Apr 122026
 
 April 12, 2026  Posted by at 9:21 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Thomas Cole The Course of Empire – The Savage State 1834


Vance Says Iranian Regime Won’t Make a Deal (Salgado)
VP Vance Departs Pakistan After Failing To Read Deal With Iran (ZH)
Trump ‘Preparing’ US Military If Talks Fail (ZH)
Several US Warships Reportedly Transit Strait of Hormuz (ZH)
For Entertainment Only – The Firehose of Crazy (CTH)
Since the Iran War Began, Trump’s Popularity With Boomers Has Climbed (Pinsker)
Who’s Afraid of Emmanuel Macron? (J.B. Shurk)
The US Separation From Europe And NATO Is Long Overdue (Alt-M)
“Create a Crisis”: Sponsor an Anti-ICE Campaign (Turley)
How the Russiagate Blueprint Has Been Unleashed Against Orban (RT)
Women Step Forward to Outline Swalwell’s Sexual Assault History (CTH)
Women Step Forward to Outline Swalwell’s Sexual Assault History (CTH)
Eric Swalwell’s Political Future is Collapsing Fast (Matt Margolis)
Tesla Gets FSD Supervised Approved in the Netherlands (Electrek)

 


 

https://twitter.com/BalazsOrban_HU/status/2042715739669348539?s=20 https://twitter.com/Niw451/status/2042731794613834012?s=20

 


 


We didn’t expect a deal in 24 hours. It must look difficult. The US needs to hand Iran the words that say whoever’s in charge there didn’t really lose. They must save face.

Vance Says Iranian Regime Won’t Make a Deal (Salgado)

In the least surprising international news this week, Vice President JD Vance provided an update Saturday night on his negotiations with the Iranian regime that included confirmation of that regime‘s refusal to make any reasonable deal. “The bad news is we have not reached an agreement,” he told the press.


“We just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms. I think that we were quite flexible. We were quite accommodating,” the vice president stated. But unfortunately, when you deal with genocidal terrorists, flexibility is not likely to end with peace. There is only one language jihadis understand. And now the whole world can see how absolutely determined the Iranian regime is to have war and how totally opposed they are to peace. Vance said that the failure to strike a deal will be much worse for the Iranian regime than for us.

Within two hours of the ceasefire announcement, the Iranian regime was already bombing multiple countries in the Middle East, especially Israel. It also refused to track down and disable the mines it scattered in the Strait of Hormuz, while simultaneously demanding massive tolls from countries that send ships through the strait. Throughout every step of the process this week, the Iranian regime has been arrogant, demanding, defiant, and irrational.

Vance, who went to Pakistan with Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner to talk with the representatives of the murderous mullahs, said April 11 U.S. time, “We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. I won’t go into all the details, because I don’t want to negotiate in public after we negotiated for 21 hours in private, but the simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.”

He emphasized, “That is the core goal of the President of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.” The Iranian regime has spent almost half a century not only enforcing domestic tyranny but building up a global terrorist network. They are fanatical fundamentalist Muslims, who believe Allah has given them a mission to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization. As tragic as it is, the Iranian regime will never want peace with America and Israel. Of course that is what we want, but we have been waiting for 47 years for the Iranian regime to aim for it as well, and they never have.

The vice president confirmed that he will be returning to the United States after the failed negotiations. “We’ve made very clear what our red lines are, what things we’re willing to accommodate them on and what things we’re not willing to accommodate them on. And we’ve made clear as we possibly could. And they have chosen not to accept our terms,” he stated. President Trump told the press previously, “Let’s see what happens — maybe they make a deal, maybe they don’t. It doesn’t matter. From the standpoint of America, we win.” It is not clear what the Trump administration plans to do next, however.

Read more …

“.. they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG! Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft apparatus is nonexistent, Radar is dead, their Missile and Drone Factories have been largely obliterated along with the Missiles and Drones themselves and, most importantly, their longtime “Leaders” are no longer with us..”

VP Vance Departs Pakistan After Failing To Read Deal With Iran (ZH)

Iranian media are striking a cautiously optimistic tone on the progress of the talks. They say there was progress on implementation of the ceasefire in Lebanon, technical negotiations that went beyond generalities and now an exchange of texts that would put any progress in writing. To be sure, the US side has been much quieter, and sticking points may come into focus once they’re in black and white. Teams of experts joined the main negotiators after about an hour, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported. Those technical discussions in Islamabad focused on the Strait of Hormuz, a potential ceasefire extension and phased sanctions relief. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency says, citing its reporter at the venue.


“The issue of the Strait of Hormuz is one of the points facing serious disagreement”, adding that the US delegation “hindered progress” during the text-exchange stage with “its usual excessive demands” Talks have reportedly mostly avoided the core issues that the Trump administration said drove it to war, according to a US official and a Pakistani official familiar with the matter. Those issues include Iran’s support for armed proxies, and the nuclear and missile programs that were at the heart of Trump’s stated reasons for attacking Iran beginning Feb. 28. “We have goodwill, but we do not have trust,” Ghalibaf told reporters after arriving in Islamabad, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

“In the upcoming negotiations, if the American side is prepared for a genuine agreement and to grant the rights of the Iranian nation, they will see readiness for an agreement from us as well.” Tasnim said that Tehran’s 71-member delegation also included the Islamic Republic’s central bank governor Abdolnaser Hemmati. Also on the agenda will be the fate of Iran’s uranium stockpile and missile production, as well as US sanctions against the Islamic Republic and broader military presence in the Middle East. Many of those issues were the same ones the two sides failed to resolve in February negotiations before the war began.

Iran’s deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says Tehran has entered negotiations from a position of strength, arguing that the war on Iran had failed to deliver decisive strategic gains for the US. Trump – as we detailed below – made it clear he sees Iran ‘holding no cards’.

US Starts Clearing Mines In Strait of Hormuz
Seemingly confirming President Trump’s earlier comments on “clearing out the Strait”, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that two U.S. missile destroyers started clearing mines in the Strait of Hormuz on April 11 as peace talks kicked off between Washington and the Iranian regime “Today, we began the process of establishing a new passage and we will share this safe pathway with the maritime industry soon to encourage the free flow of commerce,” CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said in a statement Saturday. The American ships included the USS Frank E. Peterson (DDG 121) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112).

CENTCOM revealed that the mission on Saturday is part of a broader goal to make the crucial waterway, located on the southwest coast of Iran, clear of sea mines laid by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Saturday’s confirmation about the mine clearing came hours after a United States government vessel was spotted entering the Strait of Hormuz, according to the ship-tracking intelligence platform Marinetraffic.com. It’s not clear if this was related to CENTCOM’s mine-clearing mission.

Trump Announces Start Of “Clearing Out” The Strait As A “Favor” To RoW
Earlier reports appears to have been confirmed as three US officials have stated to The Wall Street Journal that two U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, marking the first transit of American warships through the waterway since the war began six weeks ago. President Trump took to social media to explain what was going on. But first, he clarified a few things to the ‘fake news media’…

“The Fake News Media has lost total credibility, not that they had any to begin with. Because of their massive Trump Derangement Syndrome (Sometimes referred to as TDS!), they love saying that Iran is “winning” when, in fact, everyone knows that they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG! Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft apparatus is nonexistent, Radar is dead, their Missile and Drone Factories have been largely obliterated along with the Missiles and Drones themselves and, most importantly, their longtime “Leaders” are no longer with us, praise be to Allah!

The only thing they have going is the threat that a ship may “bunk” into one of their sea mines which, by the way, all 28 of their mine dropper boats are also lying at the bottom of the sea. Having got all that off his chest, he then confirmed the operation to open the Strait:We’re now starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz as a favor to Countries all over the World, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and many others. Incredibly, they don’t have the Courage or Will to do this work themselves. Very interestingly, however, empty Oil carrying ships from many Nations are all heading to the United States of America to LOAD UP with Oil. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

But he wasn’t done with that. A few minutes later he followed with a shorter pithier version of the same narrative: The Fake News Media is CRAZY, or just plain CORRUPT! The United States has completely destroyed Iran’s Military, including their entire Navy and Air Force, and everything else. Their Leadership is DEAD. The Strait of Hormuz will soon be open, and the empty ships are rushing to the United States to “load up.” But, if you listen to the Fake News, we’re losing! Iran explicitly informed the Pakistani mediator during talks that if the vessel continued its movement it would be targeted within 30 minutes and the Iran-US negotiations would be damaged.

Read more …

Trump “Proclaims Iran Has ‘No Cards’ As Delegates Arrive In Islamabad”

Trump ‘Preparing’ US Military If Talks Fail (ZH)

A delegation of top Iranian officials has arrived in Islamabad ahead of ceasefire talks with the United States in the Pakistani capital, Iranian state television reported on Friday. The delegation was led by Iran parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, along with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other security and economic officials, state broadcaster IRIB said on its website. It reiterated Iran’s position, however, that talks would only begin if Washington accepts Iran’s preconditions.


Vice President Vance left Friday for Pakistan and the biggest challenge of his career: negotiating a deal with Iran to solve the nuclear dispute and end the war.”This is a big deal for JD. He is going to the Super Bowl,” one U.S. official told Axios. Mr Vance will lead the American delegation in Pakistan on Saturday, alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law.They will attempt to solidify a temporary ceasefire agreed this week. Before boarding Air Force Two to fly to Islamabad, Mr Vance said Mr Trump would not be at the talks but had set “pretty clear guidelines” for his team. He said: “As the president of the United States said, if the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we’re certainly willing to extend an open hand. If they’re going to try to play us, then they’re going to find that the negotiating team is not that receptive.”

