The only ones who benefit from war are those who benefit and profit from it.
Neither the US nor Iran is winning because the people from both countries are paying the price. The world loses. 200 innocent Iranian girls and their families lose. Famine and shortages loom. If the Iranian conflict intensifies, we could be looking at times worse than the depression globally. Mass starvation in some countries is a possibility. Shortages and scarcity of resources globally. Humanity loses if this conflict gets out of control. I hope calmer heads prevail, and Israel doesn't get the greater war it's pushing for.
So do I, but they have almost never prevailed before. The only example I can think of is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when both the USA and the Soviet Union backed off.
Well Dennis, where Einstein failed to prove a Unified Theory you have certainly made inroads. Or perhaps human nature doesn't allow disparate interests and old enemies to co-operate on a global level. I prefer the Chaos Theory where competing interest attempt to get as much of the shrinking pie as possible. Exhibit 1: US of A.
Old enemies can be staged a la WWF, a mere power struggle within the club. Yet all hands act in unison towards mass control and power retention coming your way. There are no free tickets, although money buys you time.
The logical flaw in the "no difference between left and right" idiots is that they don't have any clear definition of either side. They think what the media calls "right" actually represents some kind of right ideology, when in fact it's just a modification of standard leftist values, i.e. both sides are actually of the left.
The masses of morons have been conditioned by leftist media and education to think there is actually an organized political party that represents right ideology. But since the masses of morons don't have a good grounding in ideologies to begin with, they don't know what actual right values consist of, and so don't understand that there is no political group in any western country, least of all the US, which represents actual right values.
Of course the idiots who espouse this "no difference between left and right" nonsense feel so proud of themselves. They think they're intellectually superior, having the ability to rise above the fray, to see things clearly as they take some kind of "third way". But in fact, they're just leftist dupes who have been force-fed by the left their definitions of ideologies their entire lives.
Bottom line: all political parties in western countries are variations of leftist ideology, and the left is firmly in bed with the globalists.
In the UK, everyone who terms people far right, in the same sentence, would call them Nazi's. However, Nazi's are actually left wing, coming from the word Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialists. Little do they know that they are contradicting themselves.
Yes, even Hitler was more left wing in his ideologies than he was right wing.
Grant. Look mate. The Left thinks the basis of politics is the struggle between Classes. The Right thinks it is competition between Nations or Races.
That is an absolutely foundational difference.
If the Nazis were left wing why did they ban the Trades Unions? Why did social inequality increase? Why were Socialists and Communists the first people put in Concentration Camps?
here comes the jew John Osman with his lies to attack NS - social inequality decreased. Uncle A gave speeches about it.
compare to the JewSA where handfuls of billionaire Jews run the government. Why is JEW Kushner and JEW whitkoff the negotiators in a 340 million person country?
Jebus D-that's so anti-semantic of you. If the juice really ran things here, wouldn't they have a couple of tiny hat, NY- RE bros negotiating on behalf of Israel...I mean the United Snakes?
"Pitiful? Maybe, but describing reality. As for the question about the Nazis, the left, etc., I posted 2 comments that are not answers but historical facts, not revisited."
Humans in their entire history, have aligned into groups or tribes if you wish, and would attack any other group/tribe that wasn't their group/tribe. The group could be aligned along the lines of blood, colour, football, religion, or political/social views.
Just because what Nazi's did to other left wing constructs, automatically make them right wing.
I was nearly with you, until your closing sentence. No. The Nazis were fascists, pretending to compete on similar matters with the socialists/Communists of the time - to whom they nearly lost against, until resorting to sheer murderous violence against them. Don't get confused with the words of their acronym, that was just the usual political lies - just look at the current 'Christian Democrats' - they are neither of those things...
citation needed... can you even define the difference between NS and fascist "rodin" ?
read uncle A's book the SA started as response to the jew controlled mobs of socialists/communists who would break up other political parties via violence...
Well, citation needed from you first, so I can understand what you understand by your claim the Nazis were 'leftwing'. It's true, there was violence by both sides, but I rather think historical facts speak for themselves - the left was crushed. Or do you dispute that? I guess you do. You seem to be saying the left was crushed by...the left? At least that is how you're comment reads. The Nazis were, in the end (in my belief and reasoning) were much like Ukraine is being used right now, except with it's own nuances of course. The Nazis were funded in part by Americans and British, neither of whom are of the 'Left'. The target was Russia. It nearly worked. Any attempt to contrive that the Nazis were leftwing is getting lost in their acronym, which as I already mentioned, was one of those deliberate misnomers, not unlike Trump's 'Board of Peace' 😅
also no, the NS and Uncle A were not "used" but were a home grown reaction to Weimar which was essentially a jew problem. this "funded by others" is an old trope and not correct in any way.
yes -and many "left wing" ideas such as free healthcare and free education are great and actually work well in a single nation of white people only .e.g., blood and soil - hence national socialism is the answer and the only thing the jew fears....
Here is an intelligent post. The right or conservatives referred to the royalists, therefore every republican is, needless to say, left-wing — which only reflected a position in the chamber. But the bourgeoisie, the notables, claimed to be doing social work towards the populations in order to position themselves as leaders and seize the powers and goods of the former monarchical regime. There is neither right nor left, just notables. As for Hitler, he was an executive in the office of the second socialist party, and his references were Robespierre and the Revolution — that is, the Reign of Terror — just like Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin.
Haha, you don't know very much, do you? I bet you even could not come up with a coherent definition of what 'left' in a political sense actually means, if your daily dosis of deep state brainwashing would depend on it.
Forgive me, but the 'Left' referred to by the Americans is just hilarious. But not quite as hilarious that you think the whole of American politics is 'Left'. I nearly spat out my coffee 🤣
I use the term ... "no difference between left and right" all the time. And I always include with that term the explanation that there is no "right" today. Doesn't exist. Who represents fiscal restraint? Limited government? No foreign intervention? Individual liberty and freedom? Including absolute freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? Such a party doesn't exist and that is the reason that there is no difference between the left, and the party that the MSM calls the "far right", who are in fact RINO's (republican in name only). Your comment is precisely why the term RINO was invented... Chip
Tens of millions do, the people that actually make up what would be called "Conservatives". Oh, you are saying that cannot be because a few dozen so called leaders are not those things? What an incredible dumb way to look at it.
Few dozen? WTF world are you living in? Are you even 18 yet? You very obviously do not have the experience that i have, having served at the very highest levels of the army and federal government. Don't pretend to judge me or tell me what I know. It is very obvious that you are ignorant and don't know jack shit... Chip
Language is dynamic. It changes-- too often, perhaps, for the worse.
Some supposed anarchists are now calling themselves 'post left', as though they got swept completely off the edge of the extreme left side of the table or planet and onto the floor or into the ether or mouths of the sea serpents of a flat Earth, respectively.
Of course, as an anarchist myself, I like to suggest that once you call anarchy, chaos, you help disempower those true anarchists who want to get out and away from the State prison/Plato's Cave/Truman Show/Matrix. It's a language-as-control thing. Like turning a word into its complete opposite. Like what Orwell seemed to understand-- war is peace and all that.
So language can a weapon of the Statists or whoever, whether left, right or on the z axis or wherever.
Are you a Statist? Well the State won't work for too long and never has. The State is just another thing, another word, for control-- but/if by decline and/or collapse, since the only real governing laws are the laws of physics, as opposed to 'the rules' by a bunch of self-selects. Again, that's why it won't, and can never, work.
____
"Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., 'downsizing' for layoffs and 'servicing the target' for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth." ~ Wikipedia
____
"Animals don't do what humans do via speech, namely, make a symbol stand in for the thing. As Tim Ingold puts it, 'they do not impose a conceptual grid on the flow of experience and hence do not encode that experience in symbolic forms.' " ~ John Zerzan
----
"...The map is a simulacrum that, as a model, loses all reference to reality... reality exists only as rotting shreds that are attached to the map, and this is the state of our age according to Baudrillard; that the model, itself, has primacy for us; the real has become irrelevant..." ~ Frances Flannery-Dailey
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
The anarchists and Plato already saw the illusion(s) through the curtains, scenery, tables and chairs and even theatre ushers and the outside of the building, itself.
But one problem is being surrounded by those who accept the illusions of the programs**. We are a social species, after all.
Was Zappa an anarchist? Was Jesus? Are you? Why not? Too far gone?
____
**Morpheus: "...when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
If you think China or Russia are in some way co-operating with the USA in some sort of super-conspiracy to delete the working classes, then I have to conclude that you are not only delusional, but frankly insane. There are some things that are unlikely but must be so to respect reality, and there are some things which involve one of the parties to have to be more stupid than is humanly credible. Your idea falls into the latter category.
Well, I have to admire the deep philosophical underpinnings of your comprehensive and superbly intelligent reply, with no recourse to cheap personal jibes, or irrelevant references. Truly, you are an example to us all, with this deeply thought out and comprehensive refutal of any conflicting views.
I can just imagine the two of us in some hypothetical boggy war-trench somewhere, chatting up a storm, with bullets whizzing past and explosions in the too-near distance:
I am annoyed at the limited asbm range - it is like no one knew what they were doing when developing them.
It also seems certain that America used weather manipulation to try and destroy Iran, but you can't get anyone to admit it.
The most important thing about the blockade, by the way, is that it is now Trump who is responsible for the fertilizer and oil shortages, and no longer Iran.
My only issue now is I done understand how anyone in the IRGC can be allowing the force accumulation by America - because only the Islamic nations right now seem capable of adhering to ceasefires - unless they have some secret weapons we just don't know about.
Given that western msm is only now admitting how much more damage Iran inflicted on the US, I can safely bet that Iran/Russia/China had taken note and planned for further escalation by the US and the disproportionate response to come. Key reason why so many top US military brass have been 'resigning' as they do know the score.. but trump is now in full blown delusional phase so we are where we are
"My only issue now is I done understand how anyone in the IRGC can be allowing the force accumulation by America".
What options do they have against a country that plans to spend more on war this year than the rest of the world combined? They play the asymmetric game of increasing the cost to the US. Blockade of Straits, destroying soft targets and using 30k drones and 100k.missiles requiring millions of dollars to repel.
Launching ballistic missiles at the airbases in Israel, the UAE, Qatar, and Djibouti. Why let America who is obviously going to violate the ceasefire, do it so easily?
Because Iran is playing a defensive, asymmetric game as do all of Empire's enemies. Only a fool fights a battle they can't win. The best way to win a war is to never fight one. Sun Tzu.
This comment to makes no sense. They already are capable of striking these targets, as they have in the past. Ballistic strikes and drones are literally the tactics they have already employed. What you are saying is just quite simply absurd.
It's nothing to do with kinetic capabilities. It's to do with strategic intent. Iran's aims are to get sanctions dropped and ensure they aren't attacked again. A surprise attack would set both these aims back substantially.
Except that is ignoring the reality that America and Israel cannot be trusted in negotiations, have already reneged on agreed upon terms, and are accumulating these reserves because they plan on attacking them again. What you are saying is only workable in an ideal vacuum.
Strategic intent is pretty boring stuff. Surprise attacks get all the Hollywood bandwidth. But stories aren't remembered when you're the loser, no matter how exciting they are on the big screen.
They weren't able to do so during active hostilities because nearly everything remained in the air where they could not be targeted. The only exceptions were the curious lack of attacks on Ben Gurion and perhaps a couple of other bases, but I could accept that some sort of back-channel negotiations kept Iran from striking them in return for perhaps not completely demolishing Iran's own airports: who knows. The bases they did hit which had air assets on the ground is proof of their capabilities when the airframes are vulnerable, but that has little to do with the current situation where an enormous amount of men and material are accumulating to damage Yemen and Iran and it is just all being allowed to sit there.
Perhaps the Iranians are stalling for time, knowing the fruitlessness of the negotiations and are therefore allowing the maximum accumulation, so they can do maximum damage, but the IRGC is hard to read as to why they will hit this, but won't hit that. Perhaps that might even work to their advantage.
They attacked Ben Guruon multiple times. It's heavily defended, Israel keeps its air force aloft, in hardened shelters or land them in Cyprus. Iran would love to take out Israeli jets on the ground. Israel knows thus and prevents this. Iran simply does not have the capability.
The attacked Ben Gurion a few times, but either missed, got intercepted, used a decoy, or cluster munitions did not land on any targets. I also mentioned that the jets are always in the air - did you read this before speaking? They do in fact have the capability, so I can't fathom you are aware of what you are saying.
In the next phase of the war iran should focus on its naval operations by harassing and targeting support ships of the us navy. If possible land a hit or two in the destroyers if an opportunity provides its self. I know iran has sea skimming missiles and torpedoes. Correct me if I am wrong but in the first phase iran launched regular anti shipping missile at the Lincoln
The USN is kind of short on fleet oilers these days... Back in 2020, they started to build 20 new fleet oilers, only 4 are done last I checked, of which 1 is in service.
Without their (conventionally fueled) AA screen & ASW escort destroyers, those nuclear carriers won't be hanging around anywhere near the Persian Gulf.
I suspect that sinking a few non glamorous replenishment tankers & cargo ships would put those carrier groups out of action more easily and without offering Trump/Netanyahu the PR windfall of a sunk super carrier or even a destroyer- Which "insult" to the USN Trump regime would certainly try to spin into needing to nuke Tehran or such.
Once again, while amateurs focus on video of patriotism stirring eye candy the professionals are worrying about failed logistics- And apparently are getting fired for being realists.
The current messaging seems to have pivoted to "the US doesn't need the gulf oil to sustain the petrodollar, we can just use Venezuelan oil to maintain global supply of oil (and US debt)"
At the same time, Venezuelan oil infrastructure seems to be in terrible shape, and the time, $$$ and troops needed to consistently expropriate and extort the Venezuelans in the long run seems... substantial.
At the same time, as long as that fantasy option exists, Trump is going to go into this game of global economic chicken pretty confidently.
Venezuela will take back its oil infrastructure once the US has repaired it and got it running smoothly. You don't need a crystal ball to know that. The US did not defeat Venezuela. Venezuela made a strategic move sideways.
Julius was indeed not very happy about it. OTOH his administration has number of options and I suspect the US industry can be bribed into investing. As with everything else in this best of words the "news" are even less worthy than they ever were.
That is sort of why US companies aren't rushing into Venezuela.
They aren't going to pump in hundreds of millions just to spend years fighting guerillas and hoping FPV drones don't knock out their expensive equipment.
It's hostile territory and the oil execs know it, the US government still likes to think they can just walk in and squeeze the Venezuelans of every drop.
Actually, only Iran can end the war, as they have so many times stated. It is natural, given history, to believe all the power lies with Western forces, but we are now past that - Iran has the cards.
No. Unless Israel is relieved of ALL of their many nuclear weapons and the Greater Israel agenda is renounced, the war will not be over. It is a sad modern malady to confuse ceasefires with the end of wars. Iran can make a Minsk agreement, and it might hold for a little while, but that will not be peace.
There is the hot side of war and there is the political side. Iran is playing the political side right now - appearing to offer a peaceful settlement. What they know and consider reality is that israel will never accept the presence of an armed Iran on the planet, and that the only solution to that is to destroy the zionist regime. Both countries, israel and Iran, consider this war existential and neither can be expected to give in - it is a fight to the death.
Cheryl, with respect, in addition to the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal, I would also add any stockpiles they hold of Bio/Chemical weapons. I know some people are very focused on the former, whilst the latter rarely gets a mention, but that's not to say they don't exist.
The Israelis have ALWAYS planned on having a strong biological warfare capability, they are known to have USED biological warfare offensively since their very first days, way back in 1948 when Israeli agents were caught contaminating wells in Arab held territories with cultured disease organisms.
The war has been going for 47 years and probably won't end for a long time (Korea is still going, and Palestine). That doesn't mean Iran has no cards. The list is long. SoH, BaM, Hezbollah, PMUs, nuclear breakout, hardened defences, hypersonic missiles, cheap loitering munitions able to take out an F35, mass produced drones, powerful allies, cohesive population, revolutionary spirit, secure logistics to Russia and China, diplomatic cover in the UNSC. How do you see the US ending the war?
The war has been going on for 73 years my friend. You make the same mistake the Amerikan administration makes. History of Iran/US/UK conflict started in 1953... Chip
The 3-point plan toward peace, with attacks upon Lebanon by Israel stopped and the US naval blockade removed, the Strait then opened by Iran, and then all hostilities halted (nuclear talks later--a new JCPOA) will not be accepted by Israel. You are right, Cheryl. Israel will not allow the US to make peace with Iran, or any of Iran's proxies. Israel will attack until its own annihilation. Israel attacking means the US will be attacking.
The US and Israel will not be victors. Iran will survive, and be victorious in keeping its sovereignty.
All of this horror caused by one tiny Zionist colony and its big, dopey proxy.
Exactly! The last time Iran (then Persia) was the aggressor was in a border war with the Russian Empire which ended on 2 February 1828. Yes, for the last 198 years, Persia/Iran has minded its own business. Now look at the USA or Israel in the last 80 years.
People quite often have no understanding of the point Berletic is making. MacGregor for instance in the last couple of days. Berletic never said that the neocons don't have tremendous influence on American politics. But the neocons have been forming US policy since GHWB. They have a "hobby" called Israel. But Israel is a tool that serves their ends.
This misunderstanding comes from the generally accepted description of the US taking actions, or "we" did this as if "we" are all united in one single hive mind. It does not take into account the dozens of factions that make up the US tripartite state that all have their own objectives which are often at cross purposes. Israel is the tail but maybe it isn't a dog that's wagging it.
Berletic explains, again, how Israel was created by a British project to set up a way of controlling the Middle East. The USA took it over. The “people” or faction of the British/American tripartite state consists of a lot of Jewish Supremacists, especially those who were associated with Meyer Lansky’s “Murder Incorporated”.
The US blew up the Nordstream Pipeline to force Europe to buy US gas. Without destroying the pipeline, it would not have been economically feasible to sell US gas to Europe.
The US is blowing up the Persian Gulf because there is a huge gas field in Alaska that is being developed. If Gas was still available from the Persian Gulf they would not be developing this gas field.
The US empire is collapsing and trying to keep China from rising.
Israel is full of crazy people. The American Oligarchy may not appreciate some of what they do, like the genocide, but they need Israel to be able to attack Iran.
Everyone quotes Marine General Smedley Butler but somehow think Israel is different.
I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
A Danny Haiphong episode. I can’t post an attachment.
Brian Berletic: What Iran just did SHOCKS Trump, US Empire Collapsing into WW3 on China
jew on Kuai strikes again and now refers to jew paid shill Belretic.
The illegal jew state was formed by terroism against the Brits... King david hotel anyone. - read the Buddha wagon, the jew state is a terrorist state created by and for terrorists...
Israel is full of jews whos stupid books and beliefs are based on their chosen by god and all others are goyim to be exploited and to serve them. the jew is the problem...
"The US blew up the Nordstream Pipeline to force Europe to buy US gas. Without destroying the pipeline, it would not have been economically feasible to sell US gas to Europe."
It is STILL both economically and logistically impossible for the US to supply Europe with US gas. The costs are staggering. They are building an LNG plant here in South Texas for over two years now and it is still not scheduled to come on line for two to three more. Then there are the additional ships that need to be built and the gassification plants in Europe. LNG is an expensive and logistically complicated way to provide energy... Chip
‘The US is blowing up the Persian Gulf because there is a huge gas field in Alaska that is being developed.’
Are you talking about the oil/gas fields that were found 15-20 years ago at the northern edge of Alaska and plugged closed or do you know about more?
‘The US empire is collapsing and trying to keep China from rising.’
It seems Trump will never ever get to this problem. The issue was aggravated with the Ukraine war. Russia will refuse to backstab Chine for the rest of this century.
‘Israel is full of crazy people. The American Oligarchy may not appreciate some of what they do, like the genocide, but they need Israel to be able to attack Iran.’
There was ZERO genocide without free US arm deliveries to the mini-state. The insanity there combined with US arms did the trick. America could live happily with a free, developed Iran. Zionist influence in the US combined with Israel is the problem. https://asiatimes.com/2026/04/the-gift-card-israel-uses-to-buy-us-weapons/
AFAIU, Israel is a backdoor to the Middle East's resources, most specifically, oil and gas, but also, 'energy corridors', like BRICS' Belt and Road Intiative.
There are a fair bit of reservoirs, for example, off the coast of Gaza and Israel and of course in Iran, not to mention many other places therein of course-- many, so-called American vassals.
A vassal with a vessel of oil. ^u^
America is running out of the proverbial low-hanging fruit of oil, even the middle-hanging fruit, given its rapidly-depleting fracking fields for one. It's no accident that the US has targeted Russia, Venezuela, Iran and even Canada, given their top oil statuses.
Greenland? I don't yet know as much about its resources, although it seems at least strategic for the Arctic Ocean and its routes and potential resources, such as off its coast.
Given Jeffrey Brown's Land Export Model, it's in America's best interests to either get the oil for itself or, if not, damage it for others until it can, like with the Nord Stream pipeline.
To quote Mehdi Hasan; "It’s All About the Oil, Stupid!".
I'm in Canada, and if Iran and Russia 'go south' for America, I wouldn't put it past it to consider leaning on Canada, which may have benefitted and/or will benefit from the semi-closure of Hormuz.
"This misunderstanding comes from the generally accepted description of the US taking actions, or 'we' did this as if 'we' are all united in one single hive mind." ~ JohnOnKaui
____
"The state has moved into many new areas as they become significant, such as... promoting nuclear power. This expanding role of the state helps prevent the rise of any significant competing forms of social organisation...
The obvious point is that most social activists look constantly to the state for solutions to social problems. This point bears labouring, because the orientation of most social action groups tends to reinforce state power. This applies to most antiwar action too. Many of the goals and methods of peace movements have been oriented around action by the state, such as appealing to state elites and advocating neutralism and unilateralism. Indeed, peace movements spend a lot of effort debating which demand to make on the state: nuclear freeze, unilateral or multilateral disarmament, nuclear-free zones, or removal of military bases. By appealing to the state, activists indirectly strengthen the roots of many social problems, the problem of war in particular...
Many people's thinking is permeated by state perspectives. One manifestation of this is the unstated identification of states or governments with the people in a country which is embodied in the words 'we' or 'us.' 'We must negotiate sound disarmament treaties.' 'We must renounce first use of nuclear weapons.' Those who make such statements implicitly identify with the state or government in question. It is important to avoid this identification, and to carefully distinguish states from people..."
Agreed. Remember when Trump "sternly" told Netanyahu a while back to adhere to the ceasefire with Lebanon on else? This doesn't stop till Zionism is destroyed.
America would have been better off if the Epstein class leaders had understood that Iran was 100% telling the truth about their capabilities and intentions. Included in that was the antebellum truth that Iran did not want nuclear weapons for religious reasons. (Whether the latter is still true is uncertain).
In any case, the Epstein class does not even understand the concept of telling the truth. Regarding the entity they follow "Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
I have to agree with Gerald Celente, "When all else fails, they take you to war." There are few, if any, western regimes which can claim legitimacy to their people. All economic indicators are pointing the wrong way, not just fake GDP, but GINI coefficient, social cohesion, trust, educational standards, happiness, and much more. So the failing regimes go to war.
In a recent chat with Stanislav Krapivnik, Gerald expressed the opinion that the overmatched west would resort to nukes vs Iran. Gerald also thought that Israel would pull the trigger, not the confused and delusional DJT. It could begin that way, but that won't be the end, not by a long shot.
I do not think they will resort to nukes. I strongly suspect that behind the scenes, both Russia and China are whispering in the ears of both Trump and Bibi, "Don't you dare! We will respond."
Bibi isn't young, well, or morally sane. The ceasefire put him back in court. Peace could put Bibi in prison. From Bibi's POV, being vaporised by a counterstrike could count as a win.
Empire knows using nukes in Iran would lead to a complete blockage of the Straits and the destruction of as much regional infrastructure as possible by the Iranians. Then there is the political aftermath. The slide towards China would turn into an avalanche. We have Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt all major regional powers coordinating that would probably move towards China.
These are not rational actors concerned with cause and effect, except when such things concern their own sad asses. Peace would indeed be a painful end of the road for both Bibi and Trump, and they will entertain any action if it might save their own skins, or at least drag everyone else down with them: they're textbook examples of family annihilators.
"Empire knows using nukes in Iran would lead to a complete blockage of the Straits and the destruction of as much regional infrastructure as possible by the Iranians."
So? The elites will still eat steak and fly int heir private jets. As for the peons who will suffer? They could not care less.
If either Israel or the US use nukes on Iran, neither Russia nor China will use nukes on either Israel or the US in retaliation. Iran is on their own, and that's by Iran's choice, not by Russia's or China's.
It's been nearly 30 years since Iran had built sufficient infrastructure to develop and deploy a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter either Israel or the US. If they haven't done that by now it's nobody's fault but Iran's. When it comes to nuclear deterrence, it's a rough world out there and the general rule is that every country is on their own.
There are probably only two exceptions to that: Belarus and Israel. Russia would indeed use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Belarus. The US would indeed use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Israel.
But anybody who thinks the US would use nuclear weapons to retaliate on a nuclear attack on, say, Belgium, better look at who did the attack. If Iran struck Belgium with nukes, sure, the US would nuke Iran. But if Russia struck Belgium with nukes, nobody believes the US would enter into a city-killing exchange with Russia. The US won't offer up New York to be vaporized just because Russia struck some NATO bases, or even cities, in Belgium.
De Gaulle understood that better than most. That's why France has its own nuclear arsenal. Same with the Brits. They've always known that without their own arsenal the Americans could easily find reasons not to have US cities killed just because some British cities were killed.
Absolutely correct, there is not even a real article 5 ... NATO is more of a financial racketeering scheme.
One question though about the Brits. Are you sure they have their “own" nukes?
The subs are leased and the missiles are American. I am not exactly persuaded that they have control over their nukes like France.
If I am right, US can always use those stupids to retaliate and blame it on them. Of course with Russia that will not work but it might work in other scenarios with lesser countries.
That doesn’t change what you are saying but it introduces a possible (minor) scenario twist....
"One question though about the Brits. Are you sure they have their “own" nukes?"
That's a very astute point. The Brits have become so poor they can no longer build or maintain a truly independent nuclear arsenal. To save money, they put all their money into a single delivery system basket, Trident missiles firing from subs. The only nuclear warheads the Brits now produce and have in inventory are warheads for Tridents that fire from ballistic missile subs. No subs, no British nuclear force. No Tridents, no British nuclear force, either.
I don't know about the Brits "leasing" their subs. I haven't looked into that. But I do know the Trident missiles in British subs are American missiles. The US and UK have a deal where the US produces Trident missiles and keeps them in inventory. Both the Brits and the US take missiles from that same inventory, with the missiles shipped off to one or the other supposedly chosen at random from the inventory so there's no possibility of either side in the "special relationship" feeling they might be stuck with what the US thinks is older or less reliable units.
But the Brits do produce the warheads for those missiles. They don't have the financial resources of the US so producing and maintaining warheads is very expensive for them. As a cost-saving measure they don't usually fill all launch tubes in their subs with missiles, and they don't equip their missiles with as many warheads as they can carry. I don't recall the exact number but I think they only load 12 tubes with 4 warheads per missile, and those four aren't huge ones but the smaller, 100 - 150 kiloton ones where easily six or eight could be carried per missile at the ranges the UK wants to hit.
The Brits can also keep only one sub on patrol. So basically, that means out of their inventory of 100 - 200 warheads they can keep 48 on patrol, with occasionally more when a second sub sorties to replace the one on patrol and thus there's a short period of overlap.
There are people who say that if push came to shove and the US remotely disabled the UK's Trident missiles (that's not supposed to be possible but hey, nobody in their right minds thinks the US failed to put a kill switch in there somewhere...), the Brits could take their stock of warheads and quickly reconfigure the physics packages for delivery as air dropped bombs or for possible launch on intermediate range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.
That's nonsense, and making such claims shows a profound lack of knowledge about how modern weapons are built. The firing systems for compact, lightweight, thermonuclear warheads in the 100 to 150 kiloton range are extremely complex and they have a daunting array of very complex safety systems. Those are there not so much because of the classic Hollywood "oh gosh, a terrorist might steal a warhead" thing but because military people who spend 50 years around a nuclear warhead don't want the thing going off by accident, and they want to be absolutely sure it goes off only when it is on target after flying the right trajectory.
They know from long and bitter experience that all sorts of shit happens over the decades, with equipment breaking, failing and misbehaving in all sorts of totally unexpected ways. So they load up the firing circuits with all sorts of interlocks and failsafe enabling mechanisms. For example, the warhead isn't going to arm unless it senses the correct sequence of g-force from the impulse pushing it out of the tube, the right range of g-force for the boost phase, weightlessness for the right range of time given the necessary trajectory, the right deceleration when it reenters the atmosphere, verification it hasn't yawed off course, and then all sorts of barometric and radar ranging verification it's arrived at the right altitude to detonate.
You can't just wave your hands and fake all that with an air-dropped bomb, which has none of those characteristics. You need to develop a firing circuit that has analogous complexities for air-dropped bombs with all the sensors for various delivery modes (tossing, laydown, straight drop, etc.) and that typically takes years of development and testing to mate a particular physics package to a given bomb geometry and to a specific aircraft type. The UK could, of course, have a "suicide" firing set for the physics package that didn't have all that but just assumed somebody would press a button and the tritium bottles, detonators and neutron generators would fire in the right sequence. But that would be insanely dangerous and not the sort of thing that sensible military people want to have lying around, because having it would mean each of those 100 warheads in inventory could detonate within the UK.
That's the long way around of saying you're right, the US could probably cut the nuclear nuts off the UK at any time the US wanted.
first of all I appreciate the long and detailed reply. I have seen you previously trying to educate some stubbornly unreceptive commentators and I admire your patience. I wish I had half of it :)
I have a couple of comments to make about potential kill switches for the two lesses nuclear powers, Brits and Frogs.
1. Physical Kill Switches. I do not know how far back you go but during the Falkland wars Argentine was destroying the British Navy using those Exocets. In the MSM media of that time (MSM can always be full of shit but that was a different era) there was a lot of hullaballoo about the Brits demanding that the Frogs disable them before they lose their entire fleet LOL I present this with a grain of salt. However Argentine was able to use or attempt to use just 6 or less? It seems to me unlikely that they had such a low inventory. Plenty of speculation here but it worths mention nonetheless.
2. Let’s talk about the Human Kill Switches. The american secret services are so entrenched in the armies and the corresponding services of all the NATO and Eurocucks that it is reasonable to consider this entrechment as a human kill switch. Whether a Frog is about to launch or not launching when pressured to do so, he will get a text in a New York minute about what will happen to his family and kids. Or that gay porn film he did when he was young and drunk LOL
The Americans have such penetration inside the chain of command of both Brits and Frogs that I would personally consider very unlikely that either makes an independent decision regarding not just nukes but everything else. I will give you that France has a little bit more independence but nowhere near full sovereignty.
Bottom line, my 2 cents: There were, are and will be only two real Nuclear Super Powers. Despite the western propaganda about Russians being “lesser” the truth is that Russia is just as or even more capable militarily than the USSR. Their practical super power status has never changed, in fact it is stronger now that they don't have to support all those projects/states that were a waste of time and money.
US and Russia are both the only real nuclear superpowers and they are also they only two real conventional war super powers. The both have (one way or another) the energy resources to support military production to crash conventionally any other nation.
You're right about the West's comments that Russia is the "lesser" nuclear super power being pure propaganda.
In fact, the reality is that Russia has slightly more nuclear warheads than the US, those tend to be higher in power on average, and Russia has far and away better delivery systems for those nukes than the US.
A good example is Russia's Sarmat missile system, a truly astonishing nuclear delivery system that is at least two and maybe three generations (depending on how you count generations) ahead of the US's truly ancient ICBMs.
Russia also has fielded and routinely used in war nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles, and has tested and apparently deployed hypersonic glide re-entry vehicles (RVs) for nuclear warheads. The US still hasn't demonstrated a reliable hypersonic missile system, not even for relatively short ranges.
I'll leave out all the exotic Russian nuclear delivery systems, like Poseidon underwater and Burevesnik, the nuclear powered cruise missile with basically unlimited range. The US has nothing like those, but Russia's inventory of those are probably limited to a a few dozen Poseidons and not so many Burevesniks as of yet.
The US controls all nukes in the UK and the UK must ask the US for permission to use them.
Overall, you are probably correct about the tradeoffs, but I question whether the US would retaliate if israel nuked Iran and subsequently, Russia or China nuked israel.
It can't be overstated - nukes are a deterrent, not offensive weaponry.
"The US controls all nukes in the UK and the UK must ask the US for permission to use them."
That's not true. The UK has true and fully independent control over the nukes they have loaded on their ballistic submarines. There is widespread speculation the US has a kill switch installed on the Trident missiles, but that's a stab in the back thing, not part of any formal or informal understanding.
"It can't be overstated - nukes are a deterrent, not offensive weaponry."
It's surprising you're writing anything about nukes if you know so little about them that you don't know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pretty damn big precedent right there. It's also surprising you didn't notice that the scenario you speculated about has Israel nuking Iran in an offensive, not deterrent use.
As for the UK, you're right - I'm wrong. Serves me right for not fact checking my sources.
As for nukes being 'offensive' in nature, you are, in my opinion, correct in theory, but mistaken in practice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated to the world (as was intended) the immense and cruel power of these weapons and the need to never use them again in the future. Thus, just the threat of having these weapons is in actuality a defence against any power that threatens the existence of a country. Indeed, the threat presented by these weapons is so great that neither the aggressor nor the defender is likely to use them for fear of retaliation - so on a practical basis, these weapons become 'defensive' in nature. It has been demonstrated over and over that the US will openly and freely attack a country without them, but will resort to other asymmetric means if the target country acquires them. And the aggressor country having these weapons is likely to never use them against a country lacking them for fear that such use would almost surely raise the threat of retaliation by the target country's nuclear-armed allies and a subsequent and extremely rapid escalation of a world-ending exchange. Now the possible exception to the general rule is israel and its Samson Option - israel is an irrational player and thus a true threat - but even they will only use this option as a last resort, which even in this case is used as a defensive deterrence against its enemies.
So, in my opinion (and that of many other far more qualified than myself), the possession of nukes is far more 'defensive' in nature than 'offensive' for the very reasons you put forward.
"It's also surprising you didn't notice that the scenario you speculated about has Israel nuking Iran in an offensive, not deterrent use."
The scenario I described is indeed supportive of just the thing I pointed out about a country not using nukes for fear of retaliation from its nuclear-armed allies.
"Now the latest ‘negotiations’ tango has again commenced, with claims that Iran has made some new three-point offer. The offer reportedly allows for an initial stage of agreement on key points—presumably surrounding US’s blockade and sanctions—before Iran would entertain the issue of nuclear enrichment as part of a second stage of talks."
NO! The issue of nuclear enrichment is part of the third and last stage of talks. Please re-check your sources. I made it very clear in my latest article, where I also cover, among other juicy news items, Araghchi's meeting with Putin and Iranian threat of massive retaliation ("1 oil well = 4 oil wells") in case of renewed USraeli attacks on oil & gas infrastructure: https://geopolitiq.substack.com/p/iran-promises-massive-retaliation
Maybe I don't understand, but what happened to the 10-point offer that Iran was never going to back off from? Is Iran getting soft? Will the people of Iran back this after all the talk of "Never give in"? Or is this simply a PR device, knowing that USrael is going to attack anyway?
As far as I understand, Iran has not backed off from the 10-point plan or any of its red lines. It has just introduced staged negotiations, in order to address its own points/requests bit by bit rather than all in one go.
Time is against the US. Trump has to start active campaigning for November soon. He has to have this war in the rearview mirror, even if that is because he has run away declaring victory. It won't matter how absurd that is provided the hot war is over. Once campaigning starts and the economy is back on track, every one faces forward. People have short attention spans, less so if he engages in a mass loss of life troop operation that publicly, theatrically fails and the dems then keep that on the front pages. Even worse if he then has to flee anyway. He cannot win this war for real in the time scale available- if ever. But he can lose it in various alternative ways, some much worse than others. Iran can outlast him and his entire admin knows it. It is OVER.
Forget about US elections.... If you have been alive the last few decades, you should have realized it's 2 arses if the same uni party butt. Stop wasting energy thinking voting in America changes anything...
True, but I don't think that is what she is saying. The issue is that Trump wants to stay politically alive - and that means he can't allow his party to lose the midterms.
Again that is a mindset that thinks having the Dems in charge would have changed anything. Very basic fallacy that Americans keep making. No offense meant.
No offense, but I still don't think you understand what is being said. No one is saying that the Dems in charge would change anything - that is not the point. The point is that if the Repubs lose in Nov, Trump loses all his power (or most of it), and he will likely even face impeachment. And though israel would still be in control, Trump would not - and from Trump's perspective, that is absolutely unacceptable.
He already knows he is losing. He already also (probably) knows that oil prices are about to double. They've been holding that back for a couple months now, but now the poison is in the entire global system, that is about to collapse.
This is a suicide run. He has no time to come back for another bite at the apple. He won't get the chance. I have seriously believed he is cancerous and knows he doesn't have long to live, because there is no success at the end of this shit. There is a zero percent chance of Iran surrendering to him.
So to your point (or Julliane's) - why would you think Trump has any real decision making capability at this point, and also being able to reflect or game out decisions and their consequences? We know by now that Witkoff and Kushner have been feeding him a ton of lies, and he goes out in public repeating them with a straight face. Whether he survives impeachment or not is no longer his choice, or decision. He will be considered fully expendable by the Israeli apparatus.
The fact that the Israelis got this ball rolling, despite getting spanked last year and believed that if the US was engaged in fighting on its behalf, that they can win, just shows how deluded and *ahem* stupid the Jews are. Sure, they can talk up a storm... Bibi has been telling us that Iran is 2 weeks away from having a nuclear bomb for like almost 40 years now.. he actually sounds believeable - to gullible folks.
They manipulate Trump, but they don't control him. Even the israelis have limitations when it comes to his mental issues - they must mainly rely on manipulation, not direct control. From Trump's POV, losing the midterms is simply not acceptable and could not possibly be anything but disastrous to his self-perceived legacy. The israeli don't give a damn what he does or says as long as he does no harm to israel's interests.
Oh, there are plenty of reasons the deep state wants this daft gamble closed down now. It is the same rising tide floating all boats. It is just fortunate for it that Trump will for his own reasons, play ball.
Not at all. The time is as always on American side. The population of the combined west is ready to sacrifice itself for their capitalist masters. The US can print money.
Since the US has repeatedly hinted at using its nuclear weapons, Russia and China should in turn clearly hint that they will respond with force. The unilateral use of nuclear weapons and the mere threat of using them gives the US too strong an advantage in the current conflict, which is already global and between superpowers.
Seems you are not aware that China had already stated that Israel will suffer grave consequences if they use their nuclear weapons. Otherwise bibi would have done so already as the US military got spanked
Russia and China could announce that if the US (or Israel) strikes Iran with even a few tactical nuclear weapons, Russia and China will immediately give Iran, for example, 3-7 times more nuclear weapons. This would reduce the US and Israel's desire to use nuclear weapons.
And if Iran is to be completely destroyed with several dozen nuclear weapons, then this is such a large-scale nuclear attack that it endangers the climate and future of the entire Earth, and therefore Russia and China should announce to the US and Israel that in that case it is a matter of global destruction, which they will oppose with their own nuclear weapons.
Russia and China must re-create a credible MAD threat of mutual destruction in order to avoid nuclear war.
The problem is, the Pakistanis scare easy, they get bought off cheap by the US, and they have a track record of talking big and then not following up.
Another problem is that there are a lot of experts who believe that Israel is leveraging its nuclear arsenal by pre-positioning nukes in some of the cities of countries where Israel wants military leverage.
Logically, that would be countries like Pakistan, and maybe Russia too, with a pre-positioned nuke or two in Moscow.
I think no matter what Pakistan said they'd treat an Israeli tactical nuclear strike on Iran as something between Iran and Israel, just like their response to Gaza was to look the other way. Pakistan has a point in not being willing to engage in nuclear war with Israel on behalf of Iran: if Iran didn't develop its own nuclear arsenal when it could have, why should Pakistan do the heavy lifting for it now?
If Iran is so determined that nukes violate core tenets of Islam, why should Pakistan be the sinner on their behalf?
I don’t disagree with any of the above, I was just pointing out the prior statements.
The Iranians should trade their uranium to Russia today, in exchange Kim Jong Un can give them a tactical nuke or two for today and they can keep it secret for when they need to use it. But that would be me thinking, not them.
Wouldn't that be a surprise for the US soldiers coming ashore.
You're right, it would be a surprise. But subsequent US annihilation of Iran, killing 90 million Iranians would not be a surprise. Trump would order that in a heartbeat.
The problem with using nukes against US forces is that you can only do that if you deter a US strategic response that will annihilate your people and your country. That requires more than just a tactical nuke or two.
In particular, it requires around ten nuclear devices that are city killers, in the 100+ kiloton range. The IAEA claimed that the last time they inspected, about a year and a half ago, Iran had 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. At that level of enrichment they could enrich that batch to 93% in about two weeks, ending up with around 300 kilograms 93% enriched uranium.
A country which can build ultra-precise centrifuges, which enriches uranium, which can build a very wide range of ballistic missiles, easily has the technology to use that 300 kg of high enriched uranium to build ten city killers. They wouldn't be big, clumsy weapons, either, but relatively compact.
They also would radiate gamma or other radiation that would make them possible to find with remote scanners. Those weapons would be enough to smuggle five into big, important US cities and, say, three, for Israel, leaving a couple of extra to put one each into London and Paris. Now, *that* is a deterrent.
Assuming Iran hasn't been sitting on its hands for the last year and a half and has enriched some more uranium to 60% beyond the 440 kg reported by the IAEA, they could use a bit of that for tactical weapons.
But I think the Iranians are done with trusting their existence to any other country. I get the feeling (could be wrong about this...) that they've learned the hard way they need to look out for themselves. I doubt they're going to ship out any of their enriched uranium to any third party.
I'll bet they haven't, and even if they did, the West has crossed so many Russian red lines already that they are betting Russia doesn't have the stones.
Sorry, you might not like it but China and Russia will not retaliate against the United States with nuclear weapons even if the USA hits Iran with nukes, The same way the United States would not retaliate in kind against Russia if they were to nuke Kiev.
I don't think we can assume anything based on what this administration does or does not do.
the crazy speak the lying etc. has reached the point that I no longer pay any attention to them or in fact very many of the other talking heads who offer nothing but boring repetition.
I pay attention to any new facts but other then that I have basically tuned out.
It’s an echo chamber, and the quality of the echos is embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the commentary by all and sundry US ex military and other “experts” on the echos.
Everybody has noticed that Trump waddles rapidly toward every camera some media knuckle dragger might be carrying and as a result gets his face video taped numerous times each day.
Now, does anyone recall after the "near miss" assassination attempt that amazingly only grazed his ear during his 2024 campaign, Trump wore a sympathy bandage the size of a ham sandwich on the victimized ear for a couple weeks post that event? Now, am I the only one that cannot see even the faintest trace of a pink scar mark from the 5.56 round that clipped his ear? One would think that even with the heavy pancake makeup the geriatric old gas bag weighs himself down with each day that there would be at least some sign of the wound. Maybe its my own age related sight failing me but try as I might, I can't see a damned thing.
Makes one think of the old "blood bag" trick those old WEF wrestlers used to employ during their cage matches.
But that's venturing into conspiracy theory territory I guess.........might even make me anti semitic.
Good video summary and up to date, just 6 days old. I thought "staged" immediately after seeing the first reports about it that day, because in every report the Iwo Jima style iconic photo was prominently shown.
And now what about the guy running in the hall near the banquet room with three kinds of weapons on him? He was not shot by a single law enforcement or Secret Service person. Yet he lay on his stomach, stripped naked on the carpeted floor (sheet covering his lower body) obviously not injured, as there were no medics nearby. Did they wrestle a guy with a shotgun and handgun to the floor?
I am curious as to why all 3 people designated to lead the country were in the same room Saturday night: president, vice president, speaker of the house (each one takes over if the previous one is killed).
Finally--interesting that VP Vance was whisked out of the room before Trump. Several curious things about this "attempt to assassinate the POTUS".
Except a pure false flag this time. US or Israel will bomb one of the sitting ducks that are peacefully minding their own business a few 100km from Iran's shores and the Iranians will be blamed. That will be the pretext to launch nukes on Iran. One last hot flash for post-menopausal Miriam Adelson.
Any aircraft carrier sitting in a lock while it's being flooded is a static display - an easy target for a missile with not possibility of maneuvering - for brief period.
The Suez Canal is currently controlled by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA), an entity owned by the government of Egypt. It was shut down 1967-1975 during the Arab-Israeli war. I have not read anything about it shutting down at this time.
LBJ famously said of Deep State Gerald Ford, "He can't chew gum and walk across the Senate floor at the same time." Looks like this description works for the boat, named after Ford. Col Macgregor has reported that there are two types of naval vessels: submarines and sitting ducks. It looks like we get to find out.
Wow, Simp, an F-5 eh..? Just like the ones used in the 1987 movie Top Gun, both as the "MiGs" that Tom Cruise flew against at the beginning and end of the show, but also as the "opposition" fighters at the Top Gun school near San Diego. You will believe about anything.
And why can't your IRGC heroes make any anti-ship missiles that can go further than 300 klicks...? Hell, take one of their big ballistics and shoot it "open bore" at the U.S. carrier groups, probably bound to hit something. 300 klicks must be a magic number. Keep drooling for your U.S. body and/or equipment counts and get back to us next week. I'm sure "Jesse" will win this time ;) ...
Using ballistic missiles against moving targets is rather stupid. When the Russians lost their flagship in the Black Sea the attack was conducted with drones and cruise missiles activate steered by the US spy equipment from above.
And old or not - if the US concentrated its AD efforts elsewhere that is possible.
I do not think Simplicius is 100% right but at least he tries to provide the way he arrived at his conclusions.
Sorry there ole TheSGC, I'm not up on all the cool kid old Jew terms. That's why they came up with words such as "kvetching" to keep goyim like me from knowing what they were saying behind our backs ;)
Nah, don't worry about me stressing too hard, I just like to troll you all. And remember, don't forget your money changing purse when you go out the door ;)
Sure, the Chicoms will save all you neo-Marxists yet. Do the Chinese have their direct energy weapons based in space yet..?? I suspect that space-based weapons have a bit more range than even your mighty Dong Dong missiles but I actually have to do some real work today so you keep on keeping on ;) ;)
There are well over a dozen nations in Africa and Asia where substantial proportions of the population exist at the edge of starvation. If the Strait of Hormuz will not open fully before the end of July for LNG gas and fertilizers famine will sweep through these nations starting by the end of this year, and going into the next year at the minimum. Suddenly we will see a few hundred million desperate people from third world nations running toward countries with advocate food supplies. This is not going to be a pretty sight.
I was talking about that today, about how many are going to die because of this stupidity by the US. It's almost like Trump is trying to fulfill the Deagel Report.
Coincidentally, what a great time for the West to unleash their attack dogs from Al Qaeda on Mali. They've been after the Sahel ever since Ibrahim Traore started turning things around for Burkino Faso, a close ally of Mali and NIger, who form the Alliance of Sahel States.
The Forecast: The 2014-2021 archived projections forecasted a drop in the U.S. population from roughly 316 million in 2017 to under 100 million by 2025.’
This sounds fairly absurd. It would take an insane president, a nuclear war or the combination of these two factors to achieve such major population reduction.
I remember when that first was circulating. I guess they were counting on the vaccine to be more effective. 70% got it at least once, so that number did line up. Or perhaps they were counting on nuclear retaliation from Russia for all of the brazen provocations.
This is something that would make the European elites happy. New cheap workers, new cheap soldiers... new studs for their insatiable and frustrated wives....
Recently saw a chart of the rise in world population over oil production from 1900 to about 2024 and they are more or less directly corrolated. A 20% reduction in oil from the ME will have a massive impact. Maybe not 20% but enough to significantly reduce world population.
Not at all. If you don't have a sense of ethics and perhaps some level of memory for what works and what doesn't, it doesn't matter what you do or don't do.
The problem is that with each new generation, the 'reset button is pressed', our memories are essentially wiped clean, save for instinct, and we yet again get the sort of thinking that comments like yours suggest.
All over again.
We have cultural memory in books, libraries and databases, sure, but they're worth very little to creatures with limited lifespans (time), access (opportunity) or even simply a sense of ethics.
It's a conundrum that, I fear, will doom our species to a forever small-scale tribal or village one, with the odd large-scale nation-State and the usual declines/collapses, until extinction I guess.
Leaving the planet and becoming a spacefaring species takes some things that we don't yet have, if we ever will.
AI might save us, or might have saved us, but in whose hands?
Sam Altman's? Mark Zuckerberg's? Larry Ellison's? Peter Thiel's?
‘AI might save us, or might have saved us, but in whose hands?’
At the very basics AI is going to be turned into our ultimate enemy, firmly in the hands of their brand new world order. AI will be the ultimate arbiter of all information, an impersonal giant pile of garbage, reflecting the state of mind of our opponents. They will keep playing these retarded games until either:
a, They decimate the Western population and turn the leftover literally into slaves.
or
b, We set up a populist order based on sovereignty for us on a planetary scale with diamond hard controls implemented and separate ashes from diamonds.
There is no middle of the road because the neanderthals are unable to coexist with that. Somebody will have to go bye-bye. The struggle is for the full inheritance of this planet for one party. The Russian leadership represents the last major nation that lives and acts by these ideas.
Step right up to the greatest show on the planet.
Have you noticed that the Ukraine war started right after the CONVID stopped?
One crisis after another by design.
Now there's another war in Iran.
Tensions are building in other countries, too.
War is a racket; bankers and weapons makers profit
As the world faces shortages of fuels, fertilizers, and food.
One crisis after another by design.
When you zoom the lens back from a single event to the broader picture.
I see Agenda 2030 unfolding on a determined timeline, leading up to
15-minute cities, rationing, CBDCs, sustainable development initiatives,
in every country in the world.
We're divided by supporting one of the two created illusions of who the good guys and bad guys are
when, in fact, they're all the same.
Two sides of the same coin, dividing humanity by race, colour, gender, ideology, politics and nationality, and it works.
Everything we talk about globally is divisive to the point of breaking up families
best exemplified by CONVID.
Oddly, humanity shares all the same hierarchy of needs
Yet increasingly it is divided.
Get your ticket to the greatest show on the planet
We are its manipulated actors to controlled events
No matter what part of the global stage we perform upon.
Where left and right are no more than the same center.
Zoom back the lens, there's more to these wars and events that meet the eye
Another Trump fake assassination reveal, but the tip of the stage of the global theatre.
And while you're picking one side to win the war over the other,
Remember, the greatest war is the one that is played out to each of us.
As Scott Adams used to say before his demise, with Trump the most entertaining option is always the one that will be chosen.
The only ones who benefit from war are those who benefit and profit from it.
Neither the US nor Iran is winning because the people from both countries are paying the price. The world loses. 200 innocent Iranian girls and their families lose. Famine and shortages loom. If the Iranian conflict intensifies, we could be looking at times worse than the depression globally. Mass starvation in some countries is a possibility. Shortages and scarcity of resources globally. Humanity loses if this conflict gets out of control. I hope calmer heads prevail, and Israel doesn't get the greater war it's pushing for.
"I hope" Israel will be wiped off the map forever
" 'I hope' Israel will be wiped off the map forever" ~ Alec
----
"Like with a cloth or something?" ~ Hillary Clinton
____
Like the USA military bases in the region, Israel is a kind of American military base when you think about it.
The people in ISA are not paying a price.
?? They are paying for this war, right? It's not cheap, but the money has to come from somewhere...
"I hope calmer heads prevail"
So do I, but they have almost never prevailed before. The only example I can think of is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when both the USA and the Soviet Union backed off.
Well Dennis, where Einstein failed to prove a Unified Theory you have certainly made inroads. Or perhaps human nature doesn't allow disparate interests and old enemies to co-operate on a global level. I prefer the Chaos Theory where competing interest attempt to get as much of the shrinking pie as possible. Exhibit 1: US of A.
Old enemies can be staged a la WWF, a mere power struggle within the club. Yet all hands act in unison towards mass control and power retention coming your way. There are no free tickets, although money buys you time.
The logical flaw in the "no difference between left and right" idiots is that they don't have any clear definition of either side. They think what the media calls "right" actually represents some kind of right ideology, when in fact it's just a modification of standard leftist values, i.e. both sides are actually of the left.
The masses of morons have been conditioned by leftist media and education to think there is actually an organized political party that represents right ideology. But since the masses of morons don't have a good grounding in ideologies to begin with, they don't know what actual right values consist of, and so don't understand that there is no political group in any western country, least of all the US, which represents actual right values.
Of course the idiots who espouse this "no difference between left and right" nonsense feel so proud of themselves. They think they're intellectually superior, having the ability to rise above the fray, to see things clearly as they take some kind of "third way". But in fact, they're just leftist dupes who have been force-fed by the left their definitions of ideologies their entire lives.
Bottom line: all political parties in western countries are variations of leftist ideology, and the left is firmly in bed with the globalists.
Boom! Nailed!
In the UK, everyone who terms people far right, in the same sentence, would call them Nazi's. However, Nazi's are actually left wing, coming from the word Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialists. Little do they know that they are contradicting themselves.
Yes, even Hitler was more left wing in his ideologies than he was right wing.
Grant. Look mate. The Left thinks the basis of politics is the struggle between Classes. The Right thinks it is competition between Nations or Races.
That is an absolutely foundational difference.
If the Nazis were left wing why did they ban the Trades Unions? Why did social inequality increase? Why were Socialists and Communists the first people put in Concentration Camps?
here comes the jew John Osman with his lies to attack NS - social inequality decreased. Uncle A gave speeches about it.
compare to the JewSA where handfuls of billionaire Jews run the government. Why is JEW Kushner and JEW whitkoff the negotiators in a 340 million person country?
why do "Billionaires" even exist ?
Only 40% of billionaires in the US are Jews.
MIT says inequality rose, but I expect that'll be the Jews, won't it?
You're absurd.
Jew is 2% of USA yet 40% of billionaires. Thanks for proving my point.
Jebus D-that's so anti-semantic of you. If the juice really ran things here, wouldn't they have a couple of tiny hat, NY- RE bros negotiating on behalf of Israel...I mean the United Snakes?
You forgot the /sarc......LOL
"And why are you an ideologized mental retard?"
Pitiful comment. Name calling because you can't answer the questions?
"Pitiful? Maybe, but describing reality. As for the question about the Nazis, the left, etc., I posted 2 comments that are not answers but historical facts, not revisited."
Humans in their entire history, have aligned into groups or tribes if you wish, and would attack any other group/tribe that wasn't their group/tribe. The group could be aligned along the lines of blood, colour, football, religion, or political/social views.
Just because what Nazi's did to other left wing constructs, automatically make them right wing.
I was nearly with you, until your closing sentence. No. The Nazis were fascists, pretending to compete on similar matters with the socialists/Communists of the time - to whom they nearly lost against, until resorting to sheer murderous violence against them. Don't get confused with the words of their acronym, that was just the usual political lies - just look at the current 'Christian Democrats' - they are neither of those things...
citation needed... can you even define the difference between NS and fascist "rodin" ?
read uncle A's book the SA started as response to the jew controlled mobs of socialists/communists who would break up other political parties via violence...
Well, citation needed from you first, so I can understand what you understand by your claim the Nazis were 'leftwing'. It's true, there was violence by both sides, but I rather think historical facts speak for themselves - the left was crushed. Or do you dispute that? I guess you do. You seem to be saying the left was crushed by...the left? At least that is how you're comment reads. The Nazis were, in the end (in my belief and reasoning) were much like Ukraine is being used right now, except with it's own nuances of course. The Nazis were funded in part by Americans and British, neither of whom are of the 'Left'. The target was Russia. It nearly worked. Any attempt to contrive that the Nazis were leftwing is getting lost in their acronym, which as I already mentioned, was one of those deliberate misnomers, not unlike Trump's 'Board of Peace' 😅
stop thinking left vs right - it is jew vs gentile
also no, the NS and Uncle A were not "used" but were a home grown reaction to Weimar which was essentially a jew problem. this "funded by others" is an old trope and not correct in any way.
Hitler Democrat - https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Democrat-Gen-Leon-Degrelle/dp/1937787117
Funny how IG Faben could be running 70% of the German economy by 1939 and some people today refer to that as left wing. The world has truly gone mad.
yes -and many "left wing" ideas such as free healthcare and free education are great and actually work well in a single nation of white people only .e.g., blood and soil - hence national socialism is the answer and the only thing the jew fears....
Here is an intelligent post. The right or conservatives referred to the royalists, therefore every republican is, needless to say, left-wing — which only reflected a position in the chamber. But the bourgeoisie, the notables, claimed to be doing social work towards the populations in order to position themselves as leaders and seize the powers and goods of the former monarchical regime. There is neither right nor left, just notables. As for Hitler, he was an executive in the office of the second socialist party, and his references were Robespierre and the Revolution — that is, the Reign of Terror — just like Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin.
Haha, you don't know very much, do you? I bet you even could not come up with a coherent definition of what 'left' in a political sense actually means, if your daily dosis of deep state brainwashing would depend on it.
🤪 you have to American?
Forgive me, but the 'Left' referred to by the Americans is just hilarious. But not quite as hilarious that you think the whole of American politics is 'Left'. I nearly spat out my coffee 🤣
I'm going have a chuckle on that one all day 😂
I use the term ... "no difference between left and right" all the time. And I always include with that term the explanation that there is no "right" today. Doesn't exist. Who represents fiscal restraint? Limited government? No foreign intervention? Individual liberty and freedom? Including absolute freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? Such a party doesn't exist and that is the reason that there is no difference between the left, and the party that the MSM calls the "far right", who are in fact RINO's (republican in name only). Your comment is precisely why the term RINO was invented... Chip
Tens of millions do, the people that actually make up what would be called "Conservatives". Oh, you are saying that cannot be because a few dozen so called leaders are not those things? What an incredible dumb way to look at it.
Few dozen? WTF world are you living in? Are you even 18 yet? You very obviously do not have the experience that i have, having served at the very highest levels of the army and federal government. Don't pretend to judge me or tell me what I know. It is very obvious that you are ignorant and don't know jack shit... Chip
True. The opposite of a collective is individualism. So there is no right wing in American politics for sure. Just left and insane left.
What Americans call "left" or "right" is mostly an artifact of contemporary US politics and has little to do with any form of ideological consistency.
Actually, the problem isn't limited to Americans, just that the United States is culturally dominant.
Rather, power itself is little interested in ideology, except to the extent it can be weaponized.
~ Rotting Shreds ~
____
Language is dynamic. It changes-- too often, perhaps, for the worse.
Some supposed anarchists are now calling themselves 'post left', as though they got swept completely off the edge of the extreme left side of the table or planet and onto the floor or into the ether or mouths of the sea serpents of a flat Earth, respectively.
Of course, as an anarchist myself, I like to suggest that once you call anarchy, chaos, you help disempower those true anarchists who want to get out and away from the State prison/Plato's Cave/Truman Show/Matrix. It's a language-as-control thing. Like turning a word into its complete opposite. Like what Orwell seemed to understand-- war is peace and all that.
So language can a weapon of the Statists or whoever, whether left, right or on the z axis or wherever.
Are you a Statist? Well the State won't work for too long and never has. The State is just another thing, another word, for control-- but/if by decline and/or collapse, since the only real governing laws are the laws of physics, as opposed to 'the rules' by a bunch of self-selects. Again, that's why it won't, and can never, work.
____
"Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., 'downsizing' for layoffs and 'servicing the target' for bombing), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth." ~ Wikipedia
____
"Animals don't do what humans do via speech, namely, make a symbol stand in for the thing. As Tim Ingold puts it, 'they do not impose a conceptual grid on the flow of experience and hence do not encode that experience in symbolic forms.' " ~ John Zerzan
----
"...The map is a simulacrum that, as a model, loses all reference to reality... reality exists only as rotting shreds that are attached to the map, and this is the state of our age according to Baudrillard; that the model, itself, has primacy for us; the real has become irrelevant..." ~ Frances Flannery-Dailey
Nice insights, Strange.
Triple like.
Thanks. I honor and am honored by who I learn from and occasionally quote when it's not through my own insights.
Calling people morons then claiming Hitler was leftwing shows a great lack of self awareness 😆
That is the absolute stupidest comment thats ever been posted on this site. You make even the great moron seem intelligent.
"Of course the idiots who espouse this "no difference between left and right" nonsense feel so proud of themselves"
"Bottom line: all political parties in western countries are variations of leftist ideology,"
Your words show us that it is you that's a fucking moron.
This quote immediately came to mind..
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
~ Frank Zappa
~ Too Far Gone Inured? ~
The anarchists and Plato already saw the illusion(s) through the curtains, scenery, tables and chairs and even theatre ushers and the outside of the building, itself.
But one problem is being surrounded by those who accept the illusions of the programs**. We are a social species, after all.
Was Zappa an anarchist? Was Jesus? Are you? Why not? Too far gone?
____
**Morpheus: "...when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
~ The Matrix
stop distracting with nonsense and name the jew problem...
Nicely said, Denis. Put a bow on it.
On the brighter side though we still have rainbow flags, GLP-1 dietary regimes
and chicks with dicks. So it's not ALL bad. USA! USA! USA! Bigly...
Thanks, Occam.
Some of us are still fortunate to experience the good things in life.
Let's hope the best for all the good people and animals.
Best wishes.
"when, in fact, they're all the same."
If you think China or Russia are in some way co-operating with the USA in some sort of super-conspiracy to delete the working classes, then I have to conclude that you are not only delusional, but frankly insane. There are some things that are unlikely but must be so to respect reality, and there are some things which involve one of the parties to have to be more stupid than is humanly credible. Your idea falls into the latter category.
Take your meds, Jams.
Things will look better in the morning.
You say you wasted 60 years, don't waste what remains, huh?
Well, I have to admire the deep philosophical underpinnings of your comprehensive and superbly intelligent reply, with no recourse to cheap personal jibes, or irrelevant references. Truly, you are an example to us all, with this deeply thought out and comprehensive refutal of any conflicting views.
I can just imagine the two of us in some hypothetical boggy war-trench somewhere, chatting up a storm, with bullets whizzing past and explosions in the too-near distance:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-carrier-groups-in-position-for/comment/250698838
stop spreading bs conspiracy theories ty
You welcome, botman.
I am annoyed at the limited asbm range - it is like no one knew what they were doing when developing them.
It also seems certain that America used weather manipulation to try and destroy Iran, but you can't get anyone to admit it.
The most important thing about the blockade, by the way, is that it is now Trump who is responsible for the fertilizer and oil shortages, and no longer Iran.
My only issue now is I done understand how anyone in the IRGC can be allowing the force accumulation by America - because only the Islamic nations right now seem capable of adhering to ceasefires - unless they have some secret weapons we just don't know about.
Given that western msm is only now admitting how much more damage Iran inflicted on the US, I can safely bet that Iran/Russia/China had taken note and planned for further escalation by the US and the disproportionate response to come. Key reason why so many top US military brass have been 'resigning' as they do know the score.. but trump is now in full blown delusional phase so we are where we are
Must be some serious damage since marines are deployed to steal food, basic carbs staple.
"My only issue now is I done understand how anyone in the IRGC can be allowing the force accumulation by America".
What options do they have against a country that plans to spend more on war this year than the rest of the world combined? They play the asymmetric game of increasing the cost to the US. Blockade of Straits, destroying soft targets and using 30k drones and 100k.missiles requiring millions of dollars to repel.
Launching ballistic missiles at the airbases in Israel, the UAE, Qatar, and Djibouti. Why let America who is obviously going to violate the ceasefire, do it so easily?
Because Iran is playing a defensive, asymmetric game as do all of Empire's enemies. Only a fool fights a battle they can't win. The best way to win a war is to never fight one. Sun Tzu.
This comment to makes no sense. They already are capable of striking these targets, as they have in the past. Ballistic strikes and drones are literally the tactics they have already employed. What you are saying is just quite simply absurd.
It's nothing to do with kinetic capabilities. It's to do with strategic intent. Iran's aims are to get sanctions dropped and ensure they aren't attacked again. A surprise attack would set both these aims back substantially.
Except that is ignoring the reality that America and Israel cannot be trusted in negotiations, have already reneged on agreed upon terms, and are accumulating these reserves because they plan on attacking them again. What you are saying is only workable in an ideal vacuum.
Strategic intent is pretty boring stuff. Surprise attacks get all the Hollywood bandwidth. But stories aren't remembered when you're the loser, no matter how exciting they are on the big screen.
They have launched ballistic missiles at USA/Israel airbases, quite a few. If they could take out these airforces on the ground they would.
They weren't able to do so during active hostilities because nearly everything remained in the air where they could not be targeted. The only exceptions were the curious lack of attacks on Ben Gurion and perhaps a couple of other bases, but I could accept that some sort of back-channel negotiations kept Iran from striking them in return for perhaps not completely demolishing Iran's own airports: who knows. The bases they did hit which had air assets on the ground is proof of their capabilities when the airframes are vulnerable, but that has little to do with the current situation where an enormous amount of men and material are accumulating to damage Yemen and Iran and it is just all being allowed to sit there.
Perhaps the Iranians are stalling for time, knowing the fruitlessness of the negotiations and are therefore allowing the maximum accumulation, so they can do maximum damage, but the IRGC is hard to read as to why they will hit this, but won't hit that. Perhaps that might even work to their advantage.
They attacked Ben Guruon multiple times. It's heavily defended, Israel keeps its air force aloft, in hardened shelters or land them in Cyprus. Iran would love to take out Israeli jets on the ground. Israel knows thus and prevents this. Iran simply does not have the capability.
The attacked Ben Gurion a few times, but either missed, got intercepted, used a decoy, or cluster munitions did not land on any targets. I also mentioned that the jets are always in the air - did you read this before speaking? They do in fact have the capability, so I can't fathom you are aware of what you are saying.
In the next phase of the war iran should focus on its naval operations by harassing and targeting support ships of the us navy. If possible land a hit or two in the destroyers if an opportunity provides its self. I know iran has sea skimming missiles and torpedoes. Correct me if I am wrong but in the first phase iran launched regular anti shipping missile at the Lincoln
Yes, the carries groups just retreated further south.
The USN is kind of short on fleet oilers these days... Back in 2020, they started to build 20 new fleet oilers, only 4 are done last I checked, of which 1 is in service.
https://www.heritage.org/tidalwave/appendices/appendix-i-us-underway-replenishment-ship-capabilities-and-constraints
Without their (conventionally fueled) AA screen & ASW escort destroyers, those nuclear carriers won't be hanging around anywhere near the Persian Gulf.
I suspect that sinking a few non glamorous replenishment tankers & cargo ships would put those carrier groups out of action more easily and without offering Trump/Netanyahu the PR windfall of a sunk super carrier or even a destroyer- Which "insult" to the USN Trump regime would certainly try to spin into needing to nuke Tehran or such.
Once again, while amateurs focus on video of patriotism stirring eye candy the professionals are worrying about failed logistics- And apparently are getting fired for being realists.
PFC is the very definition of amateur, you're not even fit to shine my shoes much less to discuss logistics.
You don't wear shoes, no need to shine them.
The current messaging seems to have pivoted to "the US doesn't need the gulf oil to sustain the petrodollar, we can just use Venezuelan oil to maintain global supply of oil (and US debt)"
At the same time, Venezuelan oil infrastructure seems to be in terrible shape, and the time, $$$ and troops needed to consistently expropriate and extort the Venezuelans in the long run seems... substantial.
At the same time, as long as that fantasy option exists, Trump is going to go into this game of global economic chicken pretty confidently.
Venezuela will take back its oil infrastructure once the US has repaired it and got it running smoothly. You don't need a crystal ball to know that. The US did not defeat Venezuela. Venezuela made a strategic move sideways.
Last thing I heard the major US oil companies refused to make investments mainly for the reason you are metioning there.
Julius was indeed not very happy about it. OTOH his administration has number of options and I suspect the US industry can be bribed into investing. As with everything else in this best of words the "news" are even less worthy than they ever were.
Perhaps this war on Iran is a quid pro quo for big oil? I'll jump the price and you get to work in Venezuela .
Same as it ever was-
“Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.”
- Dick Cheney
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1131222/Dick-Cheney-Let-us-rid-ourselves-of-the-fiction-that-low-oil-prices-are-somehow-good-for
Nothing says profit like a bit of scarcity. Especially over a large cigar and double malt whisky.
The Machado elite sabotaged the oil industry one day after Chavez was first elected.
This never happened.
That is sort of why US companies aren't rushing into Venezuela.
They aren't going to pump in hundreds of millions just to spend years fighting guerillas and hoping FPV drones don't knock out their expensive equipment.
It's hostile territory and the oil execs know it, the US government still likes to think they can just walk in and squeeze the Venezuelans of every drop.
Trump cannot end this war. His boss (the real POTUS of USIsrael) has escalation dominance and veto power over any attempt to end the war.
Actually, only Iran can end the war, as they have so many times stated. It is natural, given history, to believe all the power lies with Western forces, but we are now past that - Iran has the cards.
No. Unless Israel is relieved of ALL of their many nuclear weapons and the Greater Israel agenda is renounced, the war will not be over. It is a sad modern malady to confuse ceasefires with the end of wars. Iran can make a Minsk agreement, and it might hold for a little while, but that will not be peace.
There is the hot side of war and there is the political side. Iran is playing the political side right now - appearing to offer a peaceful settlement. What they know and consider reality is that israel will never accept the presence of an armed Iran on the planet, and that the only solution to that is to destroy the zionist regime. Both countries, israel and Iran, consider this war existential and neither can be expected to give in - it is a fight to the death.
Cheryl, with respect, in addition to the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal, I would also add any stockpiles they hold of Bio/Chemical weapons. I know some people are very focused on the former, whilst the latter rarely gets a mention, but that's not to say they don't exist.
The Israelis have ALWAYS planned on having a strong biological warfare capability, they are known to have USED biological warfare offensively since their very first days, way back in 1948 when Israeli agents were caught contaminating wells in Arab held territories with cultured disease organisms.
exactly. the jew is the problem. always has been....
What cards - name at least two. And how will Iran end the war?
The war has been going for 47 years and probably won't end for a long time (Korea is still going, and Palestine). That doesn't mean Iran has no cards. The list is long. SoH, BaM, Hezbollah, PMUs, nuclear breakout, hardened defences, hypersonic missiles, cheap loitering munitions able to take out an F35, mass produced drones, powerful allies, cohesive population, revolutionary spirit, secure logistics to Russia and China, diplomatic cover in the UNSC. How do you see the US ending the war?
The war has been going on for 73 years my friend. You make the same mistake the Amerikan administration makes. History of Iran/US/UK conflict started in 1953... Chip
Perhaps, though more an Anglo war in '53.
The 3-point plan toward peace, with attacks upon Lebanon by Israel stopped and the US naval blockade removed, the Strait then opened by Iran, and then all hostilities halted (nuclear talks later--a new JCPOA) will not be accepted by Israel. You are right, Cheryl. Israel will not allow the US to make peace with Iran, or any of Iran's proxies. Israel will attack until its own annihilation. Israel attacking means the US will be attacking.
The US and Israel will not be victors. Iran will survive, and be victorious in keeping its sovereignty.
All of this horror caused by one tiny Zionist colony and its big, dopey proxy.
Exactly! The last time Iran (then Persia) was the aggressor was in a border war with the Russian Empire which ended on 2 February 1828. Yes, for the last 198 years, Persia/Iran has minded its own business. Now look at the USA or Israel in the last 80 years.
sure sure, hezbollah was building rockets in the basement.
and the jew controlled USA was bombing the world.....
Don't tell Brian Berletic. He gets quite offended.
People quite often have no understanding of the point Berletic is making. MacGregor for instance in the last couple of days. Berletic never said that the neocons don't have tremendous influence on American politics. But the neocons have been forming US policy since GHWB. They have a "hobby" called Israel. But Israel is a tool that serves their ends.
This misunderstanding comes from the generally accepted description of the US taking actions, or "we" did this as if "we" are all united in one single hive mind. It does not take into account the dozens of factions that make up the US tripartite state that all have their own objectives which are often at cross purposes. Israel is the tail but maybe it isn't a dog that's wagging it.
Berletic explains, again, how Israel was created by a British project to set up a way of controlling the Middle East. The USA took it over. The “people” or faction of the British/American tripartite state consists of a lot of Jewish Supremacists, especially those who were associated with Meyer Lansky’s “Murder Incorporated”.
The US blew up the Nordstream Pipeline to force Europe to buy US gas. Without destroying the pipeline, it would not have been economically feasible to sell US gas to Europe.
The US is blowing up the Persian Gulf because there is a huge gas field in Alaska that is being developed. If Gas was still available from the Persian Gulf they would not be developing this gas field.
The US empire is collapsing and trying to keep China from rising.
Israel is full of crazy people. The American Oligarchy may not appreciate some of what they do, like the genocide, but they need Israel to be able to attack Iran.
Everyone quotes Marine General Smedley Butler but somehow think Israel is different.
I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
A Danny Haiphong episode. I can’t post an attachment.
Brian Berletic: What Iran just did SHOCKS Trump, US Empire Collapsing into WW3 on China
jew on Kuai strikes again and now refers to jew paid shill Belretic.
The illegal jew state was formed by terroism against the Brits... King david hotel anyone. - read the Buddha wagon, the jew state is a terrorist state created by and for terrorists...
Israel is full of jews whos stupid books and beliefs are based on their chosen by god and all others are goyim to be exploited and to serve them. the jew is the problem...
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1131222/Dick-Cheney-Let-us-rid-ourselves-of-the-fiction-that-low-oil-prices-are-somehow-good-for
"The US blew up the Nordstream Pipeline to force Europe to buy US gas. Without destroying the pipeline, it would not have been economically feasible to sell US gas to Europe."
It is STILL both economically and logistically impossible for the US to supply Europe with US gas. The costs are staggering. They are building an LNG plant here in South Texas for over two years now and it is still not scheduled to come on line for two to three more. Then there are the additional ships that need to be built and the gassification plants in Europe. LNG is an expensive and logistically complicated way to provide energy... Chip
‘The US is blowing up the Persian Gulf because there is a huge gas field in Alaska that is being developed.’
Are you talking about the oil/gas fields that were found 15-20 years ago at the northern edge of Alaska and plugged closed or do you know about more?
‘The US empire is collapsing and trying to keep China from rising.’
It seems Trump will never ever get to this problem. The issue was aggravated with the Ukraine war. Russia will refuse to backstab Chine for the rest of this century.
‘Israel is full of crazy people. The American Oligarchy may not appreciate some of what they do, like the genocide, but they need Israel to be able to attack Iran.’
There was ZERO genocide without free US arm deliveries to the mini-state. The insanity there combined with US arms did the trick. America could live happily with a free, developed Iran. Zionist influence in the US combined with Israel is the problem. https://asiatimes.com/2026/04/the-gift-card-israel-uses-to-buy-us-weapons/
~ Vassal Vessels ~
AFAIU, Israel is a backdoor to the Middle East's resources, most specifically, oil and gas, but also, 'energy corridors', like BRICS' Belt and Road Intiative.
There are a fair bit of reservoirs, for example, off the coast of Gaza and Israel and of course in Iran, not to mention many other places therein of course-- many, so-called American vassals.
A vassal with a vessel of oil. ^u^
America is running out of the proverbial low-hanging fruit of oil, even the middle-hanging fruit, given its rapidly-depleting fracking fields for one. It's no accident that the US has targeted Russia, Venezuela, Iran and even Canada, given their top oil statuses.
Greenland? I don't yet know as much about its resources, although it seems at least strategic for the Arctic Ocean and its routes and potential resources, such as off its coast.
Given Jeffrey Brown's Land Export Model, it's in America's best interests to either get the oil for itself or, if not, damage it for others until it can, like with the Nord Stream pipeline.
To quote Mehdi Hasan; "It’s All About the Oil, Stupid!".
I'm in Canada, and if Iran and Russia 'go south' for America, I wouldn't put it past it to consider leaning on Canada, which may have benefitted and/or will benefit from the semi-closure of Hormuz.
"This misunderstanding comes from the generally accepted description of the US taking actions, or 'we' did this as if 'we' are all united in one single hive mind." ~ JohnOnKaui
____
"The state has moved into many new areas as they become significant, such as... promoting nuclear power. This expanding role of the state helps prevent the rise of any significant competing forms of social organisation...
The obvious point is that most social activists look constantly to the state for solutions to social problems. This point bears labouring, because the orientation of most social action groups tends to reinforce state power. This applies to most antiwar action too. Many of the goals and methods of peace movements have been oriented around action by the state, such as appealing to state elites and advocating neutralism and unilateralism. Indeed, peace movements spend a lot of effort debating which demand to make on the state: nuclear freeze, unilateral or multilateral disarmament, nuclear-free zones, or removal of military bases. By appealing to the state, activists indirectly strengthen the roots of many social problems, the problem of war in particular...
Many people's thinking is permeated by state perspectives. One manifestation of this is the unstated identification of states or governments with the people in a country which is embodied in the words 'we' or 'us.' 'We must negotiate sound disarmament treaties.' 'We must renounce first use of nuclear weapons.' Those who make such statements implicitly identify with the state or government in question. It is important to avoid this identification, and to carefully distinguish states from people..."
~ Brian Martin, 'Uprooting War'
berletic is a jew paid stooge...
We're all Jews to you, aren't we?
nope - just the enemy... what are you defending Belretic that jew paid sex tourist and race mixer?
Agreed. Remember when Trump "sternly" told Netanyahu a while back to adhere to the ceasefire with Lebanon on else? This doesn't stop till Zionism is destroyed.
Das Öl von Venezuela ist viel aufwendiger zu raffinieren
Oel ist nicht gleich Öl
Die USA müssten erst Raffinerien bauen
Kostet viel Zeit/ Geld
Das ist der Grund warum die USA Öl Konzerne nicht begeistert sind.
Zu schwierig zu fördern
Und ----- ???
Viel zu viel Schwefel
USN is fortunate Iranians honor their word unlike their USN adversary.
America would have been better off if the Epstein class leaders had understood that Iran was 100% telling the truth about their capabilities and intentions. Included in that was the antebellum truth that Iran did not want nuclear weapons for religious reasons. (Whether the latter is still true is uncertain).
In any case, the Epstein class does not even understand the concept of telling the truth. Regarding the entity they follow "Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
Trying to imagine any of those vacuous fuckwits with even an ounce of self-awareness, but just can't do it.
Yes, it is all projection; they, name your enemy, must be lying because that is what I do in their situation.
Honor is for fools.
For worms, yes. For men, no.
Gonna bury a lot of Sanchez here soon. Most here are very short and fat. Will be very easy.
Grab a loaded 45; shove into your mouth; pull trigger.
I have to agree with Gerald Celente, "When all else fails, they take you to war." There are few, if any, western regimes which can claim legitimacy to their people. All economic indicators are pointing the wrong way, not just fake GDP, but GINI coefficient, social cohesion, trust, educational standards, happiness, and much more. So the failing regimes go to war.
In a recent chat with Stanislav Krapivnik, Gerald expressed the opinion that the overmatched west would resort to nukes vs Iran. Gerald also thought that Israel would pull the trigger, not the confused and delusional DJT. It could begin that way, but that won't be the end, not by a long shot.
I do not think they will resort to nukes. I strongly suspect that behind the scenes, both Russia and China are whispering in the ears of both Trump and Bibi, "Don't you dare! We will respond."
Bibi isn't young, well, or morally sane. The ceasefire put him back in court. Peace could put Bibi in prison. From Bibi's POV, being vaporised by a counterstrike could count as a win.
Empire knows using nukes in Iran would lead to a complete blockage of the Straits and the destruction of as much regional infrastructure as possible by the Iranians. Then there is the political aftermath. The slide towards China would turn into an avalanche. We have Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt all major regional powers coordinating that would probably move towards China.
These are not rational actors concerned with cause and effect, except when such things concern their own sad asses. Peace would indeed be a painful end of the road for both Bibi and Trump, and they will entertain any action if it might save their own skins, or at least drag everyone else down with them: they're textbook examples of family annihilators.
not Egypt. Sisi, in place since 2014 (after successfull regime change in 2011) is very much beholden to the US and, paradoxically, Israel.
Wasn't there a Russian defence agreement with the Egyptians recently?
Sorry, nuclear deal.
"Empire knows using nukes in Iran would lead to a complete blockage of the Straits and the destruction of as much regional infrastructure as possible by the Iranians."
So? The elites will still eat steak and fly int heir private jets. As for the peons who will suffer? They could not care less.
True. It's certainly a very unstable situation.
Bibi; the most revered martyr pbuh doesn't bear thinking about !
Yep. Netanyahu is calling the shots
One can but hope.
If either Israel or the US use nukes on Iran, neither Russia nor China will use nukes on either Israel or the US in retaliation. Iran is on their own, and that's by Iran's choice, not by Russia's or China's.
It's been nearly 30 years since Iran had built sufficient infrastructure to develop and deploy a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter either Israel or the US. If they haven't done that by now it's nobody's fault but Iran's. When it comes to nuclear deterrence, it's a rough world out there and the general rule is that every country is on their own.
There are probably only two exceptions to that: Belarus and Israel. Russia would indeed use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Belarus. The US would indeed use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Israel.
But anybody who thinks the US would use nuclear weapons to retaliate on a nuclear attack on, say, Belgium, better look at who did the attack. If Iran struck Belgium with nukes, sure, the US would nuke Iran. But if Russia struck Belgium with nukes, nobody believes the US would enter into a city-killing exchange with Russia. The US won't offer up New York to be vaporized just because Russia struck some NATO bases, or even cities, in Belgium.
De Gaulle understood that better than most. That's why France has its own nuclear arsenal. Same with the Brits. They've always known that without their own arsenal the Americans could easily find reasons not to have US cities killed just because some British cities were killed.
Absolutely correct, there is not even a real article 5 ... NATO is more of a financial racketeering scheme.
One question though about the Brits. Are you sure they have their “own" nukes?
The subs are leased and the missiles are American. I am not exactly persuaded that they have control over their nukes like France.
If I am right, US can always use those stupids to retaliate and blame it on them. Of course with Russia that will not work but it might work in other scenarios with lesser countries.
That doesn’t change what you are saying but it introduces a possible (minor) scenario twist....
"One question though about the Brits. Are you sure they have their “own" nukes?"
That's a very astute point. The Brits have become so poor they can no longer build or maintain a truly independent nuclear arsenal. To save money, they put all their money into a single delivery system basket, Trident missiles firing from subs. The only nuclear warheads the Brits now produce and have in inventory are warheads for Tridents that fire from ballistic missile subs. No subs, no British nuclear force. No Tridents, no British nuclear force, either.
I don't know about the Brits "leasing" their subs. I haven't looked into that. But I do know the Trident missiles in British subs are American missiles. The US and UK have a deal where the US produces Trident missiles and keeps them in inventory. Both the Brits and the US take missiles from that same inventory, with the missiles shipped off to one or the other supposedly chosen at random from the inventory so there's no possibility of either side in the "special relationship" feeling they might be stuck with what the US thinks is older or less reliable units.
But the Brits do produce the warheads for those missiles. They don't have the financial resources of the US so producing and maintaining warheads is very expensive for them. As a cost-saving measure they don't usually fill all launch tubes in their subs with missiles, and they don't equip their missiles with as many warheads as they can carry. I don't recall the exact number but I think they only load 12 tubes with 4 warheads per missile, and those four aren't huge ones but the smaller, 100 - 150 kiloton ones where easily six or eight could be carried per missile at the ranges the UK wants to hit.
The Brits can also keep only one sub on patrol. So basically, that means out of their inventory of 100 - 200 warheads they can keep 48 on patrol, with occasionally more when a second sub sorties to replace the one on patrol and thus there's a short period of overlap.
There are people who say that if push came to shove and the US remotely disabled the UK's Trident missiles (that's not supposed to be possible but hey, nobody in their right minds thinks the US failed to put a kill switch in there somewhere...), the Brits could take their stock of warheads and quickly reconfigure the physics packages for delivery as air dropped bombs or for possible launch on intermediate range ballistic missiles or cruise missiles.
That's nonsense, and making such claims shows a profound lack of knowledge about how modern weapons are built. The firing systems for compact, lightweight, thermonuclear warheads in the 100 to 150 kiloton range are extremely complex and they have a daunting array of very complex safety systems. Those are there not so much because of the classic Hollywood "oh gosh, a terrorist might steal a warhead" thing but because military people who spend 50 years around a nuclear warhead don't want the thing going off by accident, and they want to be absolutely sure it goes off only when it is on target after flying the right trajectory.
They know from long and bitter experience that all sorts of shit happens over the decades, with equipment breaking, failing and misbehaving in all sorts of totally unexpected ways. So they load up the firing circuits with all sorts of interlocks and failsafe enabling mechanisms. For example, the warhead isn't going to arm unless it senses the correct sequence of g-force from the impulse pushing it out of the tube, the right range of g-force for the boost phase, weightlessness for the right range of time given the necessary trajectory, the right deceleration when it reenters the atmosphere, verification it hasn't yawed off course, and then all sorts of barometric and radar ranging verification it's arrived at the right altitude to detonate.
You can't just wave your hands and fake all that with an air-dropped bomb, which has none of those characteristics. You need to develop a firing circuit that has analogous complexities for air-dropped bombs with all the sensors for various delivery modes (tossing, laydown, straight drop, etc.) and that typically takes years of development and testing to mate a particular physics package to a given bomb geometry and to a specific aircraft type. The UK could, of course, have a "suicide" firing set for the physics package that didn't have all that but just assumed somebody would press a button and the tritium bottles, detonators and neutron generators would fire in the right sequence. But that would be insanely dangerous and not the sort of thing that sensible military people want to have lying around, because having it would mean each of those 100 warheads in inventory could detonate within the UK.
That's the long way around of saying you're right, the US could probably cut the nuclear nuts off the UK at any time the US wanted.
Hi John,
first of all I appreciate the long and detailed reply. I have seen you previously trying to educate some stubbornly unreceptive commentators and I admire your patience. I wish I had half of it :)
I have a couple of comments to make about potential kill switches for the two lesses nuclear powers, Brits and Frogs.
1. Physical Kill Switches. I do not know how far back you go but during the Falkland wars Argentine was destroying the British Navy using those Exocets. In the MSM media of that time (MSM can always be full of shit but that was a different era) there was a lot of hullaballoo about the Brits demanding that the Frogs disable them before they lose their entire fleet LOL I present this with a grain of salt. However Argentine was able to use or attempt to use just 6 or less? It seems to me unlikely that they had such a low inventory. Plenty of speculation here but it worths mention nonetheless.
2. Let’s talk about the Human Kill Switches. The american secret services are so entrenched in the armies and the corresponding services of all the NATO and Eurocucks that it is reasonable to consider this entrechment as a human kill switch. Whether a Frog is about to launch or not launching when pressured to do so, he will get a text in a New York minute about what will happen to his family and kids. Or that gay porn film he did when he was young and drunk LOL
The Americans have such penetration inside the chain of command of both Brits and Frogs that I would personally consider very unlikely that either makes an independent decision regarding not just nukes but everything else. I will give you that France has a little bit more independence but nowhere near full sovereignty.
Bottom line, my 2 cents: There were, are and will be only two real Nuclear Super Powers. Despite the western propaganda about Russians being “lesser” the truth is that Russia is just as or even more capable militarily than the USSR. Their practical super power status has never changed, in fact it is stronger now that they don't have to support all those projects/states that were a waste of time and money.
US and Russia are both the only real nuclear superpowers and they are also they only two real conventional war super powers. The both have (one way or another) the energy resources to support military production to crash conventionally any other nation.
Demian
You're right about the West's comments that Russia is the "lesser" nuclear super power being pure propaganda.
In fact, the reality is that Russia has slightly more nuclear warheads than the US, those tend to be higher in power on average, and Russia has far and away better delivery systems for those nukes than the US.
A good example is Russia's Sarmat missile system, a truly astonishing nuclear delivery system that is at least two and maybe three generations (depending on how you count generations) ahead of the US's truly ancient ICBMs.
Russia also has fielded and routinely used in war nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles, and has tested and apparently deployed hypersonic glide re-entry vehicles (RVs) for nuclear warheads. The US still hasn't demonstrated a reliable hypersonic missile system, not even for relatively short ranges.
I'll leave out all the exotic Russian nuclear delivery systems, like Poseidon underwater and Burevesnik, the nuclear powered cruise missile with basically unlimited range. The US has nothing like those, but Russia's inventory of those are probably limited to a a few dozen Poseidons and not so many Burevesniks as of yet.
The US controls all nukes in the UK and the UK must ask the US for permission to use them.
Overall, you are probably correct about the tradeoffs, but I question whether the US would retaliate if israel nuked Iran and subsequently, Russia or China nuked israel.
It can't be overstated - nukes are a deterrent, not offensive weaponry.
"The US controls all nukes in the UK and the UK must ask the US for permission to use them."
That's not true. The UK has true and fully independent control over the nukes they have loaded on their ballistic submarines. There is widespread speculation the US has a kill switch installed on the Trident missiles, but that's a stab in the back thing, not part of any formal or informal understanding.
"It can't be overstated - nukes are a deterrent, not offensive weaponry."
It's surprising you're writing anything about nukes if you know so little about them that you don't know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pretty damn big precedent right there. It's also surprising you didn't notice that the scenario you speculated about has Israel nuking Iran in an offensive, not deterrent use.
As for the UK, you're right - I'm wrong. Serves me right for not fact checking my sources.
As for nukes being 'offensive' in nature, you are, in my opinion, correct in theory, but mistaken in practice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated to the world (as was intended) the immense and cruel power of these weapons and the need to never use them again in the future. Thus, just the threat of having these weapons is in actuality a defence against any power that threatens the existence of a country. Indeed, the threat presented by these weapons is so great that neither the aggressor nor the defender is likely to use them for fear of retaliation - so on a practical basis, these weapons become 'defensive' in nature. It has been demonstrated over and over that the US will openly and freely attack a country without them, but will resort to other asymmetric means if the target country acquires them. And the aggressor country having these weapons is likely to never use them against a country lacking them for fear that such use would almost surely raise the threat of retaliation by the target country's nuclear-armed allies and a subsequent and extremely rapid escalation of a world-ending exchange. Now the possible exception to the general rule is israel and its Samson Option - israel is an irrational player and thus a true threat - but even they will only use this option as a last resort, which even in this case is used as a defensive deterrence against its enemies.
So, in my opinion (and that of many other far more qualified than myself), the possession of nukes is far more 'defensive' in nature than 'offensive' for the very reasons you put forward.
"It's also surprising you didn't notice that the scenario you speculated about has Israel nuking Iran in an offensive, not deterrent use."
The scenario I described is indeed supportive of just the thing I pointed out about a country not using nukes for fear of retaliation from its nuclear-armed allies.
"Now the latest ‘negotiations’ tango has again commenced, with claims that Iran has made some new three-point offer. The offer reportedly allows for an initial stage of agreement on key points—presumably surrounding US’s blockade and sanctions—before Iran would entertain the issue of nuclear enrichment as part of a second stage of talks."
NO! The issue of nuclear enrichment is part of the third and last stage of talks. Please re-check your sources. I made it very clear in my latest article, where I also cover, among other juicy news items, Araghchi's meeting with Putin and Iranian threat of massive retaliation ("1 oil well = 4 oil wells") in case of renewed USraeli attacks on oil & gas infrastructure: https://geopolitiq.substack.com/p/iran-promises-massive-retaliation
Maybe I don't understand, but what happened to the 10-point offer that Iran was never going to back off from? Is Iran getting soft? Will the people of Iran back this after all the talk of "Never give in"? Or is this simply a PR device, knowing that USrael is going to attack anyway?
As far as I understand, Iran has not backed off from the 10-point plan or any of its red lines. It has just introduced staged negotiations, in order to address its own points/requests bit by bit rather than all in one go.
And Israel has continued to attack Lebanon during the ceasefire:
New Evacuations Orders in Southern Lebanon as Israel Escalates ‘Ceasefire’ Strikes https://news.antiwar.com/2026/04/26/new-evacuations-orders-in-southern-lebanon-as-israel-escalates-ceasefire-strikes/
I have read that the US is attacking the Houthis in Yemen with drones.
The US acts like vicious Israel--continuing to bomb Somalia, and stll blowng up small boats off the western coast of South America.
I think the Iranians realised that Trump's attention span wouldn't stretch to 10 points, so they did a bit of editing and condensing.
Time is against the US. Trump has to start active campaigning for November soon. He has to have this war in the rearview mirror, even if that is because he has run away declaring victory. It won't matter how absurd that is provided the hot war is over. Once campaigning starts and the economy is back on track, every one faces forward. People have short attention spans, less so if he engages in a mass loss of life troop operation that publicly, theatrically fails and the dems then keep that on the front pages. Even worse if he then has to flee anyway. He cannot win this war for real in the time scale available- if ever. But he can lose it in various alternative ways, some much worse than others. Iran can outlast him and his entire admin knows it. It is OVER.
Forget about US elections.... If you have been alive the last few decades, you should have realized it's 2 arses if the same uni party butt. Stop wasting energy thinking voting in America changes anything...
True, but I don't think that is what she is saying. The issue is that Trump wants to stay politically alive - and that means he can't allow his party to lose the midterms.
Thanks Victor.
You are most welcome, Julianne.
:-).
Ugh, get a room you two :)
Too late.
Again that is a mindset that thinks having the Dems in charge would have changed anything. Very basic fallacy that Americans keep making. No offense meant.
No offense, but I still don't think you understand what is being said. No one is saying that the Dems in charge would change anything - that is not the point. The point is that if the Repubs lose in Nov, Trump loses all his power (or most of it), and he will likely even face impeachment. And though israel would still be in control, Trump would not - and from Trump's perspective, that is absolutely unacceptable.
He already knows he is losing. He already also (probably) knows that oil prices are about to double. They've been holding that back for a couple months now, but now the poison is in the entire global system, that is about to collapse.
This is a suicide run. He has no time to come back for another bite at the apple. He won't get the chance. I have seriously believed he is cancerous and knows he doesn't have long to live, because there is no success at the end of this shit. There is a zero percent chance of Iran surrendering to him.
was last week's shooting at The Hilton the excuse not to go campaigning too much...?
So to your point (or Julliane's) - why would you think Trump has any real decision making capability at this point, and also being able to reflect or game out decisions and their consequences? We know by now that Witkoff and Kushner have been feeding him a ton of lies, and he goes out in public repeating them with a straight face. Whether he survives impeachment or not is no longer his choice, or decision. He will be considered fully expendable by the Israeli apparatus.
The fact that the Israelis got this ball rolling, despite getting spanked last year and believed that if the US was engaged in fighting on its behalf, that they can win, just shows how deluded and *ahem* stupid the Jews are. Sure, they can talk up a storm... Bibi has been telling us that Iran is 2 weeks away from having a nuclear bomb for like almost 40 years now.. he actually sounds believeable - to gullible folks.
They manipulate Trump, but they don't control him. Even the israelis have limitations when it comes to his mental issues - they must mainly rely on manipulation, not direct control. From Trump's POV, losing the midterms is simply not acceptable and could not possibly be anything but disastrous to his self-perceived legacy. The israeli don't give a damn what he does or says as long as he does no harm to israel's interests.
Oh, there are plenty of reasons the deep state wants this daft gamble closed down now. It is the same rising tide floating all boats. It is just fortunate for it that Trump will for his own reasons, play ball.
More like a falling tide stranding all boats.
@ SG NB typo: if = of
Is Trump really smart enough to not roll the dice again? I'm not at all sure.
He is dim enough to be sold a different glamour scenario that does not involve any more throws of that dice.
Agree.
Not at all. The time is as always on American side. The population of the combined west is ready to sacrifice itself for their capitalist masters. The US can print money.
Nice piece of post-modern irony..... (I hope).
Since the US has repeatedly hinted at using its nuclear weapons, Russia and China should in turn clearly hint that they will respond with force. The unilateral use of nuclear weapons and the mere threat of using them gives the US too strong an advantage in the current conflict, which is already global and between superpowers.
Seems you are not aware that China had already stated that Israel will suffer grave consequences if they use their nuclear weapons. Otherwise bibi would have done so already as the US military got spanked
Russia and China could announce that if the US (or Israel) strikes Iran with even a few tactical nuclear weapons, Russia and China will immediately give Iran, for example, 3-7 times more nuclear weapons. This would reduce the US and Israel's desire to use nuclear weapons.
And if Iran is to be completely destroyed with several dozen nuclear weapons, then this is such a large-scale nuclear attack that it endangers the climate and future of the entire Earth, and therefore Russia and China should announce to the US and Israel that in that case it is a matter of global destruction, which they will oppose with their own nuclear weapons.
Russia and China must re-create a credible MAD threat of mutual destruction in order to avoid nuclear war.
I'll bet Russia and China have made that clear on back channels.
The Pakistanis have openly made such a pledge in the past vis a vis Israel.
The problem is, the Pakistanis scare easy, they get bought off cheap by the US, and they have a track record of talking big and then not following up.
Another problem is that there are a lot of experts who believe that Israel is leveraging its nuclear arsenal by pre-positioning nukes in some of the cities of countries where Israel wants military leverage.
Logically, that would be countries like Pakistan, and maybe Russia too, with a pre-positioned nuke or two in Moscow.
I think no matter what Pakistan said they'd treat an Israeli tactical nuclear strike on Iran as something between Iran and Israel, just like their response to Gaza was to look the other way. Pakistan has a point in not being willing to engage in nuclear war with Israel on behalf of Iran: if Iran didn't develop its own nuclear arsenal when it could have, why should Pakistan do the heavy lifting for it now?
If Iran is so determined that nukes violate core tenets of Islam, why should Pakistan be the sinner on their behalf?
I don’t disagree with any of the above, I was just pointing out the prior statements.
The Iranians should trade their uranium to Russia today, in exchange Kim Jong Un can give them a tactical nuke or two for today and they can keep it secret for when they need to use it. But that would be me thinking, not them.
Wouldn't that be a surprise for the US soldiers coming ashore.
You're right, it would be a surprise. But subsequent US annihilation of Iran, killing 90 million Iranians would not be a surprise. Trump would order that in a heartbeat.
The problem with using nukes against US forces is that you can only do that if you deter a US strategic response that will annihilate your people and your country. That requires more than just a tactical nuke or two.
In particular, it requires around ten nuclear devices that are city killers, in the 100+ kiloton range. The IAEA claimed that the last time they inspected, about a year and a half ago, Iran had 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. At that level of enrichment they could enrich that batch to 93% in about two weeks, ending up with around 300 kilograms 93% enriched uranium.
A country which can build ultra-precise centrifuges, which enriches uranium, which can build a very wide range of ballistic missiles, easily has the technology to use that 300 kg of high enriched uranium to build ten city killers. They wouldn't be big, clumsy weapons, either, but relatively compact.
They also would radiate gamma or other radiation that would make them possible to find with remote scanners. Those weapons would be enough to smuggle five into big, important US cities and, say, three, for Israel, leaving a couple of extra to put one each into London and Paris. Now, *that* is a deterrent.
Assuming Iran hasn't been sitting on its hands for the last year and a half and has enriched some more uranium to 60% beyond the 440 kg reported by the IAEA, they could use a bit of that for tactical weapons.
But I think the Iranians are done with trusting their existence to any other country. I get the feeling (could be wrong about this...) that they've learned the hard way they need to look out for themselves. I doubt they're going to ship out any of their enriched uranium to any third party.
I'll bet they haven't, and even if they did, the West has crossed so many Russian red lines already that they are betting Russia doesn't have the stones.
The US has attacked Iran without a declaration of war and without a necessary reason, and together with Israel, which is accused of brutal genocide.
Therefore, other states should react much more strongly to US threats to destroy civilization.
Recent history suggests they will sit on their derrieres and do nothing.
That would require an assertiveness and decisiveness that the Russian and Chinese leadership has entirely lacked.
Sorry, you might not like it but China and Russia will not retaliate against the United States with nuclear weapons even if the USA hits Iran with nukes, The same way the United States would not retaliate in kind against Russia if they were to nuke Kiev.
I don't think we can assume anything based on what this administration does or does not do.
the crazy speak the lying etc. has reached the point that I no longer pay any attention to them or in fact very many of the other talking heads who offer nothing but boring repetition.
I pay attention to any new facts but other then that I have basically tuned out.
It’s an echo chamber, and the quality of the echos is embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the commentary by all and sundry US ex military and other “experts” on the echos.
Everybody has noticed that Trump waddles rapidly toward every camera some media knuckle dragger might be carrying and as a result gets his face video taped numerous times each day.
Now, does anyone recall after the "near miss" assassination attempt that amazingly only grazed his ear during his 2024 campaign, Trump wore a sympathy bandage the size of a ham sandwich on the victimized ear for a couple weeks post that event? Now, am I the only one that cannot see even the faintest trace of a pink scar mark from the 5.56 round that clipped his ear? One would think that even with the heavy pancake makeup the geriatric old gas bag weighs himself down with each day that there would be at least some sign of the wound. Maybe its my own age related sight failing me but try as I might, I can't see a damned thing.
Makes one think of the old "blood bag" trick those old WEF wrestlers used to employ during their cage matches.
But that's venturing into conspiracy theory territory I guess.........might even make me anti semitic.
Ketchup capsules do not leave scars. And the Secret Service always gives the President a moment to raise his fist when being shot at.
and drop the US flag into photographable position above him.
James Li
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QK89xy_DmU
Good video summary and up to date, just 6 days old. I thought "staged" immediately after seeing the first reports about it that day, because in every report the Iwo Jima style iconic photo was prominently shown.
Yep. Now its clear to me I was fooled then too. They tried to regain popularity. The only real attemp probably was that of the Florida shooter.
And now what about the guy running in the hall near the banquet room with three kinds of weapons on him? He was not shot by a single law enforcement or Secret Service person. Yet he lay on his stomach, stripped naked on the carpeted floor (sheet covering his lower body) obviously not injured, as there were no medics nearby. Did they wrestle a guy with a shotgun and handgun to the floor?
I am curious as to why all 3 people designated to lead the country were in the same room Saturday night: president, vice president, speaker of the house (each one takes over if the previous one is killed).
Finally--interesting that VP Vance was whisked out of the room before Trump. Several curious things about this "attempt to assassinate the POTUS".
Pearl Harbor Redux.
Except a pure false flag this time. US or Israel will bomb one of the sitting ducks that are peacefully minding their own business a few 100km from Iran's shores and the Iranians will be blamed. That will be the pretext to launch nukes on Iran. One last hot flash for post-menopausal Miriam Adelson.
He must not exist. Embarrassing we are.
ELI5 why the Gerald Ford is in the red sea?
the Suez is at risk of closure and the gulf of aden likewise imo, from the houthis.
If the houthis have anti ship missile capability, courtesy of Iran, then this could be trouble
I'm not sure the Gerald Ford can exit the Suez Canal. They may actually be stuck in the Red Sea, afraid to run the Houthi gauntlet.
Yes, the Ford can move through the canal:
https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2026-04-20/ford-red-sea-navy-middle-east-21430955.html
Any aircraft carrier sitting in a lock while it's being flooded is a static display - an easy target for a missile with not possibility of maneuvering - for brief period.
Good points Joe &Jeannie, especially as one AC, the Bush iirc, sailed all the way round Africa to reach the Gulf.
The Suez Canal is currently controlled by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA), an entity owned by the government of Egypt. It was shut down 1967-1975 during the Arab-Israeli war. I have not read anything about it shutting down at this time.
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/when-the-worlds-arteries-close-from-suezs-8-year-shutdown-to-the-shadow-blockade-of-hormuz-1.500491097
"why the Gerald Ford "
LBJ famously said of Deep State Gerald Ford, "He can't chew gum and walk across the Senate floor at the same time." Looks like this description works for the boat, named after Ford. Col Macgregor has reported that there are two types of naval vessels: submarines and sitting ducks. It looks like we get to find out.
Wow, Simp, an F-5 eh..? Just like the ones used in the 1987 movie Top Gun, both as the "MiGs" that Tom Cruise flew against at the beginning and end of the show, but also as the "opposition" fighters at the Top Gun school near San Diego. You will believe about anything.
And why can't your IRGC heroes make any anti-ship missiles that can go further than 300 klicks...? Hell, take one of their big ballistics and shoot it "open bore" at the U.S. carrier groups, probably bound to hit something. 300 klicks must be a magic number. Keep drooling for your U.S. body and/or equipment counts and get back to us next week. I'm sure "Jesse" will win this time ;) ...
Using ballistic missiles against moving targets is rather stupid. When the Russians lost their flagship in the Black Sea the attack was conducted with drones and cruise missiles activate steered by the US spy equipment from above.
And old or not - if the US concentrated its AD efforts elsewhere that is possible.
I do not think Simplicius is 100% right but at least he tries to provide the way he arrived at his conclusions.
Hans, I was being a bit facetious about shooting a ballistic "open bore" against a carrier battle fleet but I get your point.
He wrote an entire article about the range limitations and why it is so...but continue kvetching lmfao
Sorry there ole TheSGC, I'm not up on all the cool kid old Jew terms. That's why they came up with words such as "kvetching" to keep goyim like me from knowing what they were saying behind our backs ;)
Freddie, my dear good goyim, don't stress your brain too hard thinking about such things, you'll have an aneurysm
Nah, don't worry about me stressing too hard, I just like to troll you all. And remember, don't forget your money changing purse when you go out the door ;)
I can see the steam emitting from your ears freddie
No, just me laughing immensely at your assumptions. Have a good one, if you can :), :) :)
Here is a detailed article about Iran's missile capabilities. Perhaps the Zolfaqar Basir anti-ship ballistic missile is ready to go:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/does-iran-pose-a-real-threat-to-us?r=2vzf0g&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I guess we'll find out within the next few weeks. Keep on believing the copium!!
"🇮🇱⚡️🇮🇷 Ex-Mossad Deputy: War on Iran has strategically FAILED. Regime change. Nuclear program. Hormuz. All failed."
https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/183081
jefe said it all failed
lmao
They need a few Dong Feng missiles. Job done!
Sure, the Chicoms will save all you neo-Marxists yet. Do the Chinese have their direct energy weapons based in space yet..?? I suspect that space-based weapons have a bit more range than even your mighty Dong Dong missiles but I actually have to do some real work today so you keep on keeping on ;) ;)
There are well over a dozen nations in Africa and Asia where substantial proportions of the population exist at the edge of starvation. If the Strait of Hormuz will not open fully before the end of July for LNG gas and fertilizers famine will sweep through these nations starting by the end of this year, and going into the next year at the minimum. Suddenly we will see a few hundred million desperate people from third world nations running toward countries with advocate food supplies. This is not going to be a pretty sight.
Correct. Not.A.Pretty….(…)🐈⬛❤️
I was talking about that today, about how many are going to die because of this stupidity by the US. It's almost like Trump is trying to fulfill the Deagel Report.
Coincidentally, what a great time for the West to unleash their attack dogs from Al Qaeda on Mali. They've been after the Sahel ever since Ibrahim Traore started turning things around for Burkino Faso, a close ally of Mali and NIger, who form the Alliance of Sahel States.
AI: ‘Key Details Regarding the Deagel Report:
The Forecast: The 2014-2021 archived projections forecasted a drop in the U.S. population from roughly 316 million in 2017 to under 100 million by 2025.’
This sounds fairly absurd. It would take an insane president, a nuclear war or the combination of these two factors to achieve such major population reduction.
Oh yes, that would be highly unlikely to happen, how silly!
I remember when that first was circulating. I guess they were counting on the vaccine to be more effective. 70% got it at least once, so that number did line up. Or perhaps they were counting on nuclear retaliation from Russia for all of the brazen provocations.
And Iran war cheerleader Nigel Farage will see the channel dinghys turn into cruise ships. 😃
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/10/nigel-farage-u-turn-uk-iran-war
This is something that would make the European elites happy. New cheap workers, new cheap soldiers... new studs for their insatiable and frustrated wives....
you mean would make the jew happy....
Recently saw a chart of the rise in world population over oil production from 1900 to about 2024 and they are more or less directly corrolated. A 20% reduction in oil from the ME will have a massive impact. Maybe not 20% but enough to significantly reduce world population.
WEF Plan 2030 anybody?
just stop feeding africans and stop supporting the jew state.
most world problems solved.....
~ "Palantir: We Have You Covered" ~
Not at all. If you don't have a sense of ethics and perhaps some level of memory for what works and what doesn't, it doesn't matter what you do or don't do.
The problem is that with each new generation, the 'reset button is pressed', our memories are essentially wiped clean, save for instinct, and we yet again get the sort of thinking that comments like yours suggest.
All over again.
We have cultural memory in books, libraries and databases, sure, but they're worth very little to creatures with limited lifespans (time), access (opportunity) or even simply a sense of ethics.
It's a conundrum that, I fear, will doom our species to a forever small-scale tribal or village one, with the odd large-scale nation-State and the usual declines/collapses, until extinction I guess.
Leaving the planet and becoming a spacefaring species takes some things that we don't yet have, if we ever will.
AI might save us, or might have saved us, but in whose hands?
Sam Altman's? Mark Zuckerberg's? Larry Ellison's? Peter Thiel's?
‘AI might save us, or might have saved us, but in whose hands?’
At the very basics AI is going to be turned into our ultimate enemy, firmly in the hands of their brand new world order. AI will be the ultimate arbiter of all information, an impersonal giant pile of garbage, reflecting the state of mind of our opponents. They will keep playing these retarded games until either:
a, They decimate the Western population and turn the leftover literally into slaves.
or
b, We set up a populist order based on sovereignty for us on a planetary scale with diamond hard controls implemented and separate ashes from diamonds.
There is no middle of the road because the neanderthals are unable to coexist with that. Somebody will have to go bye-bye. The struggle is for the full inheritance of this planet for one party. The Russian leadership represents the last major nation that lives and acts by these ideas.