It’s been less than an hour since the United States has decided to launch Tomahawk missiles against Syria targeting its air fields. This has us thinking: Did Trump let us down and break his election promises? One of Trump’s main pivot points during last year’s Presidential election was his commitment to avoiding what Hillary Clinton wanted: air strikes in Syria and an assault against Assad. One of Hillary’s main political views was her opposition towards Assad, her desire to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria, and potentially start a war with Russia. Trump was meant to avoid that at all costs, but to many of us it seems like he’s betrayed us.

This simply does not make sense. The headlines should say “Hillary Clinton launches missiles against Syria”, not Trump. This was her dream, and Trump was meant to be the God-send force to destroy Hillary’s diabolical plans. It was he who criticised Hillary’s interventionist plans against the Middle East, and it is he, the supposed reviver of conservative isolationism, who has now intervened spectacularly.

This episode happened after chemical weapons attacks in Syria this week. The mainstream media and politicians, along with major political institutions, pointed the finger at Assad, despite the discrepancies in their arguments. With journalists talking about the chemical attacks hours before it occurred, and Assad logically having no reason to wreak havoc in a war he was winning, as identified by Ron Paul, the media narrative on the chemical attacks is suspicious.

But Trump seems to have given in to this media narrative. We expect someone like Trump to avoid listening to mainstream explanations concerning the acts of foreign dictators, and instead arrive at a more sophisticated conclusion, especially when they’ve continued to support such dictators. Yet this was too good to be true.

But here is the twist: maybe it wasn’t Trump who called for the missile launch, it is highly likely that another body within the US government has influenced Trump’s decision. Explanations may range from the “Jews” to the CIA, but one thing is clear, time and again we have seen other security and intelligence bodies influencing American foreign policy. Hillary Clinton was their puppet, and we thought Trump’s election meant their downfall, but we were wrong. Either Trump has given in, or Trump is under their control.

Superficially, Trump appears to be completely in support and in control of this decision. He criticised Assad’s “heinous” crimes, obviously believing in the mainstream media narrative, prompting Russia to snap back and accuse Trump of being too “hasty”. Putin’s desire to see a more “considerate approach” by Trump was in vain, the United States has already called for “civilised nations” to join a coalition against Assad.

With Trump supporters already mocking their President with the likes of “Hillary got what she wanted” and “Trump takes Hillary’s advice”, there is no end to the possibilities of what happens next. An assault on Syria is practically an assault on Russia. Dreams of a Trump-Putin bromance has given way to increased possibilities of a World War III, of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, the exact thing we were hoping to prevent by supporting Trump. But that is no longer the case. A Biblical prophecy stating that an anti-Christ will arrive soon was one reason why many Christians didn’t vote for Trump. Let’s hope this prophecy is indeed misunderstood.

Author Details