It fits perfectly with offering medical help to Greenland even though they have full and free access to the Danish health care system. I wonder what his own citizens are thinking?! I'm perplexed that's for sure.
What's happening in Iran
- Context: Civil Rights
- Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
- Start date
It fits perfectly with offering medical help to Greenland even though they have full and free access to the Danish health care system. I wonder what his own citizens are thinking?! I'm perplexed that's for sure.
As am I. I will say the idea that he has real concern for Iranian dissidents is not at all credible to me.
Venezuela fell off the US media radar after it did not de-stabilize and Maduro's successor was more amenable to working with the Trump administration. I say that, but if you ask me 'what does working with the administration look like' I have no
idea. As far as I know, Trumps interest in Venezuela is now spent. If he's gained more than putting a pain in his ass (Maduro) in prison, I don't know what it is.
So maybe he has the same general idea in his head - that Iran won't de-stabilize, they will elect a new supreme leader who will be more pliable and things can then go back to more or less how they were. Its also possible there is no plan and he's just indulging his impulses.
This article has a good snip that brought to mind the Venezuela comparison above.
Who could succeed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to lead Iran?
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's assassination brings Iran's clerics the colossal task of picking his successor.
“Trump wants to get the best deal possible, but the method he’s using to get that deal is to annihilate or destroy as much as he can,” Zaccara said. “This is the way to impose conditions, not to negotiate anything. Trump wants a surrender of the regime, not a change.”
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #33
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 497
- 317
I also think Netanyahu is cashing in a favor
- 129
- 116
Busy news weekend, reminiscent of the ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times.".
I have not been posting many WaPo articles due to the cringing journalistic subservience to Trump's regime. The New York Times has filled some of this information gap with decent international reporting on Iran's retaliation against nearby countries.
NYTimes digital Sunday edition:
www.nytimes.com
I have not been posting many WaPo articles due to the cringing journalistic subservience to Trump's regime. The New York Times has filled some of this information gap with decent international reporting on Iran's retaliation against nearby countries.
NYTimes digital Sunday edition:
The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos
Live news, investigations, opinion, photos and video by the journalists of The New York Times from more than 150 countries around the world. Subscribe for coverage of U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, science, health, arts, sports and more.
www.nytimes.com
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #35
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 497
- 317
Great, so now we have Kuwait shooting at us. Are we not coordinating at all?
www.cbsnews.com
3 American F-15 jets "mistakenly shot down" by Kuwait but all crew safe, U.S. military says
Three American fighter jets were "mistakenly shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses," CENTCOM said in a statement Monday, as the war with Iran continued for a third day.
www.cbsnews.com
- 143
- 137
With all the conspiracy theorists voting for the republican party, haven't they noticed that the republicans are always going to war against small countries that are big oil producers every time they're in power? Iraq, Venezuela, and now Iran. Always with dubious reasons.
But when there is a good and honorable reason to defend Ukraine against Russia, they are suddenly for peace. Gaza? Let's transform it into a resort!
Where are the conspiracy theorists when you need them!
But when there is a good and honorable reason to defend Ukraine against Russia, they are suddenly for peace. Gaza? Let's transform it into a resort!
Where are the conspiracy theorists when you need them!
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #39
Greg Bernhardt
Site Admin
- 497
- 317
From what I can tell Jonathan Larsen is a minor journalist, so it's hard to figure out this credibility.
Grok says:
The claim originates from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), an advocacy group opposing religious influence in the military. They report over 110 anonymous complaints since March 1 from troops at 30+ installations across all branches. One quoted NCO describes a commander linking the Iran conflict to Book of Revelation Armageddon and Trump as "anointed by Jesus."
Grok says:
The claim originates from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), an advocacy group opposing religious influence in the military. They report over 110 anonymous complaints since March 1 from troops at 30+ installations across all branches. One quoted NCO describes a commander linking the Iran conflict to Book of Revelation Armageddon and Trump as "anointed by Jesus."
I'd find a hypothetical counter-claim, that US military officers never invoke Christianity to incite fervor in their commands, totally unbelievable.
After Israel was attacked by Hamas, I recall Trump saying "maybe Israel will be attacked from the North". That sounded like a pretty specific thing to say to me, so I Googled it and that wording is one of the events signalling something or other bad for non-believers - the 2nd coming or rapture or something. Doesn't surprise me to see such invocations on the rise.
Remember this? Trump "note to self" - 'That's not a bad idea, Don.'
kvia.com
Trump repeatedly claimed in 2011 and 2012 that Obama would start a war with Iran to win reelection
In media appearances prior to the 2012 election, Donald Trump repeatedly predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran in order to win reelection. A CNN KFile review found Trump made the claims throughout 2011 and 2012 in radio and television appearances as well as in a...
- Admin
- #42
Borg
Site Admin
- 261
- 273
After the 2021 suicide bombing outside Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul that caused the deaths of 13 U.S. service members, there was a truck at my work with the sign "Biden, their blood is on your hands". I wonder if they will post a similar sign for our current president now that his conflict has resulted in so many new deaths with more to come? 