Trump Claims Iran has ‘No Cards’ …but does the White House actually believe this? He suggested that if the Iranians hadn’t agreed to negotiate, they would be dead (cue wiping out entire “civilization” threat from earlier).

Trump Warns Attack on Iran Will Continue if Tehran Doesn’t Comply
President Trump has confirmed to the NY Post that he’s preparing the US military for what would likely be a bigger Iran operation should Tehran not comply, and should Pakistan talks fail. “We’re going to find out in about 24 hours. We’re going to know soon,” Trump told the Post when asked if he thinks the talks will be successful. Already there’s a lot of back and forth over the 10-point plan on the eve of the summit, and with both sides now in Islamabad. A main point of contention remains whether Lebanon is part of the two-week ceasefire agreement. There’s also been much speculation that all of this is just ‘cover’ for a bigger build-up of Pentagon forces in the region. Also, Iranian forces are no doubt using the opportunity to regroup.

Ghalibaf Demands Attacks on Lebanon Cease Or Else…
Iran Parliament spokesman Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, considered the official who is likely running the country day-to-day, says there will be no negotiations before the following:
1) ceasefire in Lebanon
2) release of Iran’s blocked assets: “release of Iran’s blocked assets prior to the commencement of negotiations.”
Oil jumped on the news. This as some sporadic Israeli bombings of Lebanese territory have persisted into Friday, despite talk of an Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, with talks expected in Washington next week. It’s unclear whether Tehran and its negotiating team which just touched down in Pakistan will hold to this or not.

Read more …

De-mining has started.

Several US Warships Reportedly Transit Strait of Hormuz (ZH)

Just as indirect talks kick off in Islamabad, a shocking and surprise development is being reported by Axios’ Barak Ravid, though this is not confirmed: https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/2042946011400753294


If accurate, are we witnessing Trump suddenly pile on more leverage before negotiations even get off the ground? It seems like the Iranians would have noticed several US Navy warships passing. Either they held off attack for the sake of pursuing peace, or this was truly done ‘stealthily’ and Iranian capabilities are degraded to the point they may have ‘missed’ it. Or is this an attempt to muddy the negotiations? Sabotage? Ravid after all has long stood accused of pushing an Israeli agenda in his reporting.

Talks Begin with Indirect Format Mediated by Pakistanis
By Saturday afternoon (local), the highest-level US-Iran-related talks since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have kicked off in Islamabad. Vice President JD Vance met Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif just ahead of the negotiations, and also senior Iranian officials were greeted by Sharif and other Pakistani leaders. Iran’s delegation is led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The engagement by each side has begun indirectly.

Pakistan has made clear it is working to facilitate direct negotiations between the US and Iran to fully bring to an end the six-week war in the Middle East. Sharif hailed both sides’ commitment to engaging constructively, and “expressed the hope that these talks would serve as a stepping stone toward durable peace in the region,” his office stated in a news release.

“Vance was joined for the bilateral meeting by special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner,” CNN reviews. “Sharif was joined by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sen. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, along with Interior Minister Sen. Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi, according to a news release from the Pakistani prime minister’s office. There was no press coverage of the meeting.”

Read more …

“If people are not careful, their stability will be personally defined by Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones and a lot more. We become what we consume, both physically and mentally.”

For Entertainment Only – The Firehose of Crazy (CTH)

Several months ago, I was asked to assist with what was called a “firehose of crazy.” I don’t ordinarily pay attention to the goofy stuff, and I didn’t look at most of the citations being referenced. That said and with recent events in view, I have a new appreciation for what that meant.


When President Trump responded to the goofball diatribe of Alex Jones, what he apparently was referencing was a segment Jones put out on his podcast when he first requested the administration to intervene and use the 25th amendment to remove Trump. Mr. Jones followed that call for the 25th amendment, by saying he wanted administration officials to conduct a soft-coup against the President of the United States, because Trump wasn’t following his advice.

https://twitter.com/JayTC53/status/2041314899574305162?s=20

President Trump rightly responded to the quackery of the podcast world, and collectively they have lost their mind over it. In response, Jones is now saying Melania Trump is planning to divorce Donald Trump {CITATION}, and then, if President Trump says one more bad thing, Jones’ is going to unleash his podcast audience to destroy the President of the United States. Folks, these characters are not psychologically stable people. This is a level of weird only evident now because Trump decided to address it. I mean think about it. Stop for a moment, pull back from social media, and think about the stability of mindset here:

Tucker Carlson decides it’s a value to his position to attack Reverend Franklin Graham?Megyn Kelly decides it’s a value to her position to support attacks on Charlie Kirk’s wife? Alex Jones decides it’s a reasonable discussion to talk about organizing JD Vance to take control of the government using the military. Laura Loomer decides it’s a value to her position to attack anyone who she defines as not supporting the government of Israel. One of her targets is Tulsi Gabbard. Mark Levin decides it’s a value to his position to convince the President of the United States to undermine and remove the sitting Director of National Intelligence because his priority aligns with Loomer. All because they disagree with decisions President Donald Trump has made about dealing with foreign policy issues.

I don’t usually watch any of these podcast groups or their internecine battles du jour. But c’mon, these are not stable people. It might be entertainment for many people, but algorithms pushed “for you” are not real life. This stuff, all of it, is just plain goofy.

If this is representative of the minds that have been trying to push “information” into the Trump administration, well, yeah, that would be a ‘firehose of crazy‘. These are not serious people. They are not alone, not by a long shot; there’s a whole infrastructure of crazy voices chasing money that’s provided by a big tech algorithm intentionally designed to promote it. The professional UniParty in DC is watching this unfold with a very big smile on their face. It is very clear where this algorithmic identity tracking and micro-targeting is going. If people are not careful, their stability will be personally defined by Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones and a lot more. We become what we consume, both physically and mentally.

Read more …

Do boomers remember Khomeini as well as Khameini? Trump does. Trump doesn’t want to leave the world with -the legacy of – Khomeini.

Since the Iran War Began, Trump’s Popularity With Boomers Has Climbed (Pinsker)

It’s eye-opening, because 50 was the magic number in a Pew Research poll on Israel from earlier in the week: Overall, 58% of Republicans have a positive view of Israel — but for Republicans aged 18 to 49, 57% have an unfavorable view. So something age-related is going on, splitting popular opinion. From Newsweek: Donald Trump Scores Approval Rating Boost With Boomers President Donald Trump is narrowing his approval gap with older voters, as new polling shows a steady improvement among Americans age 65 and over. […]


Older voters are among the most reliable participants in U.S. elections, and even small shifts can carry outsized political weight. Changes in this group come as foreign policy dominates headlines and economic pressures hit generations unevenly. Trump’s approval rating among Americans age 65 and over has risen steadily over the past three months, according to a series of Economist/YouGov polls. My theory? Boomers and Gen Xers rely on social media as a primary news source significantly less than Millennials and Zoomers. We’re the last two generations that watched cable TV, read newspapers, and listened to talk radio. We’re political omnivores. All that content we absorbed shaped our worldview. How could it not?

For Millennials and Zoomers, if their favorite YouTuber didn’t talk about it — and it never appeared in their TikTok/Reddit feed — then it didn’t really happen. As such, it makes them uniquely susceptible to digital psyops campaigns. And that’s something Iran does extremely well. It’s led to a profound cultural shift: Thirty years ago, all the good-hearted liberals were protesting for Tibet. Nobody was cooler than the Dalai Lama! At every award show, Hollywood’s biggest celebrities virtue-signaled by shouting, “Free Tibet!” Today, nobody cares.

Between Tibet-related content being shadow-banned (or outright banned) from social media and/or entertainment companies submitting to Chinese censorship, Tibet is an afterthought. All those good-hearted liberals went from “Free Tibet!” to “Free Palestine!” So perhaps Newsweek’s reporting indicates that Americans who are actually knowledgeable about Iran’s anti-American history are most appreciative of Trump’s efforts. Remember, Operation Epic Fury didn’t begin until Feb. 28:

In the earliest of the three surveys, conducted February 6 to 9, Trump posted a net approval rating (those who approve of his job performance minus those who disapprove) of minus 12 among adults 65 and older. In that poll, which surveyed 1,730 U.S. adult citizens and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 43 percent of respondents in the age group approved of his job performance, while 55 percent disapproved. Which means, pre-war, Boomers were 43% positive, 55% negative.

A month later, the March 6 to 9 Economist/YouGov poll showed improvement. Among voters age 65 and over, 45 percent said they approved of Trump’s performance and 53 percent disapproved, narrowing his net rating to minus eight. That survey included 1,563 U.S. adult citizens and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.After the first few days of the war, Trump’s popularity ticked up by two points. Instead of deeming it “disgusting and evil,” Boomers nodded in cautious approval.

The trend continued into early April, with the most recent poll, conducted April 3 to 6, showing Trump’s approval rating among those 65 and older on the rise again, reaching 47 percent approval and 52 percent disapproval. The net rating of minus five marks his strongest showing with the age group this year. That survey was based on a sample of 1,750 U.S. adult citizens and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. [emphasis added] And by April 6 — a full month into the war — Trump’s popularity ticked up yet again. The longer the war goes on, the more Boomers seem to support it.

