We’ll be taking a look at a number of areas today, and a presentation by Alexander Mercouris touches on several of the important geopolitical stories today:
First, as we mentioned yesterday, the internal situation in Iran appears to have stabilized and even returned to normal. This is thanks to the ability of the Iranian authorities to shut down Starlink communications, which is how the CIA and Mossad communicated with their proxies inside Iran. I’ve heard a number of accounts of how this was accomplished. The usual account is that Russia facilitated this with a transfer of equipment, but I’ve also heard that China was also involved. The bottom line is what matters. This capability allowed the Iranian government to interrupt communications but also facilitated the identification and arrest of CIA and Mossad agents inside Iran. Public executions are said to be scheduled to begin in the next day or two. But the key takeaway is the extent to which Russia and China are willing to go in assisting Iran. This could be the tip of an iceberg which might only become apparent once a war has started.
Trump is claiming that the Iranian “leaders” have contacted him seeking “negotiations”. Given that the last time Iran thought they were in negotiations with Trump he launched a sneak attack that took out some of the Iranian negotiators, one has to be skeptical of Trump’s claims. Worse, Trump thought it was smart to brag about those sneak attacks and say that he might “do something” before negotiations could be scheduled. Mercouris—and others—presents a plausible explanation of what’s up here. Apparently an Omani official—Oman has long served as a go-between for contacts with Iran—visited Iran over the weekend. The likelihood is that Oman delivered a message from Trump. In response, the Iranian foreign minister. The Iranian side has always side that, while they’re prepared for war with the US, they’re also always ready for dialog. Something like Putin’s stance. Of course, just as with the Iranians, Trump tried to kill Putin in a sneak attack, so the Iranians are on notice. Trump appears to have seized on the Iranian statements to claim that they want a “deal”, in spite or their repeated hard lines regarding issues they’re willing to discuss.
Mercouris’ view is that this is a sign that Iran believes they’re dealing from a position of strength. They’ve weathered the latest CIA/Mossad attempts at regime change quite handily and have further decimated anti-regime networks inside Iran, which were such a help in the early days of the 12 Day sneak attack. Like Putin, they’re willing to listen to Trump, since they know America isn’t about to disappear from world affairs. They know that any talks are unlikely to lead anywhere.
There is also another factor that could have motivated Trump’s outreach. There have been repeated reports that Turkey assisted Iran in identifying infiltrators attempting to enter Iran during the riots. Turkey also has strategically positioned radars that could greatly complicate Anglo-Zionist attacks on Iran this time around. Israel’s activities in Syria have given Turkey strong reasons to render such assistance to Iran this time around, because they now know they could be the next target of the Anglo-Zionists if Iran falls. The Turkey angle may also help to explain the reports today in The Telegraph that the Pentagon is telling Trump that they’re not ready for an attack on Iran, that they need more time and preparation. They are undoubtedly aware that the Iranian response this time around could include strikes on easily reachable US bases in the Persian Gulf that are woefully unprepared to defend against Iranian missiles. This time, there will be no sneak attack. The Iranians are watching and waiting and, without a doubt, receiving plenty of Russian and Chinese intel updates.
Before moving on I’ll link to a longish thread that talks about the difficult choices Trump is faced with regarding Iran. I’ll provide the intro and the closing graphic—each of the points in the graphic are discussed in the thread:
For over forty years, the United States has treated Iran as a central obstacle to its dominance in the Middle East. Sanctions, covert operations, cyberattacks, and military threats have all been deployed, yet none has produced decisive results. Instead, these efforts have created a strategic trap: every option carries risks that may outweigh potential gains.
Today, Washington is not only questioning how to defeat Iran, it is questioning whether it can survive the consequences of trying.
What makes this moment particularly perilous is the convergence of multiple pressure points: domestic unrest narratives in Iran, growing regional hostility toward U.S. presence, China’s expanding influence, and a deteriorating situation in Venezuela.
Together, they reshape the cost-benefit logic of any action and reveal the strain of American power across too many fronts.
Moving on …
Mercouris does also talk at length about the US and Russia. In the area of US foreign policy he decries Trump’s seeming proclivity for duplicity—as illustrated in his dealings with Iran, Russia, and now Venezuela. He also gets into an area I hadn’t been aware of—the fact that Putin seems to have taken some time off. Mercouris speculates that while Lavrov has been busy making public statements, Putin and other senior military and security officials have been reassessing relations with Trump, particularly in light of the attempted assassination of Putin. Mercouris believes that Russia’s approach is about to significantly harden—a lot. The Oreshnik strike a few kilometers from the Polish border may have been the first sign. Oreshnik provides Russia with an extremely effective means for interdicting Anglo-Zionist support for Ukraine coming through Poland, as well as repair and manufacturing facilities, without the need for using manned aircraft. In fact, I recently saw a report that Ukraine was moving all drone manufacturing to Poland as a result of Russian depredations.
