Why American Foreign Policy is a MESS??

Hello everyone and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Recently, I was invited for an interview with S.L. Kantan to talk about US foreign policy. So I wanted to share this with you and, and just have your feedback about it. So take a listen.

Welcome to, uh, Geopolitics Demystified. I'm your host, S.L. Kantan. We bring in perspectives you do not see or hear in the mainstream media. Today we have a wonderful, wonderful guest, Dr. Oualaalou. And when he used to work in the security sphere in Washington, D.C. for the government, the U.S. military generals used to have a very hard time with his last name. So they used to call him Dr. O. So, and now he's a geopolitical consultant, speaker, writer, and he has two wonderful YouTube channels. And I'll put the information in the description of this video below. So welcome, David, Dr. Oualaalou.

Oh, pleasure to be with you, Estelle.

Wonderful. So we have 30 minutes. To get all your wisdom on geopolitics. So let's jump right in. So the first question is, so Joe Biden is stepping down, and how would you rate his foreign policy over the last 3+ years? So give us a, you know, first rating of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best. And then, so give us a detailed analysis if you can, like within 5 minutes on how he did in the foreign policy, specifically with respect to Russia, Ukraine, Gaza, Middle East, and China.

Well, if I am to go with the rating, I will give him a 1 because that's what he deserves. Because I don't shy away from this because is the reality. It was a disastrous foreign policy regarding this host of issues you mentioned, the Ukraine, the Gaza, and Africa, China relations, and so forth. And this highlights, you know, that failure is not just about Biden. The failure is about the US institution as a whole. When you think about the presidency of the United States as an institution, the president is just another element of that institution. But if the president does not have a cohesive strategy, does not have a cohesive foreign policy, we all know what the outcome's going to be. And the quick example I can share with you and your audience is that you look at the disaster of Ukraine and the idea of why did we embark on a failed policy from the get-go. And even if we go before that, we're going to ask the logical question, why did we create the problem to begin with. And this to me, where that foreign policy, if it is not well structured, but what do you expect? We have amateurs in Washington. I used to work in Washington way back. I left in 2013, '13 or '14, somewhere around that time. It became clear to me where things are headed, and I said, I don't want to be part of it. And that, it was a reflection of now the disastrous foreign policy we are embarking on from every aspect you can think of. And that sort of tells you the story about we don't have qualified individuals who possess the depth and understanding of what geopolitics is all about.

Wow, that's so bleak. Okay, so let's assume for a moment that Trump wins. So what can we expect from the Trump administration 2.0? Will he be able to bring peace between Ukraine and Russia? And we saw Netanyahu come to Washington, D.C., and, you know, he was standing next to Trump. Holding a hat that said, uh, total victory. So is, uh, Netanyahu dreaming of a Trump administration and a full-blown war in the Middle East where, like, Israel hopes to have total victory over all its neighbors? What are your thoughts? And then also, what will Trump do regarding China?

Well, it's very complicated when you consider, for example, that even Trump himself, he is not a politician. He has no clue about international relations. Trump is a showman. You know, he's not qualified to lead a nation or deal with other countries. So I always look at it as an American. I always look at both parties, the Democrats and Republicans, two faces of the same coin. Meet the new boss as the old boss. It's as simple as that. And that foreign policy in itself will be as clear as it can be as far as the disastrous policies that Trump is already mentioning that if he wins the election, he's going to embark on. Well, let's start with the Ukraine first. The assumption that Trump is saying, "I'll end the war in a day or two," that tells you the story right there, how delusional Trump is. Not understanding the complexity of a war, of a conflict. Do you think that the Russians just going to pack and leave? Do you think that things going to just go back to normal? It just doesn't work that way. What a lot of people do not understand, especially even here in the United States, the president of the United States has no power. I repeat, the president of the United States has no power. It's nothing but a figurehead. There is an establishment behind the scenes. That is managing the business of the United States and the business of the global order. That is how it works. So for him to say, oh, I'll end the Ukraine conflict in a day, that's a wishful thinking because Russia has the upper hand anyway. And that's, we can detail that in some other conversation because there is a lot to cover on this one here. But to think about Trump's foreign policy, how it's going to be, Yeah, I don't see any change is going to be because we never had. Here is the problem in America. We never had a cohesive or a good strategy for the last 30 or 40 years when it comes down to foreign policy. And you see in the reflection of it through the actions we are taking regarding, for example, Gaza, regarding, for example, the US-China relations. And even Trump himself didn't even win the elections yet. Assume it. And already coming with that attitude towards China, the vice president, JD Vance, already putting Taiwan in the bullseye. And what does it tell you? It tells you the type of foreign policy that the next administration, hypothetically should Trump wins, it's going to be focused on, which is going to be shifting to Asia. And to me, that is just like, as I said earlier, you meet the new boss as the old boss. The thing is, there is no substance in American foreign policy anymore. It has not been for the last 3 or 4 decades.

Why is that? It's so surprising that the, uh, the US, which supposedly has all these really good universities, think tanks, and, uh, you know, so many years of, uh, being the number one in the world, And they still seem so clueless about the emergence of a multipolar world. And, uh, uh, they obviously were so wrong in thinking that they could easily defeat Russia in, uh, Ukraine. And they just keep, uh, doubling down on their, uh, big mistakes. So, uh, why are they doing that? And what will, uh, the, uh, the deep state or the the permanent government, the bureaucrats that you described, what do they want? Do they really think that they can prolong the American century? What is going on in their mind? What is your analysis?

Well, first of all, defeating Russia is wishful thinking. There is no way the West can defeat Russia. If you even bring in a whole NATO, They won't be able to defeat Russia. Why? Because Russia's military structure is as strong as it can be. And if we know and learn anything from the history of the Russian Empire, it will give us an idea. But sadly enough, for me as an American, some of my fellow citizens here are clueless about the history. That's one. And second, regarding the, like you mentioned, the institutions, we have academia, whatever. But we are not providing leaders. We are not sort of formulating the new leaders going to be thinking critically. The critical thinking doesn't exist in American institutions anymore. I used to teach at a well-established institution, Texas A&M, but it's just the administration didn't want me basically to challenge the thinking of the students. Why? Because I wanted to see what they are made of. You know, I am not here to teach them about LGBT and its nonsense stuff. I am here to challenge them to see if they understand the complexities of the world. Because we were, back then I used to argue, we are shifting into a multipolar order, which means the US won't be able to dictate the terms anymore. And that's the problem we have in Washington, because you push those people through the institutions like Harvard, like Yale, like Columbia, those are the back door of the US government. So anybody comes through those institutions will have to be molded into the thinking in Washington that you're going to push the agenda for more conflicts. You're going to push the agenda for more lobbyists to sort of advocate for their interest. And that's where the issue of the deep state comes in. And this is again, Goes back to my earlier point. The President of the United States has no power whatsoever. He or she will be dictated to do whatever he or she is ordered to do. That's how it works. You look at the military-industrial complex in US, they have a stronghold. And I repeat this, I usually don't use the terms loosely. They have a stronghold on American foreign policy. Let me just repeat this. The military-industrial complex has a stronghold on the American foreign policy strategies and directions and so forth. So in other words, it's not the State Department that decides, it's the military-industrial complex. And Ukraine is your perfect case for this. And now what I'm seeing is what's taking place regarding Taiwan. The conversation is already about shipping serious millions of dollars in weaponry to Taiwan. All this, we all know what it's for. And that highlight to you why we don't have qualified politicians in Washington. They are incompetent, they don't possess the depth and the knowledge, and they are corrupted. And you can only expect what the outcome's going to be. Wow.

Wow. So sad. So sad.

It is indeed.

And, uh, so how do you think, uh, these things are going to end? It's so perplexing. So let's start with the Ukraine-Russia war, and then we'll go into the Middle East. What are the scenarios? Because it's— we can see that, uh, definitely Ukraine cannot win. They have run out of weapons, they have run out of people. They have run out of morale, funding. So, uh, what are the scenarios? Is it, you know, one is that the US sends in the F-16s and long-range missiles and they push the world towards a very dangerous war. And then the second thing is there is some sort of a peace negotiation. The Ukrainian foreign minister was in China a few days ago, and then he said that they'll be willing to sit down with Russia. So what are all the possible scenarios? What is your best guesstimate on how this conflict will end?

Well, I'll start with your point about the F-16s. The F-16s is nothing but a window dressing. I'm telling you this from experience. It takes about 3 to 4 years to get a pilot up to speed and sort of better control of the aircraft. So how are you going to fight the Russians and who's going to fly the F-16s? The Ukrainians are not trained for that. The Ukrainians are trained for the MiG and the likes. That's why, and that's right there. And I'm sure your listeners are smart enough to know. That when you hear the rhetoric coming out of Washington or Brussels regarding, Brussels rather, regarding we're going to be sending F-16s, it's nothing but hypes. It takes 3 or 4 years, as I said, to train a competent pilot for that, which means what? If they are to think, they meaning Washington and Brussels in coordination, but basically Washington that decide, if we are to think in those terms, that means we want to drag the war for another 3 or 4 years. Which I don't see happening anyway. And to go back to your point about how this could end, well, it's going to be only one option and one option only, which is the Russians are going to be telling the Ukrainians, take it or leave it. There is no ifs and buts. Take it or leave it. The Russians now control the eastern part. That's a done deal. Are they going to give back that land? I don't think so. It ain't going to happen. And if even Russia wants to go forward with this conversation about peace, they're going to have to put certain dots on the letter, as we say, regarding what Ukraine ought to do and ought not to do. Which means what? The Russians will dictate the terms. NATO is useless anyway. We know how fragmented NATO is. You know, when you have countries the likes of Montenegro, as a member of NATO. Well, if you know the budget, the defense budget of Montenegro is the size of the police department in New Hampshire. So, and now you're saying, this is what I'm saying, NATO has been exposed. The weakness of NATO has been exposed. These conflicts in Ukraine show that. Second thing, for the Europeans, all of them which are sort of vassal states, I mean, you look at Germany, you look at France, Italy, Sweden, Finland, now that they are part of NATO, they all are under the thumb of the US. We dictate the terms. So the Europeans will have no say whatsoever. But Russia is going to make it clear that should you move even further, we will retaliate. Simple as that. So for the treaty or the peace agreement, if that is the case, given that the foreign minister of Ukraine visited China, which by the way, If I am to put my Washington hat, I'm going to tell you that that guy was ordered by Washington to go to China. Ukraine cannot, I'll tell you this, Ukraine cannot and will not issue or launch or initiate any conversations with the Russians without the approval of the United States. That's a fact. And again, I spent long time enough in Washington to understand those dynamics because I was part of some of those kind of tactics we did with some other countries. I'll say it straightforward. So that's how it works. And this is what I'm saying. Russia is going to say to Ukraine, here is what we suggest. Not about suggest, here it is, take it or leave it. Simple as that.

So basically Russia will get to keep the four regions and Crimea. Sure. For sure.

Oh, Crimea is a done deal. Because a lot of people do not understand the role of Crimea in the Russian Empire history. Crimea, after all, was just gifted to Ukraine by none other than Nikita Khrushchev. But Crimea has always been part of Russia. Ukraine in itself has always been a part of the Russian Empire. The only part you could argue about historically is the western part of Ukraine, which was under the Polish authority at that time. This is why the Polish government, this is why Duda had to go to China. It's not about the peace. It's not about— Poland is also looking after its own interest, and rightly so. Every country does that. So the point is, SL, is that Russia, it's not going back to the previous borders. Prior to February 2022. No, that era is gone. Russia now is going to take over that and ensure that if there is one thing I can guess, and this is just a guess, that they will want in writing is that it will be writing, in writing, that Ukraine will never ever join NATO. That's to me the one exception that I would say I would say Russian will want to push for. Other than that, they're going to say to Ukraine, take it or leave it, here is our proposal.

Okay, so going to the Middle East, which seems to get worse and worse every day. And a day before or so, there was an attack in the Golan Heights, which I don't know, to me seems like a false flag attack or like some missile that the Iron Dome misfired because there's no reason for the Hezbollah to attack the Druze members in the Golan Heights. They're not even Israelis. But what do you think is going to happen? I mean, is Israel going to start a war with Lebanon? What is your gut feeling?

Yeah, well, as one who spent a lot of years in the Middle East, as a matter of fact, in my academic background, Middle East is my background. Academically speaking. So, and I spent a lot of time, I worked there and wrote books about this country, some of the key countries there. The idea that, first of all, the attack on the 12 people that died in the Golan, for the Druze, you have to understand how the makeup of the Lebanese society is. Lebanon made out of so many sects, that includes the Alawites, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Druze, the Maronites. There are so many. And even within those, there are some elements that are working on behalf of Israel, believe it or not. This is how I'm going to share story with you, for you, with your listeners, just to know. Most of people might not know who Ahmed Mughniya was. Ahmed Mughniya, I don't know if it rings a bell for you or not. Mohsen Moghnieh was wanted by the US for about 25 years. He was the one behind the attack of the kidnapping of the hijacking of the Pan Am back then. So we've been looking for him for 25 years. And just to give you an idea, and I disclosed this in my book, in one of my books about Iran, where he was taken out, he was taken out while he was taking a walk in Damascus, just in a regular neighborhood. He was taken out. It was a car bomb that both the US and the Israeli Mossads and the CIA put C4, a lot of C4 on it. He vaporized basically when it took off. My point in this, why am I sharing this with you, is to highlight to you that they were tipped, the Mossad and the CIA were tipped from within entities inside Syria, which Syria also is another element like Lebanon. This is why Lebanon is managed by the Syrians. It has to do with the makeup of the society. Syria also has the Alawites, the Sunnis, the Druze, the Maronite, the Christians, you name it. And that's my point. For Israel to do whatever it does, it has to have eyes and ears on the ground. And there are elements inside Lebanon that can do that. There are elements inside Syria that can do that. As to Israel going to war with Lebanon, especially Hezbollah, they won't. They won't be able to afford it. Mark my word on it. Despite what you hear about Israel's superiority, the recent attack, a drone attack by the Houthi group, Ansarullah, Islam Ansarullah, but A lot of people know them as the Houthis, which is in the north part of Yemen. The Houthis, what did it demonstrate? It demonstrated that the air defense system of Israel is vulnerable. And by the way, a lot of people do not know, thinking that the drone that Yemen just launched, the Houthi group launched in Tel Aviv, one from Yemen. It did not. It was either from two main locations and two only, either from Iraq or from Lebanon. Wow. Because the drone range, yeah, there is no way you will go from, when you look at the distance, if you look at the map, the distance between Yemen and Israel, it's about 1,295 miles. A drone's not going to go that far. So, and just to highlight to you, and Hezbollah, Hezbollah is so strong. As a matter of fact, it was Hezbollah that kicked Israel out in 2006. And Israel didn't want to admit it till about 2 years later. And they said, yeah, we end up having to leave southern Lebanon because of Hezbollah. Israel understand that will be a suicide of them if they go into Lebanon. For us, Israel wants to pull us into this war. In other words, do the war on behalf of the Israelis. This is why the speech of Netanyahu in Congress, was nothing but a call for the US to support Israel militarily. That's all it was about. So the idea of Israel fighting Hezbollah, no, they can't. And hypothetically, this is just hypothetical for your listeners just today, if this moves forward, Israel will not be fighting just Hezbollah. Israel will be fighting Hezbollah, they will be fighting the Houthis, and they will be fighting the Islamic faction in Iraq, which is another faction, the equivalency of Hezbollah also. So all three locations firing at Israel from all angles. And if the drones of the Houthis was able to penetrate the air defense system, consider what Hezbollah has, which has over 155,000 missiles to my knowledge. So what does Israel's going to do? You know, there's no, Israel would not go, I don't see them going that far. What Israel does is attacking countries that, not countries, but locations where those in those locations cannot fight back. Because I mean, did you see Israel going and attacking inside Yemen? No, they targeted one portion of the port of Hodeida, which is right on the water. But they won't be able to go to Sada, they won't be able to go to Sanaa, they won't be able to go to Taiz or some other locations inside Yemen because they know it will be suicide. The same thing for Israel going into Lebanon. They're not going to do it.