It’s eye-opening because D.C.’s conventional wisdom was always the opposite: Time isn’t on the president’s side. A long war will be a political nightmare. If Trump doesn’t find an offramp post-haste, the GOP will get slaughtered in the midterms. The public is paranoid that Iran will be another “Forever War.”For Boomers, at least, that’s simply not true. They want a solution to the Iran problem — because they recognize that it’s a real problem. You can’t let Islamic nutjobs divide the atom.If those maniacs ever gain a nuclear weapon, the world is in deep trouble.

It also suggests the next PR move for the Trump administration: It needs to invest in an information campaign that’s tailored to the sensibilities of Millennials and Zoomers. That means penetrating the YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit echo-chambers. MAGA messaging must meet voters where they are — and Zoomers are spending 6.6 hours a day consuming digital content. A Truth Social post, a Fox News TV interview, and a primetime speech aren’t enough to win their hearts and minds. Because the more the audiences know about Iran, the more they’ll support the president.

Read more …

Europe’s weak leaders made Europe weak.

Who’s Afraid of Emmanuel Macron? (J.B. Shurk)

French President Emmanuel Macron is doing that peculiar French thing again…acting tough while looking weak. He gave a speech last Friday at Yonsei University in Seoul during which he demanded that nations not become “vassals” of China or the United States. Macron wants South Korea to join Canada, Australia, and the European Union in forming what he calls a “coalition of independence” (because “coalition of the willing” was taken) united by shared love for “international order,” “democracy,” and wasting money on “climate change.”


What a tool. I understand that “the powers that be” have so successfully co-opted the West’s political systems that they regularly install absolute nincompoops as nominal leaders (Biden, Starmer, Carney, Merz, and European Queen Ursula, just to name a few) and call it “democracy,” but Macron is such a doofus that his “leadership” is laughable.

Remember when the little Rothschild banker came to power a few months after President Trump had taken office and he couldn’t stop talking about standing up to “bullies”? After putting on some high-heeled loafers and taking some lessons on masculinity from his former-schoolteacher-turned-much-older-wife, Macron insisted on turning a handshake with Trump into a death grip meant to showcase French power. In that effete style of speech that Gaulish-Roman aristocrats enjoy — in which words sound as if they’re dropping from lips suckling grapes and licking honey — le petit fromage told the world that his fierce handshake and determined stare were the perfect weapons for countering President Trump. Trump just laughed and patted the little French boy on the shoulder as one does to help the weak feel strong.

Fast-forward a decade, and Macron hasn’t learned a thing about being tough. He still prances around the world like a eunuch looking for long-lost cojones. He says he wants countries to resist the “hegemonic powers” of China and the United States by clinging to the rules-based “international order.” Okay. Good luck, tiny dancer.

What’s left of the international order without the two most powerful nations on the planet? The United States has assumed the responsibilities of the globe’s police chief since WWII. Through its naval fleet, it ensures the security of maritime trade. Through its economic clout, it ensures the stability of the international financial system. Through its military might, it decides which dictators get black-bagged in the middle of the night. As China continues its geopolitical ascent, its tentacles have stretched further into international organizations such as the United Nations’ World Health Organization and across continents with its Belt and Road Initiative. Mark Carney has spent his time as Canada’s prime minister practically groveling at the feet of China’s Xi Jinping and begging the communist dictator to save his wintry vassal state from the bad orange man down south.

France, on the other hand, continues to be ejected from former African colonies whose peoples have grown tired of French meddling. The French military excels only at surrendering. And France remains distinct from Germany only because of the United States. When little Macron insists on restoring a French-led “international order,” he sounds a lot like little Napoleon, who insisted on being called “emperor” while imprisoned on Saint Helena.

As for urging all who hear his grating voice to unite in defense of “democracy,” that’s a lark! Europe is where “democracy” goes to die. Every time non-Establishment political parties win the most votes in former nations (now just multicultural zones of Islamic conquest within the federation of European nothingness) such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, “the powers that be” proudly block the winners from exercising any power.

Europe’s political class shamelessly calls this the “firewall” against “far-right” political parties. Of course, if you believe that nations should have borders and that government powers should be limited, you are designated “far-right.” Just as Democrats bastardize language in the United States by calling everyone who cares about the Bill of Rights a “fascist,” the European Establishment labels anyone who believes in self-determination and personal liberty a “Nazi sympathizer.” Then they prosecute the members of those fake “far-right” parties for expressing opinions out loud.

That’s right! Europe’s little gang of dimwitted yet dangerous dictators — Macron, Starmer, Merz, and the ruling queen — insist on locking up the “fascists” for their speech in the name of “democracy”! When the “firewall” fails — as it did in Romania a little over a year ago — the European oligarchy simply cancels the election and insists on a rigged do-over (or outright overthrows the government as it did, with the help of the U.S. State Department and CIA, in Ukraine in 2014).

When little European tyrants such as Macron stand on footstools, puff out their chests, and shriek about “democracy,” they have no intention of supporting the decisions of the people. What they mean is, let’s form a European Commission of aristocrats, have them choose a ruling monarch, and call that a “democratic” election. That’s how the nations of Europe lost their sovereignty and why the people of Europe must now bow down to unelected Queen Ursula von der Leyen.

Read more …

They expect America to lead NATO into WWIII.

The US Separation From Europe And NATO Is Long Overdue (Alt-M)

As much as many centrists and libertarians are opposed to Donald Trump’s ongoing strikes against Iran, I have to say, the downstream result might end up becoming one of the most libertarian results I have ever seen. For decades, small government activists like those in the Ron Paul movement have been calling for a comprehensive US divorce from NATO and the shutdown of America’s military bases overseas. Trump has, either deliberately or inadvertently, set this very process in motion.


The refusal of most of Europe (and Australia) to provide support in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz might seem like geopolitical orbiting – In other words, getting involved could hurt them more than it would help them. Of course, these nations are far more exposed to the Hormuz closure and the slowdown in energy exports than the US. You would think their interests would demand a securing of the strait. Europe is already struggling for energy resources due to the Ukraine war (a war they are deeply involved in), and this is where we stumble upon the ideological disconnect.

Europe’s Goal Is WWIII And They Expect America To Maintain The Status Quo
Europeans are perfectly willing to engage in war tensions with Russia while risking energy inflation and WWIII, all over a country that had minimal strategic or economic importance to them before the conflict. They have consistently called on the US to provide weapons and funding and intel to the Ukrainians, which we have obliged. And, they have called for American troops to stand at the forefront should a wider war erupt. NATO and European governments love America…but only as a shield that benefits them. To be clear, it’s true that years ago NATO allies invested troops and equipment into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but one could also argue that, at that time, the establishment was in sync on both sides of the Atlantic.

There was no large scale movement to cut foreign aid scams (like Trump shutting down USAID). There was no movement to secure borders and prevent mass immigration. There was no movement against globalism beyond a handful of us in the alternative media working diligently to expose the truth. In the era of the early 2000s, the status quo was in full effect and Europe was happy to help in the Middle East. Today? Not so much. The status quo has been disrupted.

Once The Cash Stopped Flowing Our “Friends” Became Scarce
It’s not surprising that once the cash stopped flowing so easily from American pockets, suddenly all of our “allies” went sour. Cuts to USAID and various foreign subsidy programs have created a shockwave in the global order. Even I have been stunned by the level of dependency of foreign nations on US monetary injections. Once these programs started shutting down, the panic was palpable. And, once Trump demanded NATO countries start paying their fair share (5% of GDP), the breakdown in relations began. Many European social welfare programs exist exactly because they don’t have to pay for their own military defense.

The tariffs are another point of hypocrisy. Nearly ALL major European countries and economies have enforced tariffs and duties on US products for the past 60 years. When those same countries face tariffs imposed by the US, suddenly tariffs are an “act of aggression” and a line in the sand. Trump is called an economic “bull in a china shop”, but he’s only doing to them what they’ve been doing to us for generations. Once again, the moment the status quo changes even a little and other nations are held to a similar standard, our friends no longer want to be our friends.

Read more …

ICE=government.

“Create a Crisis”: Sponsor an Anti-ICE Campaign (Turley)

“Create a crisis.” That call is made in a new campaign sponsored by the American Association of University Professors to force “colleges to drop their contracts with ICE’s key corporate enablers.” Despite years of criticism over the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives and libertarians, university professors continue to double down on far-left ideology that is now an orthodoxy in higher education. I previously wrote about the AAUP’s ideological shift in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. After that book, the AAUP then selected Todd Wolfson, a far-left activist, as its new president.


Wolfson ran on the pledge to make AAUP a “fighting organization” for social change. After his selection, Wolfson has called Trump supporters “fascists” and demanded boycotts of Israel. Given that history, it was little surprise to see the AAUP’s sponsorship of this campaign, as reported by the College Fix. The campaign is also funded by Coefficient Giving, associated with liberal billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. They have been criticized for reportedly funding groups pushing defund police and other radical agendas.

AAUP joined this campaign with Young Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University. It includes a toolkit instructing students to “create a crisis for university admin through an escalating campaign.” The campaign seeks to organize to combat the “Trump regime” and its “terrorism”: “When students and workers join together in action, we can force our schools to stop funding and normalizing ICE collaborators and take down the whole regime.” They are targeting companies such as Enterprise, Flock, ICE Air Carriers, Hilton, and Target.

The campaign states further that “ICE, and the Trump regime generally, cannot function without the consent and collaboration of the business world. Breaking companies from ICE is the central axis for generating enough leverage to stop the regime’s terrorization campaign.”= So university professors are funding a campaign that actively seeks to create a crisis on campuses. It takes a position as an organization that immigration enforcement is a form of terrorism. The silence among faculty is deafening. Rather than objecting that the AAUP should focus on issues related to academic freedom and protections for its members, there have been virtually no objections to the organization’s ideological agenda.

It is evidence of the new orthodoxy in higher education and the refusal of administrators and faculty to make any meaningful change in their intolerance for opposing views. Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echo chamber. A Georgetown study found that only 9% of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters in the new poll. There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks.According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

The hostility to opposing views is impacting our students. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views. In the meantime, the small number of dissenting faculty have no real voice, particularly among legal academics. I have previously written about the similar liberal agenda of the American Bar Association despite plunging membership among lawyers. The ABA now represents just 17 percent of the bar.

Read more …

Elections today, April 12.

How the Russiagate Blueprint Has Been Unleashed Against Orban (RT)

The shadow campaign to swing the Hungarian election against Viktor Orban escalated with the scandal over the wiretapping of Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. The case offers a rare look into how bureaucrats, journalists, and spies run a regime-change operation in real time. Three weeks out from the April 12 elections, the political opposition to Orban scored what seemed to be a win, when Politico and the Washington Post ran articles alleging that Szijjarto had phoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with “live reports on what had been discussed” at multiple EU meetings. The reports cited anonymous “European security officials.”


Neither Orban nor Szijjarto make any secret of their desire to maintain cordial relations with Moscow, particularly on matters of energy security and the peace process in Ukraine. However, when bundled with more outlandish claims – that Russian “election fixers” are already embedded in Budapest, for example – the reports paint a picture of a government compromised by the Kremlin.Orban’s leading opponent, Peter Magyar, has repeated these claims in his speeches. After the Szijjarto story broke, he accused the foreign minister of “betraying Hungarian and European interests,” and threatened him with “life imprisonment” for treason, should his Tisza party win the election. All it took was one leaked audio file for the scheme to unravel.

The Szijjarto wiretapping plot
In an audio file released by Hungarian conservative outlet Mandiner, opposition journalist Szabolcs Panyi can be heard telling a source how he passed Szijjarto’s phone number to “a state organ of an EU country.” Once they had this number, he explained, agents of this country were able to extract “information about who that number spoke to, and they see who is calling that number or who that number is calling.” In a Facebook post, Panyi confirmed that he was the person on the recording. He said that he was asking his source whether she knew of any alternate numbers used by Szijjarto or Lavrov, “so that I could compare them with information received from the national security service of a European country.”

Panyi’s confession explained how the “European security officials” were able to track Szijjarto’s phone conversations before feeding the information to Politico and the Washington Post. Orban immediately announced an investigation into the wiretapping. We are dealing with two serious issues, the PM stated the same day as Panyi’s post. There is evidence that Hungary’s foreign minister was wiretapped, and we alsohave indications of who may be behind it. Szijjarto explained that as the EU’s longest-serving foreign minister, he regularly speaks to Lavrov with messages from his colleagues in the EU. The real scandal, he said is that a Hungarian journalist is colluding with foreign secret services in order to wiretap a member of the Hungarian government.

Read more …

No leaders, no democracy. And soon no fuel.

What Is Fueling Unrest Across The EU? (RT)

The EU is sliding into a fuel crisis driven by a global supply shock caused by the US-Israeli attack on Iran. It has already triggered protests, early signs of shortages, and warnings of the wider economic impact. This has resulted from the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global energy shipments. Oil prices surged above $120 per barrel during the escalation, and while crude fell below the $100 mark after a two-week US-Iran ceasefire was announced on April 7, it remains well above the $70 level before the war. Prices have remained volatile amid uncertainty over the truce and continued disruption to shipping through the strait.


Diesel and kerosene have emerged as the central pressure points in the crisis. Europe’s benchmark diesel and jet fuel prices have risen above $200 per barrel equivalent from below $100 in January, according to Bloomberg. Jet fuel prices have also surged since the start of the conflict in late February, according to industry data cited by multiple outlets. Why has diesel become more expensive than gasoline? The European market has shifted toward higher diesel consumption following decades of tax policies that lowered diesel taxes compared to gasoline.

The EU’s refining system produces a different mix of fuels than the market consumes. A barrel of crude oil typically yields about 40-50% gasoline, but only around 30–40% diesel and jet fuel combined, with the rest made up of heavier products. This mismatch has left the bloc structurally short of diesel. The region is a major net exporter of gasoline but relies on imports for a significant share of its diesel and jet fuel. Diesel has traded above gasoline prices at the pump in several EU countries.

Rising wholesale costs have fed through to consumers. Diesel prices at the pump have exceeded €2 per liter in multiple countries, according to national data and media reports — equivalent to roughly $8.80–$10.50 per US gallon, compared with about $5.60 per gallon in the US. Governments in Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Poland, and Ireland have introduced tax cuts and other measures to limit the impact of rising fuel costs.

Why are farmers and truckers protesting?
Rising diesel prices are hitting sectors most dependent on the fuel, particularly agriculture and road freight. The EU’s transport sector is facing a “fast-moving diesel shock,” according to logistics platform Logifie. Ireland has become the most visible flashpoint of the crisis. Fuel protests have spread nationwide since this past Tuesday, led by farmers, truckers and transport workers, disrupting supply chains and transport networks, according to local media.

Blockades have strained fuel distribution, with queues forming at petrol stations with some running dry amid panic buying. On Thursday, the government called in the army to clear the blockades. During a protest march in Dublin on Friday, demonstrators carried a coffin with “RIP Ireland” written on it. Airports across Europe could face “systemic” jet fuel shortages within three weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, according to a letter sent by an airport industry group to the European Commission, as cited by the Independent.

According to Corriere della Sera, “some airports on the continent have been experiencing shortages in jet fuel quantities for days without officially reporting it.” The outlet cited its sources on Friday as saying that “it’s such a sensitive issue that official talk remains tight-lipped,” adding that Brussels is hoping the truce between the US and Iran will hold. Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline by passenger numbers, has started reducing flights to popular destinations, with chief executive, Michael O’Leary warning that the airline will not be able to run its full summer schedule if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

Read more …

Bye!

Women Step Forward to Outline Swalwell’s Sexual Assault History (CTH)

It was building in the background for several weeks; the stories of multiple women who had been raped and sexually assaulted by congressman Eric Swalwell. Today, the San Francisco Chronicle began outlining their stories [SEE HERE], and now an exit of people from his campaign begins.


WASHINGTON DC – Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor was reeling Friday after an ex-staffer accused him of sexual assault, with multiple staffers resigning and both a prominent ally and rival candidates calling on the California Democrat to exit the race.

The exodus, which began just before the San Francisco Chronicle published a report detailing a former staffer’s claims, jolted California’s marquee race just weeks before ballots start landing in voters’ mailboxes. The former staffer told the newspaper that Swalwell had sexual encounters with her while working for him, and that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to consent.

In September 2019, the woman said, Swalwell invited her out for drinks and she became so severely intoxicated that she does not remember the rest of the night. She said she woke up naked in Swalwell’s hotel bed and could feel the effect of vaginal intercourse. {source}

Top staffers departed the campaign shortly before the story published. Soon after, Rep. Jimmy Gomez said in a statement that he was stepping down from the campaign and urged Swalwell to leave the race — a stunning rebuke from a key surrogate who had helped introduce Swalwell to power players in Sacramento, where Gomez served in the state Assembly.

“Today I learned shocking information about Eric Swalwell containing the ugliest and most serious accusations imaginable,” Gomez said in a statement. “My involvement in any campaign begins and ends with trust. I cannot in good conscience remain in any role with this campaign, and I am stepping down from it effective immediately.”

The fallout extended to prominent interest groups that had backed Swalwell. The California Medical Association, which has dropped more than $1 million into a pro-Swalwell committee, said it was convening an emergency board meeting. The California Teachers Association suspended its endorsement. (read more)

Read more …

“Swalwell has denied the allegations, but that has done absolutely nothing to stop the bleeding. And the bleeding has been catastrophic.”

Eric Swalwell’s Political Future is Collapsing Fast (Matt Margolis)

On Friday, a former staffer to Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) came forward with allegations of sexual assault against the longtime congressman. By the end of the day, the dam had broken wide open — and Eric Swalwell’s political future was crumbling right along with it. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a former congressional aide accused Swalwell of two non-consensual sexual encounters, including one where she claims she woke up in his hotel room after becoming intoxicated. CNN then dropped its own bombshell, reporting that four women total allege sexual misconduct by Swalwell — one of whom accuses him outright of rape. “I was pushing him off of me, saying no,” the woman said.