I suspect his motivation is to stay in power for the rest of his life. I'm sure he's p..... that he's the same age he teased Biden with! If anyone wants to live forever it's Trump.
- 109
- 80
Written news reports are one thing, but I found it hard to stomach Pete Hegseth's obvious glee and smirking in his video interview describing the sinking without warning of the Iranian ship IRIS Dena near Sri Lanka, far from the previous action. He's treating mass killing like a game.
- 265
- 216
The next question is, what will happen to the 440 kg stash of enriched uranium Iran says it has? As far as the enrichment is concerned, is it really what Iran claims, 60%? Four hundred and forty kilograms is also not a large volume and is easily concealed. Do we know where it is? Do we know if it is accessible? If so, shouldn't it be seized? But that would take boots on the ground. If we don't know where it is, does anyone else? If so, should we try to make sure it does not leave Iran? Again, boots on the ground. Could this mean permanent occupation of Iran? It could be the 51 st state, sorry, Canada.
- 109
- 80
The IAEA was previously able to access most of Iran's nuclear sites and verify information about storage locations and enrichment percentages up to at least the time of the previous attack in June 2025, but I can't find anything more recent.
Note that in about 2015 a complex nuclear deal was eventually reached with Iran (the JCPOA) that if Iran complied with specific conditions then the USA would eventually lift sanctions. The agreement was subsequently cancelled unilaterally by Trump in 2018, apparently simply because he didn't trust Iran, and Iran then felt free to ignore those conditions and cease complying with them, although they agreed to continued IAEA monitoring until recently, and have continued declaring how much uranium they have at what level of enrichment.
If you accept the debatable position that Iran was making reasonable attempts to comply with the severe constraints imposed by the USA on their nuclear ambitions, then the fault apparently lies entirely with Trump.
Note that in about 2015 a complex nuclear deal was eventually reached with Iran (the JCPOA) that if Iran complied with specific conditions then the USA would eventually lift sanctions. The agreement was subsequently cancelled unilaterally by Trump in 2018, apparently simply because he didn't trust Iran, and Iran then felt free to ignore those conditions and cease complying with them, although they agreed to continued IAEA monitoring until recently, and have continued declaring how much uranium they have at what level of enrichment.
If you accept the debatable position that Iran was making reasonable attempts to comply with the severe constraints imposed by the USA on their nuclear ambitions, then the fault apparently lies entirely with Trump.
- 265
- 216
As is often the case, MSNOW had Jon Meachum, presidential historian, on today with an interesting discussion. The discussion about the Iran war led to his noting that Dwight Eisenhower was instructed by his mentor to study Carl Clausewitz's work "On War". Carl Clausewitz, 19th-century Prussian army officer and military theorist, wrote in his famous treatise 'On War" that "War is merely the continuation of policy [or politics—the German original is Politik, which encompasses both of those rather different English words] with other means." That is forcing your will on others.
From Wikipedia:
"On War" was a dialectical examination of what war is. The synthesis of this examination was the development of his Trinity: an inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation. In the Iran war, the emotion comes from Trump, the Calculation come from his generals, and chance is the unexpected or unforeseen. Despite the optimism exhibited by the Trump administration on its success, it is only the culmination of the war that we can make an assessment, as noted by Clausewitz.
To Trump, how good is your plan? Are the generals acquiescing to only your plan out of fear of losing their jobs? What has been lost in Hedgeth's purging of top military leaders?
From Wikipedia:
"On War" was a dialectical examination of what war is. The synthesis of this examination was the development of his Trinity: an inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation. In the Iran war, the emotion comes from Trump, the Calculation come from his generals, and chance is the unexpected or unforeseen. Despite the optimism exhibited by the Trump administration on its success, it is only the culmination of the war that we can make an assessment, as noted by Clausewitz.
Clausewitz also recognizes the importance of the involvement of the people, which I take as approval.
To Trump, how good is your plan? Are the generals acquiescing to only your plan out of fear of losing their jobs? What has been lost in Hedgeth's purging of top military leaders?
What's happening in Iran is now becoming what's happening in the industrialized world, and definitely it has become what's happening in the US. The straight line from Hormuz to the pump is impossible to spin into something else - the administration hasn't even tried to blame this one on Biden, at least not yet.
- 265
- 216
If I heard him correctly on MS NOW this evening, Ret. Major General Randy Manner, who was in Dubai on the day the war started callled the US embassy for instructions. They replied that they could not help him. There are usually about 10.000 US citizens in Dubai. Did the embassy know of the war?
In an interview with Time, Trump was asked if US citizens should be concerned about their safety. He replied:
In an interview with Time, Trump was asked if US citizens should be concerned about their safety. He replied:
- 109
- 80
In a video address broadcast on Iranian state media, the country's President Masoud Pezeshkian apologises to neighbouring states and says Tehran will not attack them "unless attacked first".
