The Anglo-Zionist War On The World Continues Apace
Doug Macgregor didn’t pull any punches, speaking with Judge Nap this morning. I hafta laugh at his new technique, where the host works up what he thinks will be a controversial question that will require an excursus by Mac, and Mac simply responds Yes/No. ‘Does Netanyahu control Trump? Yes.’
Anyway, today Mac repeated that, of course, Netanyahu calls the shots. If Netanyahu loses patience and tells Trump to attack Iran—hey, end of story. This is all part of the Jewish Supremacy Project in the Middle East or, more generally, it’s part of a “global power grab.” That’s what I’ve been call the Anglo-Zionist war on the world. If you need a refresher, here you are: Empire Of Hate.
How about Trump’s ultimatum to Iran? Mac says the terms of that ultimatum are more unacceptable to Iran than was the ultimatum that Austria-Hungary delivered to Serbia in 1914. Danny Davis (I’m listening as a write) just said:
Trump [with his unacceptable ultimatums] appears to be moving the United States down a path to where war is the only outcome. … I want to know, what is President Trump's play here? What does he even think he wants to accomplish? I just pointed out in detail that there's no logical reason to think that Iran would give in to this kind of pressure.
Which may be the point. To get a refusal from Iran. DD then goes on to discuss the Russian angle in all this because, yes, it’s all connected. And, in that regard, Mac says that Trump simply cannot intimidate Putin.
Which is not to say that Trump has stopped trying. I’ve always said that the Russians will talk and talk but will not budge. Trump may have finally figured that out. In what follows, Bernard at MoA takes an uncharacteristically sympathetic tone regarding Trump. I don’t see it quite that way:
Trump had previously allured to the Russiagate hoax when talking about Putin. He seems to see Putin as a victim of the scam just like he himself was a victim of it. I believe this to be, at least in Trump's eyes, an issue that bonds the two men together. It is what makes a deal possible. It is important - so I wonder why Politico would leave it out.
The AP report of the Air Force One gaggle also has no mention of it:
On his flight back to Washington on Sunday evening, Trump reiterated his annoyance toward Putin but somewhat softened his tone.
“I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word,” he said. “I’ve known him for a long time. We’ve always gotten along well.”
Asked when he wanted Russia to agree to a ceasefire, Trump said there was a “psychological deadline.”
“If I think they’re tapping us along, I will not be happy about it,” he said.
So, there. Trump says he’s given Putin a deadline—a deadline that only he (Trump) knows when it will expire. Who thinks that approach is remotely acceptable to the Russians? And then he says that if he decides that the Russians are stringing him along in these negotiations—which, of course they are—he (Trump) “will not be happy.” And what will he do if he becomes unhappy? So far, all he’s said is that he’ll apply more illegal sanctions. Which Putin has already dismissed.
When reports disagree on what was said or happened it is always good to back to the source. Forbes has put up a full video of Sunday's Air Force One gaggle. Here is my transcript of the relevant part (starting at 6:38 min):
Q: Would you say your relationship with Vladimir Putin is at its lowest point right now?
A: No, I don't think so. I don't think he going back on his word. You are talking about Putin. I don't think he is going back on his word. I have known him for a long time. We have always gotten along well. Despite the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax created by Clinton and Schiff and all these lunatics. And that really was a dangerous point. That was a very dangerous thing they did to this country. It was a pure, unadulterated scam, hoax. No, but I think he will be okay. Be if he isn't ...
I was disappointed in a certain way in some of the things he said over the last day or two having to do with Zelenski. Because he considers Zelenski not credible. He [Putin] is supposed to make a deal with him [Zelensky] whether you like him or don't like him. So I wasn't happy with that. But I think he is gonna be good. ...
It is not only that Trump sees himself and Putin as victims of the Russiagate story. He does regard it as having been dangerous. To make (false) claims about political interference by another nuclear power needlessly could have led, and still could lead, to more serious altercations.
Again, Trump is trying to tell Putin what Putin’s role will be in Trump’s reality show. According to Trump, Putin is supposed to pretend that this is a spat between Russia and Ukraine and Trump is the disinterested mediator who doesn’t want to see more “handsome soldiers” die. Whereas everyone knows this is America suing for peace. Is it any surprise that the Russians are having none of that and don’t really care whether Trump is happy with them or not? Trump’s trying to make this a personal thing, to pressure Putin, but just the other day Putin explained to the Russian nation (whose opinion he values far more highly than Trump’s) that he’s not about to put his faith in one man. So …
“We take the models and solutions proposed by the Americans very seriously, but we can’t accept it all in its current form,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, according to state media.
