Alastair Crooke: “Is there a risk that Kamala Harris might “go soft” on foreign policy?”

Is Biden & Harris administration foreign policy over?

Extraordinary Times: Biden renounces his election bid via in the slimmest of Sunday afternoon postings; retreats into a silence which finally is broken by a ‘long farewell’ pronounced from the Oval Office. Biden’s staff didn’t hear of his renunciation until a minute before his letter was posted. Then the internet was struck down by CrowdStrike, and the head of the U.S. Secret Service gives an account of the Trump assassination attempt that leaves both sides of the aisle in Congress aghast at the seeming incompetence – or mooting something ‘worse’.

Everyone is left reeling, writes Alastair Crooke, a former senior British diplomat and a director of the Conflicts forum (Lebanon), widely published blogger and author.

With all media information streams tainted, and with no ‘believable someone’ to explain what is going on, we are pushed completely to the ‘outside’. For now, it is impossible to orientate. Nonetheless, even if the essence of the internal U.S. conflict is shrouded, a veil on the working of the Deep State has been peeled away: It is widely understood the Biden ouster was masterminded – behind the curtain – by Barack Obama. Pelosi was the ‘enforcer’ (“We can do this [Biden’s ouster] the easy way – or the ‘hard way’”, Pelosi warned the Biden circle).

Rod Blagojevich (who has known Obama since 1995) explains the gist of what is happening in the Wall Street Journal:

“We [he and Obama] both grew up in Chicago politics. We understand how it works — with the bosses over the people. Mr. Obama learned the lessons well. And what he just did to Mr. Biden is what political bosses have been doing in Chicago since the 1871 fire – selections masquerading as elections. Mr. Obama and I know this kind of Chicago politics better than anyone. We both rose up in it and I was brought to ruin by it”.

“While today’s Democratic bosses may look different from the old-time cigar-chomping guy with a pinky ring, they operate the same way: in the shadows of the backroom. Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rich donors — the Hollywood and Silicon Valley élites — are the new bosses of today’s Democratic Party. They call the shots. The voters, most of them working people, are there to be lied to, manipulated and controlled”.

“All along, Mr. Biden and the Democratic politicians have been claiming that this year’s presidential race is about “saving democracy”.They are the biggest hypocrites in American political history. They have successfully maneuvered to dump their duly elected candidate for president… [Biden’s] unfitness to run for re-election today didn’t just happen. The Democrats have been covering it up for a long time. [However, after] June’s presidential debate, Mr. Obama and the Democratic bosses could no longer hide his condition. The jig was up, and Joe had to go”.

Is it done? Will Kamala Harris be the Democratic contender?

Maybe so – but were there to be a major international crisis – say, in the Middle East, or with Russia – possibly things might then change.

How so?

To get where Harris ‘is’, she “went from being a tough-on-crime prosecutor as a district attorney in California – to the far Left”, (sic) California delegates at the RNC told The American Conservative:

“She and Gavin Newsom,in charting their rise through the Democratic Party of 2024,tried to keep tacking to the far Left. They had to be the most extreme on crime, on abortion, on DEI, on the open border, on economic policy and confiscation level taxation. That really doesn’t play well in most of the country”.

Harris has also differentiated herself from Biden in foreign policy by being explicitly more sympathetic to the plight of Gaza’s Palestinians.

U.S. foreign policy strategies however, are not widely discussed publicly, and are viewed by the ruling-strata as vital and being of the essence. The electorate will not be privy to what those entanglements are at the structural level, since they involve state secrets. Nevertheless, much of U.S. politics rides on the back of this ‘less divulged’ bedrock.

Will Harris commit to these foundations of foreign policy structures (i.e. such as the Wolfowitz Doctrine)? Will she go soft on the structures out of a desire to tilt towards the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in respect to Gaza? Will she go party-partisan and break the bi-partisan canon (already under stress)?

It was a replay of the ‘Israel is America and America is Israel’ meme. So the foreign policy questions in respect to the Harris candidacy are two-fold: First, might Harris – as presidential candidate presumptive – choose to tear down, weaken or expose the load-bearing foreign policy ‘givens’ in the eyes of the Establishment?

And secondly, what should be the stance of Deep State panjandrums should a serious international crisis arise in the near future?

A clamour then will surely swell that an experienced foreign policy hand must take the helm – which Harris isn’t. It would invite calamity, were someone with no foreign policy experience to knock down certain policy ‘structures’ on which so much U.S. policy rides.

Is Obama then awaiting the moment to insert his final choice as the new Party figurehead (as the GOP Convention goers suspect), or is he convinced that Harris will not prevail in November, and as party elder statesman, would prefer to pick up the pieces of the Party – in the aftermath – and mould it to his liking?

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs