I don't deserve to have this autographed picture of Sean Connery!
~jacques clouseau

Bond villain like? Not even close. Trumpists don't rise to that level of competence. Heh.

Be fair, Liz. I grew up on Bond, and I can assure you that Putin has some character traits that keep reminding me of Bond villains. Like his propensity to have opponents thrown off roofs, or dramatically killed in some other fashion.

One has to keep a sense, after all, of just how surreal this has all become.

I hope that was sarcasm I detected. Because, none of this belongs in a Bond film.

Good morning Mr. President. It would never have occurred to my mother or my father to ask me. Were you giving our country away? Hoping not.

LB [20]: My imagination these days is captured by the femme fatale/spy/mob lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, now at the center of the Secret Meeting scandal, who is actually superior to the hapless Natasha, and surely belongs in a Bond film.

Theories have been put out as to why the Russians wouldn't hide their tracks better: one is that they're simply too crude to be any subtler. Another theory is that it's a deliberate intimidation tactic by Putin: "look vat I can do". A third, which incorporates the other two is that it's hubris: like Trump, Putin thinks he's able to do whatever he wants without consequence.

Hard to say either man is wrong in that assessment, so far.

Cautious about what?

Capitol Steps earlier this year broke the story of Hillary's plan to run as VP in 2020 behind her daughter, and, after their election, have her daughter impeached.

also [19] - Just flipped Alaska back to Russia for 2x the price we paid them for it! #ARToftheDEAL #MAGA #PUTIN'sBFF

Funny.

More seriously, now Russian interest in the Trump presidential run shows up publicly back to before the Escalator, thanks to a cartoon character taller than, but otherwise seeming quite comparable to, the agent who was kept at bay by patriotic moose and squirrel.

Why the Russian were too damned loud from the get-go isn't at all clear yet, and until it is, we have to be very cautious.

If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother,as her mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!

Is Trump admitting that he was busy "giving (sic) our country away" and that is why Ivanka was asked to take his place??? He is claiming that IF Hillary did what he had just done, this would be the media's response, so I don't see any other explanation for what he meant by it.

And this was the G-20 conference, not a movie theater; Trump did not need anyone to hold his seat for him -- it was assigned seating!

After his love-fest with Putin, I half expected to read a tweet from Trump saying something like:

Just flipped Alaska back to Russia for 2x the price we paid them for it! #ARToftheDEAL #MAGA #PUTIN'sBFF

Your prediction is correct, i do like William Bradley columns - although sometimes he sets their volume at 11 :). When 8 or 9 would do.

You are ignoring the context of the situation which makes it much different from the actions of any other admin ... we're not talking about just another visit to SA or just another arms deal, in other words. Contest, as always, means everything.

The Saudi visit has much deeper implications. Did you see the special treatment Trump received when he was there?

Nixon and every President since him have visited Saudi Arabia. This is bound to viewed unfavorably on the Shi'a side of the divide. The same gaggle of Presidents has also visited Israel, which probably annoys all Arab states, at least publicly.

The Presidential trip to SA is roughly equivalent parents taking their kids to Disney....you've gotta do it, it's part of the job, even though it's hot, culturally jarring and expensive. (CW Disney fans, please don't be haters!)

Liz-14

I have to agree with you on the prospects of El Trump snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory. Flipping on the Iran accord would be a very disturbing precedent...from a very disturbing and quite possibly disturbed President.

Here is what most concerns me about Trump administration Middle East policy ...
https://www.armscontrol.org/blogs/P5-plus-Iran-nuclear-talks-and-deal-alerts

I am very afraid that Trump intends to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with regard to the nuclear deal with Iran, a move that would be applauded by Netanyahu and the House of Saud.

His trip to Saudi Arabia was disturbing in that he is essentially pitting one religious group against another AND taking sides in the Sunni-Shi'a divide.

When did that dangerous behavior become conventional US policy?

I completely agree with your assessment of Trump. He's a screw up and utterly out of his depth as Prez.

That said, Trump is an accomplished grifter. Much of what he says as President is simply NYC real estate sales patter applied to his new job. The gobbledygook he spouts is a deliberate distraction while he goes about his business of picking pockets. Ignore the patter and watch his fingers. Trump has spent a lifetime debasing information in the service of The Trump Organization and family precursors. Everybody is on to his con, the messaging should be ignored, like junk mail or spam.

So far, and Thank God for it, Trump seems to be fairly conventional with respect to the Middle East. He could have gone nuts on the Syria Sarin event, but he didn't. He listened to his generals and opted for expensive fireworks. This may not hold, but let's take any good news we can get about this rancid administration.

I don't see Trump as an activist in matters Middle East. The fact that oil man T. Rex heads up State suggest to me that Trump will be very deferential and conventional when it comes to Middle East policies.

I've noticed that applies equally to the rest of the world outside of the Middle East as well as domestically. And, that points up the problem in a nutshell.