“As far as we can see, there is no place in them today for our main demand, namely to solve the problems related to the root causes of this conflict. It is completely absent, and that must be overcome,” Ryabkov said.
Now, here’s something from Armchair Warlord that military buffs may find interesting. Multiple commenters, including myself, have spoken about how expensive it is to operate B2 bombers—given that the major part of the operational fleet is now stationed at Diego Garcia, a long way from anywhere. The initial assumption was that the deployment to Diego Garcia was intended as a threat of some sort to Iran. Warlord has a different idea. We know that the B2s have been used at least once against Yemen. Warlord suggests that’s the real reason for their deployment. He argues that the difficulties of operating carrier aircraft against Yemen dictates the use of the B2s, which are less vulnerable to Yemen’s AD. But this raises the question of how long this can be continued, given the extreme maintenance requirements of the B2. See what you think:
Armchair Warlord @ArmchairW
Rather interesting that B-2s based out of Diego Garcia are apparently flying missions into... known snake pit of advanced air defense capabilities (sarcasm), Yemen.
This actually explains a few things about the deployment. Allow me to explain.
Deploying B-2s to Diego Garcia to threaten Iran makes very little sense, because it puts billions of dollars of irreplaceable stealth bombers in range of Iranian drones and missiles, which in the event of war can and will be fired at the base in salvo strengths which the local defenses cannot reasonably expect to defeat. And while it's certainly possible that American war planners are stupid and arrogant, and don't think Iran has the stones to shoot missiles at an American air base despite the fact they've already done that to the Israelis multiple times, it's more likely the deployment had some other purpose than exposing our strategic assets to preemptive attack in the hopes of shaving a few hours off a notional timeline for an attack on Iran vis-a-vis strikes staged out of Missouri.
Enter Yemen. Let's take a look at the situation:
1. Yemen actually has significant anti-access/area-denial capabilities, to the point the USN has probably gotten very leery of operating carriers in the southern Red Sea because they keep getting engaged by Yemeni antiship weapons. This level of forced standoff, by the way, seriously degrades the effectiveness of the (short-ranged) carrier air wing, which is now going to be relying on complex tanker shuttles (which the carrier also has to support from its own limited resources) to reach and return from the target area.
2. Yemen has real if somewhat sparse air defenses. They've shot down over a dozen Reaper drones at this point, and they may have downed an F/A-18 that was subsequently claimed as a bizarre friendly fire incident by the Navy. The last thing the USN wants is to lose aircraft over Yemen and have captured American aviators get paraded through Sana'a - a very real prospect if they start trying to launch large strike packages inland. Not to mention that a single carrier group would likely struggle to sustain such a high-intensity campaign for any period of time - see my above comment about the logistical support required to stretch the legs of the carrier air group.
3. Trump appears to want a serious campaign waged against the Houthis. This means more strikes deep in Yemen than the USN has standoff weapons to conduct, at least without badly depleting the national magazine of long-range missiles.
4. Unlike Iran, the Houthis do not have a lot of heavy missiles and their standoff land attack capability appears to be marginal. They've never even tried to hit US bases in Djibouti, for instance, and those should be in easy drone range across the Bab al-Mandeb. Unlike Iran, an effective Houthi attack on Diego Garcia is not a realistic prospect.
Enter the B-2s. Staging out of Diego Garcia, they can easily reach Yemen, destroy anything anywhere in the country with near-total impunity, and then flit back to their convenient forward base to do it all again the next day for as long as the campaign takes.
TL;DR: The Navy just got fired from the Yemen operation, and the Air Force is breaking out the power tools to get the job done.
12:08 AM · Apr 1, 2025
On the Domestic Front, Trump’s war on speech also continues:
NYU canceled a speech by the former president of Doctors Without Borders because she was going to discuss the genocide in Gaza. A slide about the death toll in Gaza “could be perceived as antisemitic":
Joanne Liu is a Canadian, so an alien.
This is shameful, but this is also Zio-America.
Great write up as always Mark. The piece on Yemen capabilities and the Diego Rivera were highly enlightening! Always a pleasure to read your posts - and I'm grateful for the time saved not having to watch all these videos!
I still hear many commentators saying that "I believe Trump sincerely wants peace". I doubt that more by the day. I agree too about the Iran ultimatum's similarities to Austria's Serbia ultimatum of 1914. The Austrian Chief of Staff, Conrad von Hoztendorf, had decided on war long before the telegram was even sent. I have to feel a bit sorry for Netanyahu: it must be exhausting running two countries.