Trump has tweeted, recklessly. One almost feels relieved that this follows on the heels of many such inchoate Twitter utterances. The question now: is he playing to the crowd, or does it represent the prelude to an invasion? The targeting of Russia here seems to follow Mrs. Clinton’s statement (in the disclosed e-mails) that Russia would stand aside as the U.S. made Israel feel more comfortable by removing the sitting government of Syria and allowing it to be divided into parts, part of which would be a new Israel-aligned country called Kurdistan.

Your argument seems to be that the U.S. public should resist and fail to support any move to re-start the war in Syria (this time presumably not by proxy). The reasons you give for Americans to foment this resistance include the shadowy and uncertain nature of the “evidence” with regard to this and previous alleged chemical warfare attacks, and a litany of past sins. It seems relevant in this context to mention Israel. Israel is the most proximate cause of the invasion of Syria, an invasion Obama supported by proxy under the guise of aid to a beleaguered population freeing themselves from a tyrannically oppressive government. When faced with the choice of invading in the wake of a similar false flag chemical weapons attack (then given the semiotic moniker “red line”) Obama demurred — or dithered, in the parlance of the neocon crowd — insisting on a fig leaf of congressional approval. As tough as AIPAC fueled congress members talk, they preferred in that instance for a President to do the walking, and may be similarly disposed today. Erstwhile Republican Presidential nominee Lindsey Graham has called upon Trump to follow up his bellicose rhetoric with action, no doubt speaking for the majority of his peers.

Political leaders and the media continue to embrace the false narrative Obama spun (a tale which goes back several decades), all evidence to the contrary. There is no anti-war movement to speak of, like there was with the first Bush’s Iraq war, and during Obama’s administration a sizable portion of the most active left embraced the concept of regime change in Syria, painting Assad as a tyrant so terrible not removing him by force was a crime against humanity (The opposite has proven to be the case, however, with Syrians returning to the bits of Syria reclaimed by the Syrian Arab Army and Assad’s statesmanship, all the while deploring the “rebels” as barbarous, often Takfiri, fundamentalists.). While Tulsi Gabbard has been upright in promoting the counter-narrative of an Assad who does not deserve to be deposed, certainly the most prominent actor on the national U.S. stage to speak of not continuing the hostilities has been Trump. For this he has been reviled by the #Resistance Left, and at best ignored by those progressives whose leftism puts them to the left of the #Resistance Left.

Is there any hope left for Trump? Although you write with absolute confidence that Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo to persecute war, it is at least remotely conceivable that Trump hired Bolton and promoted Pompeo to shore up his right flank. Trump must be more than peripherally aware that Mike and John are irredeemable Neocon Assholes, with Mikey having the additional albatross of Tea Party (and hence Koch Bros) darling. Trump may be using his executive power here. Recognizing that these are among the smelliest, he wants them to be his stinking assholes. Who, if he or she was President, wouldn’t be tempted to stick John Bolton on the White House Lawn like a scarecrow, forcing the DCC crows to circle elsewhere?

According to Caitlin’s analysis, we are in a crucial period now where all hands are needed on deck to resist a potentially apocalyptic scenario. Unfortunately — as Caitlin again has been prescient to point out — most hands are not on deck; being otherwise occupied resisting Trump; ennobling Bush; and pushing for war and more war while valorizing Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, Chuck “Industrial Grade Anti-Palestinian Racist” Schumer, and the rest of the establishment that was disempowered when Trump upset. It’s frustrating not to be able to judge how marginal the clear-eyed element is. A Google Search for news about Syria yielded a spate of “Syria Did it” headlines, the only dissenting voice being Sputnik’s.

That our best hope of avoiding war with the SAA and its Russian and Iranian allies lies with Trump may seem forlorn to too many, but that is the executive function in the American political system, and may herald, if anything, that the twilight of the Presidency has given way to a dawn (however false). Trump may be damning Obama and Assad in those tweets to play to the crowd, and he may pull out of his hawk dive, saying that although Assad deserves to be bombed to hell and back, the moment for that has passed, and it’s no longer directly in U.S. interests to intervene. If he does so, that will leave Israel to fight the war alone, or perhaps with Saudi Arabia and a few other allies. (Further to this scenario, from Jets flying in Lebanese airspace, Israel has fired missiles into Syria, according to Bloomberg and Sputnik. Israel may justify itself in striking Syria thusly: as the proxy “moderate rebels” it’s been funding and arming in Syria are being routed by the Syrian Arab Army.) If Israel loses, they have promised to, “turn the lights out” as they leave (with their nuclear arsenal). As perverse as it may sound to a dedicated anti-warer like Caitlin, maybe the longer Trump can pretend that he just might fight this war — allowing Syria, Russia, and Iran to shore up their position and rout the proxies — the better.