Swalwell has denied the allegations, but that has done absolutely nothing to stop the bleeding. And the bleeding has been catastrophic. First, his campaign experienced an exodus. His campaign co-chairs bailed immediately. Rep. Jimmy Gomez called the accusations “the ugliest and most serious accusations imaginable,” and resigned on the spot. Rep. Adam Gray was equally blunt: “Today’s reports about Eric Swalwell’s conduct while in office are deeply disturbing. Harassment, abuse, and violence of any sort are unacceptable. Given these serious allegations, I am withdrawing my support, and Eric Swalwell should end his campaign immediately.”

Top Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also pulled his endorsement. Then came a wave of others. Even the institutional pillars cracked. The California Teachers Association suspended its endorsement. So did SEIU California. Sen. Adam Schiff called on Swalwell to exit the race. But the real problem for Swalwell isn’t the loss of staff or endorsements; it’s that his fellow Democrats are also calling on him to drop out of the race. Now, obviously, his Democrat opponents, former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire Tom Steyer, have called on him to drop out, but so has Nancy Pelosi. And that’s a political death sentence.

“This extremely sensitive matter must be appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability,” Pelosi said in a statement. “As I discussed with Congressman Swalwell, it is clear that is best done outside of a gubernatorial campaign.” And she wasn’t alone. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar piled on in a joint statement, calling for a “swift investigation,” and demanding an end to Swalwell’s campaign. “This is unacceptable of anyone — certainly not an elected official — and must be taken seriously,” they said. “No one in a position of power should be allowed to act above the law or with impunity,” Rep. Ro Khanna said. “The same rules must apply to Eric Swalwell.”

Over on the Republican side, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said she was weighing censure and other action “if there is evidence brought forward,” and three sources told reporters that House Republicans were already discussing just that by Friday evening. The response of Democrats to the allegations is quite unusual. They’re not issuing statements saying Swalwell is innocent until proven guilty; they’re telling him to bail. That raises some interesting questions on its own. Do they believe the allegations? I’ve long believed Swalwell’s gubernatorial campaign was never really about Sacramento. It was a launching pad for a presidential run. That ambition is finished now. Democrats are abandoning him, which means his political future is over. And frankly, his career might be finished, too.

Read more …

There’ll be a lot of huffing and puffing. But 100+ years of car industry as we knew it is over.

Tesla Gets FSD Supervised Approved in the Netherlands (Electrek)

The Dutch vehicle authority RDW has granted Tesla a type approval for its “Full Self-Driving” Supervised system in the Netherlands, marking the first European country to officially approve the driver-assist technology. The approval, which falls under the UN R-171 regulation for Driver Control Assistance Systems, comes after more than 18 months of testing and is currently valid only in the Netherlands. Other EU member states can choose to recognize it nationally, but that process is not automatic.


The approval
Tesla Europe announced the news on X, stating that “FSD Supervised has been approved in the Netherlands & will begin rolling out in the country shortly.” The company described the system as “trained on billions of kilometers of real-world driving data” and claimed that “no other vehicle can do this.” The RDW confirmed the approval in its own statement, describing it as a “European type approval with provisional validity in the Netherlands.” The Dutch authority stressed that FSD Supervised is a driver assistance system — not an autonomous or self-driving system. The driver remains legally responsible and must be able to take over immediately at all times.

The testing program involved over 1.6 million kilometers of driving on EU roads, more than 13,000 customer ride-alongs, and over 4,500 track test scenarios. Tesla submitted documentation covering more than 400 compliance requirements under UN R-171 and Article 39 exemptions. This approval was originally expected by March 20 but was delayed by about three weeks. Back in late March, the RDW actually pushed back on Tesla’s earlier announcements, saying it had not yet completed its review — a pattern that highlights the disconnect between Tesla’s marketing timeline and the regulator’s actual process.

What it means for Europe
The Netherlands approval does not automatically extend to the rest of Europe. Under EU regulations, other member states can recognize the Dutch type approval nationally, but each country must decide individually. Germany (KBA), France, and Italy are expected to be among the first to act, potentially within 4-8 weeks. Full EU-wide harmonization would require additional regulatory steps beyond national recognition. Tesla has targeted a broader European rollout over the summer of 2026, but that timeline depends entirely on how quickly individual countries process their own approvals.

For context, this is a very different model from how Waymo is approaching Europe. Alphabet’s autonomous driving subsidiary is preparing to launch fully driverless robotaxis in London — an actual Level 4 autonomous system where no human driver is needed. Tesla’s approval is for a Level 2 driver-assist system that requires constant human supervision.

What FSD Supervised actually is
The RDW’s statement is explicit: FSD Supervised “can take over many driving tasks” but the vehicles “are NOT autonomous or self-driving.” The driver’s hands don’t need to rest on the steering wheel, but the driver must be able to intervene immediately. Sensors monitor driver attentiveness and eye focus, and if the system detects inattention, it issues warnings and can temporarily disable itself. Under UN R-171, the system is classified as a Driver Control Assistance System (DCAS) — the regulatory term for Level 2 automation. The driver retains full legal responsibility at all times. The regulation specifically mandates measures to prevent driver overreliance, including a mix of visual, audio, and haptic feedback.

Tesla must also report safety-critical incidents and submit regular performance reports to the RDW — no less than annually. Critically, the RDW notes that the European FSD software “differs substantially” from the US version. European regulation requires type approval before any system can be used on public roads — unlike the US self-certification model where Tesla can deploy software updates without prior regulatory approval. The RDW also points out that other manufacturers already hold similar approvals in Europe: BMW for motorway hands-off driving with lane changes, and Ford for BlueCruise via Article 39. Tesla’s claim that “no other vehicle can do this” is misleading at best.

[..] Tesla’s own tweet claims “no other vehicle can do this.” The RDW’s own statement contradicts that — it explicitly notes that BMW and Ford already hold similar driver-assist approvals in Europe. And if we’re talking about actual self-driving, Waymo vehicles in the US (and soon London) drive themselves with no human supervision required. Tesla’s system requires a fully attentive driver at all times. Framing a supervised driver-assist system as a unique achievement is misleading.

This matters because advanced Level 2 systems create a well-documented complacency problem. As we’ve covered extensively, even experts who understand the risks intellectually get conditioned into overtrusting the system. Research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that after just one month of using adaptive cruise control, drivers were more than six times as likely to look at their phones. FSD Supervised is far more capable than adaptive cruise control — the complacency risk is correspondingly higher.

Tesla has already been found guilty of false advertising over the “Full Self-Driving” name in California and has been forced to change its marketing language. Elon Musk keeps making the same safety claims about every new version, and Tesla will not take responsibility when the system makes mistakes — and it still makes mistakes. New European users encountering this technology for the first time should take the “Supervised” part of the name very seriously. Your hands may not need to be on the wheel, but your eyes absolutely need to be on the road.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Home Forums Debt Rattle April 12 2026

Viewing 21 posts - 41 through 61 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #238093
    those darned kids
    Participant

    faketheman netanyahu?…

    #238094
    zerosum
    Participant

    Blockade starts at 10:00 a.m. easten

    #238095
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    A Pure SHOCK to the US: IRAN Harshly Refused to Release U.S. POWs amid a Breakdown in Negotiations
    122 views · 3 minutes ago
    #BORZZIKMAN

    #238096
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    #238097
    those darned kids
    Participant
    #238098
    charles
    Participant

    Yes, missile destroyers clear mines. The H-60 helicopter they carry has a half dozen mine sweeping kits to choose from depending on conditions.

    #238099
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    The Mongols, Drones, and the Future of War
    The $500 Weapon That Changes Everything

    Jay Martin
    In under 70 years, an unknown confederation of nomadic tribes built the largest land empire in human history.

    At its peak, it covered everything from the Pacific coast of China to the borders of Poland, and from Siberia down to the Persian Gulf.

    That was East Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

    It was five times larger than the Roman Empire at its peak. And it all happened in the span of one lifetime.

    “God alone knows who they are and from where they came.”

    Russian chronicler describing the Mongols’ arrival.

    The Mongol armies arrived so swiftly and conquered so decisively that the civilized world had no framework for what was happening to it.

    They swept out of the steppe like a weather system — by the time you understood that something was coming, it had already arrived.

    What is so notable is that the Mongols did not conquer a collection of disorganized, defenceless people. They overthrew the wealthiest empires the world had ever known. And they did it quickly.

    The scale of what they conquered is difficult to overstate.

    The Khwarezmian Empire, stretching across modern-day Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, had taken over 150 years to build. There were over two million people, wealthy trading cities, and standing armies. The Mongols dismantled it all in two years.

    The Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad — seat of Islamic civilization for five hundred years, home to over a million people and the largest library in the world — fell in thirteen days.

    The Song dynasty in China – three hundred and nineteen years old. A hundred and twenty million people and an economy that produced a third of the world’s GDP — three times the output of all of medieval Europe combined. A civilization that had invented gunpowder, movable type, and paper money.

    In 1279, all of China fell to the Mongols.

    A Minor Adjustment

    How? How does a collection of nomadic tribes from the barren steppe dismantle the wealthiest civilizations on earth?

    Most historians point to a minor adjustment in military technology.

    The stirrup.

    Stirrups existed before Genghis Khan. But the Mongols weaponized them in a way no army had done before.

    With both feet planted firmly in iron stirrups and mounted on hardy steppe horses, Mongol warriors could fire arrows at full gallop with devastating accuracy. They could stand, pivot, and even ride backwards while loosing volleys into a pursuing enemy. They could cover distances that no infantry-based army could match, arriving at the walls of cities before scouts had time to deliver a warning.

    The stirrup didn’t just improve cavalry. It created an entirely new kind of warfare — one that made the existing military paradigm obsolete overnight.

    Erik Prince — the founder of Blackwater, the most elite private military force ever assembled — made an observation recently that stopped me in my tracks. He said, reflecting on the current conflict in Iran, that the introduction of drone warfare onto the modern battlefield represents “the greatest swing in the pendulum, since Genghis Khan put stirrups on horses.”

    Now, when most people hear “drone warfare,” they think of a Predator or a Reaper — a $28 million aircraft operated by the U.S. military from a facility in Nevada. That is not what Prince is talking about.

    He is talking about a $500 commercial quadcopter fitted with a 3D-printed munition that can be assembled in a garage and destroy a $3 million tank. He is talking about Iran’s Shahed drones — which cost somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 to produce — being shot down by $5 million Patriot interceptor missiles.

    He is talking about the U.S. Navy spending over a billion dollars in munitions to defend against Houthi drones that cost less than a used car.

    This is what Prince means by stirrups.

    The empires the Mongols conquered had operated for centuries under a simple assumption: more wealth meant larger armies, stronger weapons, and military dominance. Genghis Khan wiped that assumption out with a piece of bent iron that cost almost nothing and fit in the palm of your hand.

    The stirrup didn’t give the Mongols a bigger army. It gave a smaller, poorer force the ability to defeat a richer, more established one.

    Prince argues that is exactly what drones are doing today. The battlefield no longer belongs to the nation that spends the most. It belongs to the nation that adapts the fastest.

    If he is right, we need to think very carefully about what comes next.

    Winning by Not Losing

    Here is a question most people never consider. What is the difference between winning a battle and winning a war?

    The Americans have the most powerful military the world has ever seen. This is not a matter of opinion. In terms of technology, firepower, logistics, training, and the ability to project force anywhere on the planet, the United States military is without peer.

    And yet.

    The American military won every significant battle in Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan… but lost all three wars.

    The lesson is as old as warfare itself. When a smaller, weaker force is attacked by a superpower, it does not need to win. It needs to not lose.

    Survival is victory.

    If you are still standing when the great power loses its appetite for the fight — when the cost in blood and treasure exceeds the political will to continue — you have won. Not by defeating your enemy, but by refusing to be defeated.

    Iran cannot defeat the American military. No honest assessment of the balance of forces suggests otherwise. But Iran does not need to defeat the American military. Iran needs to endure it. Every day the conflict continues without a decisive American victory, Iran’s strategic position improves. Every day the Strait of Hormuz remains contested, the cost to America — economic, political, and reputational — compounds.

    And that brings us to a curious parallel in modern geopolitics…

    America’s Suez Moment?

    Most people assume that the transition from the British pound to the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency happened at the end of World War II. It seems logical. Britain was shattered. America was ascendant. The Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 appeared to settle the question.

    But if you look at the actual balance sheets of central banks in 1945, you will not find a sudden pivot. Despite being battered — infrastructure destroyed, resources depleted, debts staggering — Britain had won the war. And after a century and a half of trusting the pound sterling, the world’s central banks did not have sufficient incentive to go looking for an alternative.

    Until 1956.

    In 1956, Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser made a calculation. He assessed that the United Kingdom — once the most powerful empire in human history — was too weak to defend and maintain its occupation of the Suez Canal.

    The Suez Canal was not an ordinary waterway. It was the artery through which two-thirds of Europe’s oil supply travelled. It connected Britain to what remained of its trade interests in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and Asia.

    Whoever controlled the Suez Canal controlled the flow of energy to the Western world.

    President Nasser nationalized it.

    The United Kingdom, unwilling to accept this humiliation, mobilized what had once been the most powerful navy on the planet and moved toward the canal alongside France and Israel.

    But this was 1956, not 1856. The Royal Navy was short of resources. Without American manufacturing support — the same support that had sustained Britain through two world wars — they lacked the firepower for a sustained campaign.

    So Britain did what it had done throughout World War II. It appealed to the Americans for help.

    President Eisenhower, however, saw the situation differently. He worried that Britain attacking Egypt would push the entire Arab world toward the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cold War. This was against the US interests.

    Frustrated with the careless nature of Britain’s military pursuits, he responded strategically and sent a message to the rest of the world.

    He blocked $561 million in IMF standby credit that Britain desperately needed. He froze $600 million in Export-Import Bank loans. And he ordered the US Treasury to prepare to dump America’s holdings of British sterling bonds — a move that would have collapsed the pound overnight.

    Britain’s Chancellor warned the Prime Minister that without American financial support, the country would be unable to import sufficient food and fuel within weeks.

    The message was simple. Withdraw from the Suez Canal, or we will destroy your currency.

    The British Navy retreated home. Tail between their legs. With the rest of the world watching.

    This — not Bretton Woods, not the end of the war — was the moment that central banks around the world truly pivoted from the pound sterling to the American dollar. They watched the previous world superpower, which had dominated the globe for all of recent memory, become neutered. Unable to act without the permission and support of the new greater power.

    The Strait

    That is why analysts are calling the Strait of Hormuz America’s potential Suez moment.

    The Americans have indicated a willingness to withdraw from Iran before the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to international shipping. If that happens — if an unsuccessful military adventure in Iran results in the Americans going home having lost control of the situation, having forfeited control of the Strait to their adversary — it does not matter under what pretense the narrative is spun domestically.

    The rest of the world will see what actually happened.

    And central banks will do what central banks have always done when they witness that kind of moment. They will adjust.

    The Promoter

    But here is something else I am thinking about.

    The American military is dependent on manufacturing inputs from China. This is well documented. From rare earth minerals to electronic components, the supply chain that sustains American military capability runs through Chinese factories.

    Iran is also dependent on China.

    Although the Strait of Hormuz is theoretically closed to Western-bound oil tankers, ships have been travelling through it — with Iranian permission. Not just Iranian crude heading out to China, but Chinese cargo ships heading into Iran. Since the war began on February 28th, Iran has shipped at least 12 million barrels of crude oil through the Strait, all of it to China. Meanwhile, China-linked cargo vessels have been transiting in the opposite direction.

    There has been much speculation in the United States about whether Iran will run out of missiles.

    My question is different. What is on those Chinese cargo ships arriving in Iran?

    Reports have surfaced of Chinese-supplied air defence systems, kamikaze drones, anti-ship cruise missiles, and even precursor chemicals for solid rocket fuel being shipped to Iranian ports. Is any of this finding its way onto the battlefield? And if so — what exactly are we looking at here?

    I’ll tell you what it looks like to me.

    In the 1970s, a boxing promoter out of Cleveland perfected something that would make him the most famous man in the sport — and the most controversial.

    He put on some of the biggest fights in boxing history – Muhammad Ali versus George Foreman and Ali versus Joe Frazier. He managed Mike Tyson’s rise to undisputed heavyweight champion, against foes like Buster Douglas and Larry Holmes. He dominated the sport through the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s.

    The promoter’s name was Don King. And he is the most famous boxing promoter who ever lived. King understood something very simple: if you hold the promotion contract on both fighters, you don’t need to pick a winner. You just need the fight to happen.

    Why is that controversial?

    A boxing promoter’s job is to protect his fighter — to negotiate the best purse, to select the right opponent at the right time, to make sure the terms of the fight favour his man.

    It’s a negotiation, and by definition, that means negotiating against the interests of the opponent.

    But when one promoter holds both contracts, the negotiation shifts from promoter-on-promoter to promoter-on-fighter. And that’s a fight the promoter wins every time. (This is probably why Don King has been sued over 12 times by fighters.)

    If you are not a boxing fan, think of it this way – the parallel would be hiring the same lawyer to represent both sides of a lawsuit. The only person guaranteed to walk away richer is the one collecting fees from both.

    But here was King’s real leverage – his contracts required any fighter to agree that if they won, King would promote their future fights too – so he always retained the winning fighter under contract.

    It didn’t matter who won. He had already locked up whoever walked out of the ring with the belt.

    Is China the Don King of the Persian Gulf?

    If the Strait reopens on American terms and Western commerce resumes, China will remain America’s indispensable manufacturing partner. The supply chains don’t change. The rare earth dependencies don’t change. America still can’t build the next generation of weapons systems without Chinese inputs. China keeps the contract.

    If Iran wins — if the Americans withdraw and Iran maintains sovereign control of the Strait — China stays Iran’s primary weapons supplier, its largest oil customer, and its most important trading partner. Iranian crude flows to Chinese refineries at a discount. Chinese cargo flows into Iranian ports unopposed. China keeps the contract.

    Show me a conflict where one country supplies both sides, and I’ll show you the country that’s actually “winning”.

    The question the world should be asking is not whether America can defeat Iran. The question is whether America can afford to fight a war in which its primary economic competitor is bankrolling both corners of the ring.

    Honest question — let me know in the comments: what am I missing?

    Thats it for today,

    Jay Martin

    https://jaymartin.substack.com/p/the-don-king-strategy

    If you appreciate my writing, please share it with someone!