Donald Trump is out of his league, if he even has one. He is a classic know-nothing who has been quickly ceding America's global leadership role since he took office ... with every breath, hand-flip and action he has taken.

Here's a piece you may be interested in that sets out the Trumpist vacuum in world politics ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumpist-vacuum-in-world-politics-draws-china-russia_us_5961a852e4b08f5c97d06a60

Chris is right to draw attention to the very serious questions and answers that must inform US policy on Iraq and Syria and the importance of a post-IS strategy.

Unfortunately, and Chris knows this, Donald Trump is a non-serious American president who is not even necessarily listening to the few serious advisors he has installed on his national security team.

Iraq is probably going to be the biggest loser in TrumpWorld.

I am focused on the mess Trump leaves in his wake, wherever he goes.

To be clear, Trump is not smarter than he acts or talks. He is a very dangerous president.

Everybody, myself included, has payed WAY too much attention to Trump's mouth. Watch his fingers, his mouth is a deliberate distraction. His base is focused on his mouth.

I don't see Trump as an activist in matters Middle East. The fact that oil man T. Rex heads up State suggest to me that Trump will be very deferential and conventional when it comes to Middle East policies.

Saudi Arabia is well aware of how weak it is militarily. It relies on outside protection, and can reasonably expect to get it. Iran understands the balance of power game well, and prefers proxy offensive war to the straight up option. The carnage of Iran/Iraq is still fairly fresh.

All in all, the US played the game fairly well under Obama. I think the US military command gets it. Maybe Trump can too, if he's smarter than he acts/talks.

I'm not sure what you are basing that last bit on??

President Trump has done nothing to indicate that he gets any of this or ever will.

Nice review ... have you read Trumpist Vacuum in World Politics, another good summation of how China, Russia, France, Germany, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and California step into their various Trump-era roles?

I'm not so sure anymore if (the idea of) America survives and thrives after Trump is finished with it, especially if there is a second Trump term or another Trump-like administration.

The "Islamic State" never met the generally accepted benchmarks of a sovereign state: permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. You can draw a line around a sovereign state, and the line means something.

That said, neither "Syria" or "Iraq" currently qualify as sovereign states either. They certainly didn't qualify in the not so distant past: they are both post World War One political inventions (along with many others) intended to deal with the problem of "how do we deal with the fall of the Turkish Empire?"

The politics of the Levant, and the Middle East in general, are tribal. The tribes are fractal, they don't live within compact, easily defined borders. The "Islamic State" was a Sunni political movement lead by religious brigands and implemented by local militia plus outside adventurers from the Sunni Diaspora. It was not a "Blitzkrieg" in the sense that it overran territory - it was already in place, it ignited and sucked in additional fighters.

The only diplomatic power wielded by "The Islamic State" was terrorism and the fear of terrorism. It effectively spread terror, it can still spread more/better terror, but the terror was not decisive. It wasn't even original-the PLO did basically same thing for decades. All the tribes in question proved adept at striking covert or not so covert deals with regional powers (Iran, Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia, Turkey etc. = the usual gang of suspects).

Bottom line, nobody has found a substitute for the Old Turkish Empire, which understood the game, was willing to hunker down for a few centuries and keep order by being extremely firm and reasonably fair to the many tribes.

In place of the Turks, we now have a variation of what is classically known as "Balance of Power." That is, whenever any one player in the Game of Levant becomes dominant, the other sphere of influence players restructure their allegiances to level the field. All in all, the US played the game fairly well under Obama. I think the US military command gets it. Maybe Trump can too, if he's smarter than he acts/talks.

A U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East will cause a power shift towards Iran, in my opinion. Saudi Arabia have been in luxury cruise control since the 1970's, benefiting from being able to buy military coverage from us. They must be looking at the unfolding situation and realize that one day their army is going to have to stand up alone against Iran's and it isn't going to go well for them. Iran has battle hardened troops and decades of experience in active warfare. Saudi has a lot of practice buying Ferraris and private jets.

Israel, of course, is going to be the big loser. Bibi is going to rue the day he celebrated Hillary's loss - she had the strength to handle the Middle East - it looks like 45's regime is going to spend the next three years trying to battle scandal after scandal in D.C.

On the larger stage, Putin pretty much has a free hand, and after 2018 (he won't want to do anything that might cause a boycott of his World Cup next year) I expect agitation in Russian enclaves in the Baltics and other surrounding states coupled with propaganda showing the victimization of ethnic Russians to justify his adventures.

China will aim to create a trading empire without having to compete with the U.S. The abandonment of the TPP is a long term disaster for us - you may not like the fact of globalization, but you are going to really dislike globalization when we have no seat at the table to represent our interests.

America will survive and thrive of course, but we will lose a lot of power in the interim. The point of our military power is to get people to listen to our diplomats, but if our diplomats are mute then we may as well save ourselves a lot of money by trimming the military into a local defense force - something we can achieve with about 10-20% of our current expenditure.

I hope Iraq can wait that long. There is far less hope for Syria.