Finally, toward the end, Mercouris gets into the headline topic—Russian forces are now operating only 10 kilometers from Zaporozhye city, on the Dnieper river. This seems to me to be a very big deal, as this map should make clear—check out the arrows to the left:
What this suggests is that Russia may be planning a very major encirclement. Between Zaporozhye and the frontlines on the east is basically open country with nowhere for retreating Ukrainians to hide. The last fortified Ukrainian positions to the east are being decimated and retreat to the Dnieper would likely be a catastrophe on a scale that we haven’t seen to date. And perhaps this is also a topic that Putin is discussing with his top officials—the possibility of a relatively major winter offensive over hardened ground, if the supply of drones from Europe to Ukraine can be interdicted.
I’ll finish with a few brief notes that direct attention to Trump’s rather strange mental state. For example, this strikes me as wildly inappropriate, guaranteed to antagonize most of the world and paint America in a distasteful light:
He also made this frankly goofy statement about the Minneapolis shooting:
To be respectful for my own part, this is a guy who simply doesn’t have a clear handle on the issues here. Sadly, neither does Veep Vance, who attended the #1 rated law school in the US, yet claimed that federal agents have “absolute immunity” for their actions.
I also came across this very brief video by a retired FBI firearms instructor. It’s on TikTok, so I couldn’t embed it, but here it is. To me it makes absolute sense, because my viewing of the other videos also raised concerns about “temperament and judgment.” This guy is like almost all LE veterans—reluctant to criticize other LE officers—but he has to tell it like he saw it.
Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Something to remember the next time you read about overwhelming Republican voters support for Trump--because all the crazy talk isn't helping anything:
I hate to keep going back to the Minneapolis shooting, but here's an example of how the refusal of even respected legal analysts to look at things objectively colors so much of the commentary out there:
A liberal writer cites a poll showing that only 28% think the shooting was justified, while 58% thing the ICE agent should be arrested and tried for murder.
Now, presumably many of those people--not all but many--have seen the videos, which are pretty much everywhere on the internet.
Margot Cleveland responds:
"and 60% of Americans likely think Renee Good was just sitting in her car waiting to drive home after dropping her kids off for school."
I guess that tells you something about what Margot thinks about her fellow Americans, but notice what she doesn't do--she doesn't provide a fact and law based analysis to explain why the majority of Americans are wrong and why shooting the woman was the right thing to do in fact and law. She simply snarks at Americans who disagree with her. In fact, I seriously doubt that most Americans think anything like what Margot imputes to them--I certainly don't. They don't think the woman was just sitting in her car, but they also don't think that she drove straight at the ICE guy in an attempt to run him down. But Margot's response is of a piece with Trump's statement that the woman "disrespected" LE. It's beside the point of the factual and legal issues involved. And that's disturbing to see in a conservative legal analyst.
Something to remember the next time you read about overwhelming Republican voters support for Trump--because all the crazy talk isn't helping anything:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/record-number-americans-identify-political-independents-rejecting-2-major-parties-poll-finds
Record number of Americans identify as political independents, rejecting 2 major parties, poll finds
Gallup poll finds 45% now identify as independents during Trump's second term, with more leaning Democratic than Republican
I hate to keep going back to the Minneapolis shooting, but here's an example of how the refusal of even respected legal analysts to look at things objectively colors so much of the commentary out there:
A liberal writer cites a poll showing that only 28% think the shooting was justified, while 58% thing the ICE agent should be arrested and tried for murder.
Now, presumably many of those people--not all but many--have seen the videos, which are pretty much everywhere on the internet.
Margot Cleveland responds:
"and 60% of Americans likely think Renee Good was just sitting in her car waiting to drive home after dropping her kids off for school."
I guess that tells you something about what Margot thinks about her fellow Americans, but notice what she doesn't do--she doesn't provide a fact and law based analysis to explain why the majority of Americans are wrong and why shooting the woman was the right thing to do in fact and law. She simply snarks at Americans who disagree with her. In fact, I seriously doubt that most Americans think anything like what Margot imputes to them--I certainly don't. They don't think the woman was just sitting in her car, but they also don't think that she drove straight at the ICE guy in an attempt to run him down. But Margot's response is of a piece with Trump's statement that the woman "disrespected" LE. It's beside the point of the factual and legal issues involved. And that's disturbing to see in a conservative legal analyst.