    Share

    #238100
    charles
    Participant

    If ATVs were self driving, they could have stirrups

    #238101
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    When escalation is a game played against you and you have no cards to play
    Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

    Suddenly, it would seem that there is hope for peace in the Middle East, or at least most of it, as Trump secured what he believed to be a deal with the Iranians. In reality, of course, it was the Iranians who had the advantage all along and gave him the “off ramp” which he desperately needed. The constant threats, with the most recent posting using foul language mocking Islam, all signalled that the U.S. president was losing his mind, tortured by a sense of no one listening to him, like a child in the corner who is forced to be naughty just to get the attention of adults. But there was a point in recent days – perhaps the social media post which used the ’F’ word – where it was clear he lost all control, his threats were empty, and it was Iran which held ALL the cards. And so a provisional deal was struck, which simply accepted a list of demands by the Iranians as a basis for negotiations. This was probably the greatest military defeat in modern times that any U.S. president has had to endure in office, and the humiliation for Trump is axiomatic. What a climbdown. From constantly playing a role in front of the cameras as the victor who is in control to actually being on the losing side which is prepared to do almost anything to get a ceasefire. The recent military operation to attempt to seize uranium involving special forces and Hercules planes, which went horribly wrong when the mission failed and then the subsequent rescue mission also failed, was one final slap in the face for Trump, who must have realised at this point that all of the military briefings that he was given were bad and that most of the people around him who are advising him have no military experience at all and are out of their depth.

    But it’s actually worse than that.

    In recent days, it has transpired that what we originally thought got Trump into the war in the first place – an out-of-control fixation to bomb Iran no matter what deal was offered, goaded by Israel – was in fact erroneous. There are credible reports now circulating that claim that Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff actually misunderstood what the Iranians had offered them when they were negotiating a deal – a deal which was much better than what was offered to Obama and would have made Trump come out of the negotiations a winner. Many analysts at the time were shocked that Trump’s decision to bomb Iran came about because, they thought at the time, that Iran had made a credible offer too soon and that the Trump team were not interested in peace and so were left in an awkward position, looking like fraudsters. In reality, it now seems, they simply didn’t grasp what was being offered to them, such is their lack of competence and their poor command of the English language. The Iranians are all highly educated and speak English remarkably well, and yet it would seem that the two sides were divided by the nuances of English. The two cronies that Trump sent were simply not bright enough to really see the wood from the trees, and as a consequence the U.S. has lost the Straits of Hormuz to Iran now, the petrodollar is on the way out, a new regime is indeed in place (but one which now favours a nuclear deterrent), relations with GCC countries are irreparably damaged, and a new powerful Iran has emerged from the ashes in the region.

    Plain stupidity by Trump and his unique style of running the presidency using friends and sycophants as advisers has got him to a place where even Sky News calls a “massive strategic defeat” for the U.S., as now the ten-point plan not only calls for reparations but also includes the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the region and all sanctions to be lifted against Iran.

    For the U.S. to lift sanctions, it has to be backed by Congress, which is unlikely to do so, although there are some observers who say they might back it just to spite Trump. In reality, it will be UN sanctions which will have to go, but the real blow to the U.S. is that the petrodollar is finished and that America’s influence in the region has been taken over by Iran. Tehran is the new regional power, all thanks to the sensational stupidity of Trump and his airhead cronies.

    But there’s more stupidity to come.

    Barely a few hours after the plan was accepted by Trump, it transpired that the Americans believed that the ceasefire doesn’t cover Lebanon. J.D. Vance told journalists that this was probably down to a “genuine misunderstanding by the Iranians”, despite it being clearly written in one of the points: “end to all hostilities in the region”.

    Ceasing hostilities against all resistance groups in region

    And so Lebanon, and what Netanyahu is doing there – deliberately creating a forever war there with Hezbollah so he can continue to stay in power and evade corruption charges – is now the most important part, if not the Achilles heel, of the deal. What are we to make of the explanation of J.D. Vance? Is it a ruse to trick the Iranians, so that Israel can be rearmed? Is all that Trump needs a pause of a few weeks before he believes he can come back with an even more hare-brained plan to “invade” Iran? It’s unclear, although critical observers are beginning to realise the level of incompetence and rank ineptitude on the American side and are starting to use the “idiot” argument to explain most of these grey areas. As was brilliantly summed up by a former CIA director on live TV, Trump was called “a pathological liar, corrupt and incompetent” whose reliance on sycophants who only tell him what he wants to hear got him into the mess he is in today. Trump’s blundering in Iran has made Tehran richer and more powerful than it ever was before and will leave it still able to process uranium. Trump played the escalation game all along with Iranians who were much smarter and always one step ahead, who ultimately turned the same game against him. Tiny Lebanon now takes centre stage.

    When escalation is a game played against you and you have no cards to play

    #238102
    chooch
    Participant

    China buys 80% of Iranian oil. How is this going to work? While it may help get more ships thru, I doubt they are going to board Chinese ships with Iranian oil.

    #238103
    WES
    Participant

    1 & 2 Rationale?

    The US is in the driver’s seat regarding Iran.
    None of Iran’s neighbors want Iran’s crazies to have a nuclear bomb.
    All the youtube videos saying Iran is winning, will never change these 2 above facts.

    Iran is losing on all fronts.
    The only thing that is unknown, is how long Iran can continue to lose.

    The US had 2 strategies to choose from:

    1. Bomb IRGC Iran first.
    2. Blockade Iran.

    So, why did the US chose 1 & 2., instead of 2 & 1.?

    My guess is the US figured doing 1 first, degrading IRGC, would make 2, the waiting time for Iran IRGC to run out of money by blockade, more effective, and maybe happen in a shorter timeline.

    The argument for a blockade 2 first, is it is less destructive and cheaper for US and Gulf countries.
    But it might take a lot longer.

    We know which rationale Trump chose.
    A man in a hurry, with no time to spare, for sitting around and waiting.

    #238104
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    Claiming victory, whilst admitting defeat: There is no easy way to open Hormuz
    Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

    Bloomberg: “It is arguably Iran that has secured the most significant strategic victory … There is every sign that Tehran’s ability to control the Strait is increasing”

    The defeats which the West keeps on having “[are] above all … intellectual”. And “not being able to understand what they are seeing – means that it’s impossible to respond effectively to it”. So Aurelien has argued. But “the problem goes beyond the fighting on the battlefield, to seeing and understanding the nature of asymmetric wars and their economic and political dimensions”.

    “This is particularly the case for Iran, where… Washington appears to be incapable of understanding that the ‘other side’ does have a strategy with economic and political components – and is implementing it”.

    “[In line with the western obsession with trivia], all the media concentration recently has been on the movement of U.S. troops to the region and their possible uses, as though that, in itself, was going to decide something. Yet in fact, the real issue is the development and deployment by the Iranians of a new concept of warfare, based on missiles, drones and defensive preparations, and the inability of the West, with its platform-centric mentality, to understand and process these developments [i.e., fully assimilate the strategy behind asymmetrical warfare]”.

    Iran’s security concept and model was planned more than 20 years ago. The trigger for the move to an asymmetric paradigm came from the U.S.’ utter destruction of Iraq’s centralised military command in 2003, as a result of a 3-week massive air assault on Baghdad.

    The issue for Iran that arose in its wake was how the country might build a deterrent military structure when it did not have (and could not have) anything resembling peer air capability. And when too, the U.S. could look down upon the extent of Iran’s military infrastructure from its high-resolution satellite cameras.

    Well, the first answer simply was to have as little of its military structure out in the open to be observed from above. Its components had to be buried – and buried deeply (beyond the reach of most bombs). The second answer was that deeply buried missiles could indeed, in effect, become Iran’s ‘air force’ – i.e. a substitute for a conventional air force. Iran thus has been constructing and stockpiling missiles for more than twenty years. The third response was to divide Iran’s military infrastructure into autonomous provincial commands – to decentralise command centres, with each having separate stockpiled munitions, separate missile silos, and where appropriate, their own naval forces and militia.

    In short, Iran’s military machine – in the event of a decapitation strike – was designed to operate as an automated, decentralised retaliation machine that cannot be easily stopped or controlled.

    When unable to understand what is before our very eyes, the easiest thing is to reach for that which one knows – a build-up of troops – and to continue doing what hasn’t worked in the past.

    In an earlier incarnation, a younger Trump – desperate to be admired as a star in the world of Manhattan real estate – took New York Attorney Roy Cohen to be his personal mentor. “The latter notably was also the lawyer for the city’s five big crime families – who had, with connections such as these, earned for himself the reputation as someone not to be messed with”, Israeli military commentator, Alon Ben David relates:

    “In most cases, all Trump needed to do was to introduce Cohen to the other side of the deal, so that the latter would agree to his terms. Sometimes Trump was also forced … to drag the other side to court, where Cohen would bare his teeth to the judges and win. But that was always Trump’s bottom line: win. Not to make the pie bigger, not a win-win for both sides, but a victory for him alone – and preferably with the other side’s surrender”.

    Time moves on, and today, as Ben David writes, the U.S. military juggernaut serves as Trump’s ‘Roy Cohen’. He presents the American military might for display to the Iranians in the expectation that they readily will capitulate; else he, Trump, will let go of the leash. Trump complained to Witkoff after the armada of U.S. naval vessels had been assembled off the Persian coast that he was ‘puzzled and confused’ as to why the Iranians had not already capitulated on sighting the collective naval power assembled.