Fascinating. Okay, so our final topic is China or Taiwan. What do you think is going to happen? The US has been working with Japan, South Korea. It's building new military bases in the Philippines. They're sending arms to Taiwan. They are rewriting the Japanese constitution. And the defense minister is just in Japan today. So they're really trying very hard to create a coalition to fight China. So, uh, uh, what do you think is going to happen during the next 4 to 5 years? Will they try to recreate what happened in, uh, Ukraine and, uh, have these Asian countries fight China, or is this is just another, uh, pipe dream of the military-industrial complex?

Well, first of all, it is my belief that knowing what I know, it is my belief that there will be no war with China because we can't afford it. Simple as that. Second, we won't be able to, hypothetically there is a war, we won't be able to defeat China because China has advantage, logistical one that is. So we're going to have to cross the oceans to get over there. China is not going to wait to 'til we get over there, then start the fight. China will take care of business right in the middle of the ocean, whatever direction we come from. And second, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. What you will see, which by the way, this is nothing new when it comes down to this so-called American foreign policy, because it was always based on a militarized foreign policy. That was the whole idea of it. And this is nothing new. I'm going to have to take you and your listeners back to 1950s. Early '50s, because remember, we've been engaged in so many conflicts since World War II. How many did we win? None. It was only World War II. And by the way, it wasn't the US that won World War II. It were the Russians, the Soviet Union. We took credit for it by altering history. We didn't defeat the Nazis. It was the Russians that did. So we took advantage of that. And we wrote the history and became the victorious. But here is the key, and I want your listeners to know what happened right after World War II. In the early '50s, right prior to the Korean War, a decision was made inside Washington. All we need to do is to engage in conflicts, not to win wars. And this is why when you go back in history, you think, The Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, now Ukraine, and soon to be South China Sea or Taiwan area. Wow. This is what the strategy has always been. It's because it was never about winning a war because we couldn't win a war. Use Iraq and Afghanistan as a case in point. Even in Yemen, we couldn't defeat the Houthis. And we were conducting ops there. Those are covert operations. We couldn't defeat them. So the idea of fighting in Taiwan, it's ludicrous. We won't be able to anyway. So what that leaves us with? It leaves us with just fomenting more tensions in the region, mainly South China Sea, by wooing the likes of Australia, the likes of New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, and you got the idea. Even surprisingly, just a few days ago, Marcos Jr. of Philippines now is advocating for diplomacy with China, which to me it's a pivot. But I don't know whether the US will— US is not going to let him move forward with that because we just signed the deal with, with the Philippines few months ago. About 9 bases, 9. And by the way, we only confirmed that we only did, the deal consists of only 5 bases, which means what? You are left with 4 bases. What are those 4 bases for? That is usually where we're going to put weapons that the Philippines will not even know about. And that is where my concern is, because when you look at the rhetoric coming out of Brussels regarding NATO, expanding into Asia by wanting to open an office in Japan, in Tokyo. When you look at the EU signing the agreements with Japan and South Korea in the separately, individually, that is, when you look at Australia moving forward with the AUKUS program and so forth and the nuclear subs and all that, that just tells you right there the idea of what the intentions for us is to foment more tensions. But as far as a conflict between the US and China, I don't see that happening. The Pentagon will have to say those kind of statements to justify the budget. That is the only reason for why you hear this kind of conversations. It's like when I read the strategic report coming from the Pentagon before it was sent to Congress, all it says, the first sentence is, Chinese Navy now outpaces the US. And all that. Well, yes, China built more. As a matter of fact, China by 2030 will have about 460 naval ships, far outweigh anything we could imagine. But for the Pentagon to start the report with that, it tells you it's all about budget. Because Congress will see that and say, oh, allocate billions for the Navy. That's all it was. Is that, like I said, even the policies inside the Congress are not dictated by Congress. They are dictated by lobbyists, lobbyists for the military-industrial complex.

Wow. Okay. Wise words, Dr. Oualaalou. And thank you for your time so much, David.

I hope you enjoyed listening to this interview, and I look forward to read in your feedback. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.