28 Comments
User's avatar
Joe Van Steenbergen's avatar

The Dems have it right on this one; didn't expect to have to say that.

Expand full comment
Nutmeg's avatar

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-suggests-israel-would-lead-possible-attack-iran

The initial thought that popped into my head when I saw this headline was "...leading from behind..." just like in Libya.

Expand full comment
Nutmeg's avatar

I can't figure out how to edit the comment, but I wanted to add that following Israel here would be incredibly stupid. Stay off the wide road that leads to destruction.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

The three dots "..." top right corner of comment. Click on them.

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Trump’s people get polling numbers in advance hence the Iran pivot and Bibi spanking.

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Can we commit to Stuxnet 2.0 just like Trump 2.0? Will someone give it a shot please? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11388018

Expand full comment
Stephen McIntyre's avatar

As I have said in some comments, previously bombing alone cannot, and will never win a war that has been proven since World War II. You would have to put Boots on the ground in Yemen and then Iran to finish the job and it would be probably as bad or worse a ground war as in Vietnam. Not to mention others have pointed out we don’t have the resources. The only way we could field an army would be reinstitute the draft and nobody wants to do that.

Trump is going to have to take whatever deal or deals he can get to exit Ukraine in the Middle East. He has no choice. of course he will try to spin it as a win for himself and his administration but the truth matter is he’s just gonna end up having to grovel to get a deal.

Expand full comment
johnycomelately's avatar

After Trump’s supposed Syrian withdrawal and assassination of Soleimani Iran is well aware how Trump negotiates.

Expand full comment
Mark Hazard's avatar

Additional depth of context re: The ME Theater, US/Yemen(Iran) and [EU/NATO]

--

Alex Krainer: Declining Europe vs Rising BRICS

Glenn Diesen, APR 9, 2025

> FULL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjiZUkayyCY

> SEGMENT: US Operation Rough Rider 6:45 - 13:55

Expand full comment
Tamsin's avatar

Thanks for your take on what might be Trump's technique.

It is very heartening to see the swing in the Ages 18-49 Rep/LeanRep mood, as those are the kids raised in a walled garden by Age 50+ Rep/LeanRep parents.

At the same time, Unit 8200 continues staffing up Silicon Valley to be ready to provide the same level of surveillance and control over Americans that Israel enjoys over Gaza, when push comes to shove... And here, I was told since 9/11 that I was supposed to fear an Islamic caliphate because Muslims hate us for our freedoms. Hmm. It occurs to me that one reason we have to return manufacturing to the US is so that Israel will have a secure supply chain for the technologies it needs to do what it does.

Expand full comment
Its Just Me's avatar

I'm living proof that opinions can change on Israel. I used to be pro-Israel until I was exposed to a balanced view of the Middle East conflict.

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

It seems very tone deaf for the Administration to have an Orwellian policy on "anti-semitism"

Expand full comment
Tamsin's avatar

Haaretz reports "The Department of Homeland Security announced Wednesday that it will immediately begin scraping immigration applicants' social media, using what it describes as antisemitic content as grounds to deny visas, green cards, and other benefits."

Expand full comment
Ray-SoCa's avatar

The Libya nuclear solution ended with Khadafi killed and left soldomized. And slavery in Libya again. And destroyed the country, leaving it devastated.

Clinton on Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died”

I’m surprised in all the discussions of Iran taking a Libyan type deal, the Libya aftermath is not mentioned. The Libya deal destroyed the credibility of trusting a deal with the U.S., for any new administration can ignore deals made by the previous administration.

I’m surprised Iran has not gone nuclear, after all Pakistan did at little cost. Perhaps Iran believes Israel would nuke them if they did. Or they other Arab states and Turkey would go nuclear. Iran is so close to going nuclear, I assume it’s a deliberate decision not to take the final step.

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Can’t repeat Libya. Imagine the Dem rhetoric if things go south bombing Iran. References to war monger, letting go of JCPOA agreement. The MSM will have a field day.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

Excellent points.

Expand full comment
dissonant1's avatar

If you can take Iran's leader Khamenei at his word (a determination that seems to be conditioned by the individual policy goals of Iran's adversaries in the West), his Fatwa against nuclear weapons may be at least partially explanatory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons

Of course we in the post-Christian West tend to downplay the importance of and sincerity of religiously based dictums. That said, it is true that in reality (human nature being what it is) all such proclamations are subject to change based on the power and interests of the people who make them and the conditions with which they are dealing at any given time.

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

Eliminating nuclear weapons has been Iran's policy for 25 years. They would love to get a deal with 1) elimination and monitoring of the nuclear weapons that they do not have coupled with 2) elimination and monitoring of Israel's nuclear weapons.

Expand full comment
Velociraver's avatar

One wonders if it's Iran whispering to the Taliban to allow US access to Bagram, seemingly to facilitate a strike on Iran without crossing contested airspace...only to lure USA into stacking Bagram with fat, juicy targets easily dispatched while on the ground by "insurgents".

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Boy if we’re that dumb we deserve it.

Expand full comment
james (seenitbefore)'s avatar

1. I voted for Trump but had little hope that he was not owned by the Zionists; this could end up destroying his base support and the good that he is doing domestically and economically. I had hoped that Tulsi could make a difference; I had also hoped that he might bring in some advisers like Macgregor and Davis. It is one thing to have political views on either side of the Jew/Arab levant conflict; but to be blind to our actual military capabilities vis a vis the regional or world players is sad and scary. It is interesting to note that after the Army War College recommended a return to the draft and a $5m man ground force to engage Russia or China, DoD is rumored to be drawing down our ground forces an additional 200k, reducing our "boots on the ground" capability even more. What gives?

2. FARA has always been a grift for both parties. No surprise there. Mitch and Lindsey are the two biggest.

Expand full comment
Velociraver's avatar

Sadly USA cannot afford any such force, it's a fantasy. USA cannot even meet its existing recruiting targets without lowering standards and bribes.

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

My optimism that there will be no US attacks on Iran stems from the very key fact that what you posit as Trump's red line: no Iranian nuclear weapon; is the #1 red line of Russia. Trump and the US diplomats do not need to enforce this. Russia will. So if that is Trump's red line, working with the Russians is the very best way to achieve it.

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

What about the need to eliminate arms for the 3 H’s?

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

Which three Hs?

Hear, Help, Hug?

Heart, Head, Hands?

Hope, Holistic Support, High Expectations?

Humility, Humor, Honesty?

Lots of good options when I looked it up. : )

Expand full comment
Cosmo T Kat's avatar

Smart comment, Jeff. where did yo dig up that nugget of information?

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

Article 10 of their agreement is as follows. Iran is a charter member of the non-proliferation treaty.

"Article 10

The Contracting Parties shall cooperate closely on arms control, disarmament, non-proliferation, and international security issues within the framework of the relevant international treaties and international organizations to which they are parties, and hold consultations regularly on these matters."

https://irangov.ir/detail/456479

Expand full comment
Jeff Cook-Coyle's avatar

I can't put my finger on a place that says it specifically. But the core of the Russian-Iranian agreement in January was that Russia would help Iran with their nuclear energy program as long as the Russians can verify that nothing is happening with nuclear weapons (in the country). Russia was impressed and convinced of the Iranian commitment to defense without nuclear weapons. MK Bhadrakumar does not lay out the Russian red line, but does talk about the nuclear energy and conventional defense elements here, https://www.indianpunchline.com/russia-iran-treaty-signifies-a-breakthrough-in-ties/

Expand full comment