    “[The cause for Trump’s puzzlement is that] this time he faces an opponent different from any he has ever known. These are not Manhattan real estate moguls or Atlantic City mobsters, they are Persians, members of a 3,000-year-old culture, and they have different concepts of time and what victory is”.

    Trump doesn’t now know what to do: he is confused and at a loss as to how to extricate himself from this predicament. He has threatened Iran, but they don’t capitulate. And as might be expected, Netanyahu, fearing that Washington might enter into negotiations with Iran before Iran’s military capabilities have been completely dismantled, “is pressuring the Trump administration to carry out a short, high-intensity operation that could include ground forces”, Israeli commentator Ben Caspit writes in Ma’ariv.

    Whilst Trump is sending mixed messages about the prospects for talks with the Islamic Republic, Israeli officials believe he is considering three options: First to escalate the war by attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure on Kharg Island and at its South Pars gas field, with a second option being a ground operation to eliminate Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile.

    A third option being considered would be to negotiate an agreement with Iran – but such a prospect would be seen by Israeli leadership circles as a “clear Iranian victory, opening the path for the Iranian Republic to survive”, Caspit writes. “Israel is focused on weakening the regime to the point where it cannot recover – thus it hopes, maybe encouraging future mass protests. This argument is also being used to convince Washington to continue the war”, Caspit emphasises.

    A fourth option could be that Trump just declares victory and walks away.

    What, realistically, might Trump hope to accomplish if he expands the war?

    First, both Israeli and U.S. military officials now consider that toppling the Iranian State is nigh impossible to achieve through airstrikes alone. It has never worked in the past.

    Secondly, statements of faith by the U.S. Administration in say the ultimate military seizure of the Strait of Hormuz should be seen more as battle-cries and descriptions of fantasies which reveal a deeper problem–that of strategic lacunae —

    “They are not deduced from the facts of the situation, nor do there have to be actual processes capable of making them happen. The truth is what we want it to be; the truth is what makes us comfortable, we prefer the myth to the reality”.

    The fact is that there is no easy way to reopen the Strait. Any negotiated reopening would, at a minimum, require substantive concessions to Iran, including explicit recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the waterway.

    An attempt to agree a ceasefire to open Hormuz would require it to be applicable across all fronts: it would require Israel to cease operations in Lebanon, for AnsarAllah to similarly halt attacks on Israel, for Iraq to halt its attacks – and for Israel to halt its attacks in Occupied Palestine.

    Thirdly, Trump claims that that ‘regime change’ has already occurred because he had not heard the names of the new Iranian leaders before–“These are different people than anyone has ever heard of before, and frankly they’ve been more reasonable. So, we’ve had total regime change beyond what anyone thought possible”. Trump doesn’t know who the ‘new’ third layer of Iran’s leadership are, but nonetheless presumes that they will be more flexible in negotiating with the U.S.. (What is the basis for this ‘faith statement’? No facts needed?)

    Fourth, any attempt to open Hormuz by direct military assault would be fraught with the risk of sustaining substantial U.S. casualties: Hormuz is home ground to the Iranians and constitutes a prospective battle for which they have been preparing over many years. The geography of Hormuz alone–narrow waterways, proximity to Iran’s coastline, and dense Iranian defence systems – pose obvious and severe risks. From where would the troops stage? How would they be supplied? How would they be exfiltrated?

    Even were U.S. forces to seize Kharg, or one, or all of the three islands adjacent to the UAE coastline, Iran could still attack unauthorised tankers transiting the waterway using surface or submersible drones or missiles launched from mainland Iran.

    And even if successful, U.S. military positions on the islands would not solve the core problem – Iran would still have the ability to impose costs (missile strikes and casualties) from afar, and would use this leverage to impose further escalatory steps.

    Fifth, as with the suggestion of controlling Iran’s enriched uranium, there is no way to ensure that the reported 430 kg of 60% enriched uranium that Iran has is out of Iranian hands other than seizing it; an agreement on Iran relinquishing it is unlikely, as is seizing it in an impossibly complex military operation –

    According to the Washington Post, when Trump requested a plan to seize the enriched uranium from Iran, the U.S. military briefed him on a complex operation involving airlifting excavation equipment, building a runway inside Iran for cargo planes to extract the material, all with the deployment of hundreds of troops.

    A U.S. Special Forces military operation to seize this uranium would require meticulous detailing of the site (or sites) where it is held, as well as requiring well-founded staging and ex-filtration plans. Does the U.S. know if this uranium is still in one consignment, or has it been separated?

    There is no indication that the U.S. has done the ‘thinking through’ for such an operation – suggesting that this aspect might be lined up as a deception exercise: Mount a small operation close to Isfahan, pretend to have seized the uranium, and skedaddle away quickly before Iranian forces kill American troops.

    And finally, regarding the destruction of Iran’s missile capabilities, there is simply no way to achieve this. Iran’s magazines and production facilities are dispersed across the extent of the country and buried deeply. Maybe to lie would be Trump’s best option to produce a ‘win’ on this issue.

    Iran has launched the extensive machinery of its ‘Mosaic’ system of long-term, pre-planned military actions. This is the point – Iran’s strategic counterattack was not conceived to lead to any negotiated compromise, but rather to create the circumstance by which it can escape the western-imposed ‘cage’ of endless sanctions, blockades, isolation and siege.

    The uncomfortable reality for the U.S. and its allies is that every available counter-military or diplomatic response to Iran’s strategic counterattack carries significant downsides.

    The war is Trump’s and the U.S.’ to lose. Trump now realises the war is lost – it may be lost, but it is not over. It may last for some time.

    After a month of war, “it is arguably Iran that has secured the most significant strategic victory”, notes Bloomberg – with its ever “tightening grip over traffic through the Strait of Hormuz”:

    “There is every sign that Tehran’s ability to control the Strait is increasing … The near-total closure of Hormuz since [early March] … has proved an exceptionally effective asymmetric weapon in Iran’s fight against two of the world’s most powerful military forces”.

    Claiming victory, whilst admitting defeat: There is no easy way to open Hormuz

    #238105
    charles
    Participant

    Just catching up on telegram. There are also over the side mine sweeping kits. Makes any platform a minesweeper. Thats what happens when you just make shit up to match your narrow mind. Peckerhead.

    #238106
    those darned kids
    Participant

    “Iran’s crazies”

    wes, please explain what you mean if you’ve a moment.

    everything i’ve seen up to this moment is quite lucid.

    “Iran’s crazies” could have put blown up dimona seven times over already.

    why haven’t they?

    is it perhaps that they lucidly understand wind currents, both physical and metaphorical?

    again, everyone loses in war, and anyone reading this is losing a lot.

    even those who “profit” suffer unimaginable losses.

    i guess this is what happens when we rely on “they, the people” to decide the important stuff.

    anyhoo, nice wind tonight..

    #238107
    Michael Reid
    Participant

    U.S. strategic defeat to Russia
    U.S. strategic defeat to Iran
    U.S. collapse in corruption and deception

    #238108
    WES
    Participant

    tdk:

    From what I understand, none of Iran’s neighbors are comfortable with Iran taking steps towards having a nuclear bomb.
    Iran has been threatening all of it’s neighbors with these steps while at the same time saying they are not building a nuclear bomb for nearly 50 years now.
    They all want the uncertainty to stop.

    In addition neither Russia nor China want Iran to have the bomb.
    Russia only building a certain type of nuclear power plants.
    China not allowing NK to export nuclear bomb stuff.

    When in doubt, actions speak louder than words.
    Also the crazies could suddenly change and then be weeks away from having the bomb.

    By the crazies, I am talking about the religious mullahs and their IRGC who protect them.
    These ruling elites represent only a small percentage of Iran’s 90 million people.

    That is why Iran’s ruling elites scare their neighbors so much.
    Their hold onto power is rather dicey.

    I think this is why Russia and China are staying on the sidelines.
    They too would prefer an Iran without the bomb.
    They would be quite happy if the US does the dirty work and forces Iran to stop acquiring the bomb.

    Naturally making money from the war, is business as usual with no honor involved.
    A buck, is a buck!

    #238109
    WES
    Participant

    Cited Articles:

    A number of written articles cited by Michael tonight, give good counter arguments from a number of different points of views.
    All are worth reading.

    With so many monkey’s involved in this fight, there are a lot of banana peels for everyone involved to slip on!

    #238110
    John Day
    Participant

    There is “Losing” and there is “failing to win”.

    USrael is failing-to-win against Iran.

    #238111
    WES
    Participant

    NY’s Mamdanie Taxing Gold & Silver:

    New York’s Mayor Mamdani and NY State want to tax New York’s gold and silver bars trading on the CME hooing to raise $1.2 billion each year!

    Noteworthy, all five of New York’s surrounding neighbors have recently removed taxes on gold and silver!

    A broke socialist chasing fool’s gold!
    Now, you see it!
    Puff!
    Now, you don’t see it!

    #238112
    WES
    Participant

    Iran:

    Iran is “failing to loose”!

    Unlike the Toronto Maple Leafs, “successfully snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”!

    #238113
    WES
    Participant

    Trump’s Biggest Iran Problem – Time:

    Trump needs a resolution of the Iran War, before summer starts, so voters have the summer to forget about Iran, before fall election season begins.

    Iran knows this.

Viewing 21 posts - 41 through 61 (of 61 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.