[This is one of several stories covered in these BBC live updates, but I can't link to a specific one]:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ceqvwrydzpqt
If this restraint is clearly demonstrated, this has interesting consequences, in that Iran's initial attacks on uninvolved countries was a key basis for the legal justification for the UK and other countries getting involved in the fight, so this might undermine that support. However, it isn't clear whether any similar restraint will apply to Hezbollah.
Not surprisingly, the Iran President is also totally dismissive of the "unconditional surrender" demand.
[This is one of several stories covered in these BBC live updates, but I can't link to a specific one]:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ceqvwrydzpqt
If this restraint is clearly demonstrated, this has interesting consequences, in that Iran's initial attacks on uninvolved countries was a key basis for the legal justification for the UK and other countries getting involved in the fight, so this might undermine that support. However, it isn't clear whether any similar restraint will apply to Hezbollah.
Not surprisingly, the Iran President is also totally dismissive of the "unconditional surrender" demand.
- 109
- 80
It seems the Iranian armed forces may have a less helpful interpretation of their President's words, in that they are suggesting that countries that merely provide a base for the US could be legitimate targets regardless of whether that base is being used for attacks:
The Guardian: Analysis: how should we interpret Pezeshkian's statement?
The Guardian: Analysis: how should we interpret Pezeshkian's statement?
- 1,260
- 1,705
This entire war feels as if two felons decided to go to war to distract from their felonies. I cannot understand that anybody, our chancellor included, can justify it. And it is without any doubt not because of the Iranian people.
Wag the Dog, it is?
And as it seems Cuba was already marked as target for the next round once Iran is out of steam...
Ps.: though it's a little problematic that Ukraine got forgotten, and with just a few more rounds even the US military will be out of steam if ever China decides to go for Taiwan...
Seems to me a huge asymmetry exists in the Hormuz waterway (SoH I'll call it) - its much less expensive to disrupt it than to make and keep it truly secure. Its not secure now, and the US has two carrier groups there.
I don't hear this dynamic being discussed in the US, and it surprises me because imo its the only dynamic that really matters.
Can oil predictably and safely transit the SoH? If the answer were 'yes' right now, the US would declare massive victory on some grounds or other and leave right now. As long as the answer is no, and its no right now, the US simply cannot leave. If we run out of missiles, we cannot leave. As the war becomes more and more of political nightmare for Trump, we cannot leave - no matter what, if 20% of the worlds oil can only move at the pleasure of the last person in Iran with a functioning missile launcher, we just cannot leave.
At least that how I see it. As far as discussions of 'when are we done' go, and lots of folks in the US want that answer, I have yet to hear this factor being mentioned. I think its because once that discussion starts, it becomes clear to 100% of people without some mental illness that the US is now completely stuck in a bear trap, and gnawing off our figurative paw (meaning stable oil supply) to leave is not a viable option - its equivalent to a military defeat.
I don't hear this dynamic being discussed in the US, and it surprises me because imo its the only dynamic that really matters.
Can oil predictably and safely transit the SoH? If the answer were 'yes' right now, the US would declare massive victory on some grounds or other and leave right now. As long as the answer is no, and its no right now, the US simply cannot leave. If we run out of missiles, we cannot leave. As the war becomes more and more of political nightmare for Trump, we cannot leave - no matter what, if 20% of the worlds oil can only move at the pleasure of the last person in Iran with a functioning missile launcher, we just cannot leave.
At least that how I see it. As far as discussions of 'when are we done' go, and lots of folks in the US want that answer, I have yet to hear this factor being mentioned. I think its because once that discussion starts, it becomes clear to 100% of people without some mental illness that the US is now completely stuck in a bear trap, and gnawing off our figurative paw (meaning stable oil supply) to leave is not a viable option - its equivalent to a military defeat.
Missile launchers (ship worthy ones) are ~ easy. But tankers and commercial ships are vulnerable to even cheap drones...
And while the preliminary assumption about the (military) value of cheap drones is now proven (=> seriously limited), if it's about protecting civilian targets en masse then the whole US military is still like 'pants down' despite all the years of experience from Ukraine.
That's the real folly of the 'Battleship Trump'
Last edited:
My impression was the agreement was cancelled because it was negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump is that stupid and petty.
Now that oil isn't able to make it through the Strait of Hormuz, the administration has decided to partially lift sanctions against Russian oil to try offset the effect on the market. The higher oil prices due to the war and the lifting of sanctions greatly benefits Russia who is helping Iran attack US forces.
It's pretty clear that the administration did minimal planning, if any, regarding the war.
To add a bit of nuance, there are some people (besides Netanyahu) who think attacking Iran was a good idea as the country was sponsoring terrorism in the region, but they don't agree with the way Trump went about it.
- 109
- 80
The Guardian is mentioning that:
"Israeli military said it would also target every person who seeks to appoint a successor for killed supreme leader Ali Khamenei"
But didn't Trump say he wanted to have a say in appointing a successor?
"Israeli military said it would also target every person who seeks to appoint a successor for killed supreme leader Ali Khamenei"
But didn't Trump say he wanted to have a say in appointing a successor?