where does a high-level representative of a government that finds itself in near freefall collapse over its complete bungling of Brexit and related issues get off calling any other political entity “dysfunctional?"

As to why the British establishment and its cheering section in America promote the agenda of unending strife and conflict, that is admittedly a subject beyond the scope of this letter. Suffice it to say that it has more to do with the threatened worse-than-2008 collapse of the financial system than with any given hotspot on the global map. The epicenter of the war threat is located not in Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, but rather at Deutsche Bank.

For daring to assert that America’s putative top ally, the British government, has been manipulating us for decades into enabling their wars and coups, the late Lyndon LaRouche was subjected to far worse treatment by the journalistic and political classes than even the abuse being currently heaped on President Trump. But if Mr. Darroch were consciously trying to vindicate each and all of Mr. LaRouche’s warnings, it’s really hard to imagine how he could have done a better job.

Clearly, it’s unrealistic to expect any agreement on these points from Mr. Hill and his colleagues. But is it too much to ask that they at least report, beyond a few choice put-downs of President Trump, the shocking content of what Ambassador Darroch’s cables actually say?

Doug Mallouk, Baltimore

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement