Saudi Arabia, Disappeared

An important American ally in the Middle East again is encouraging President Donald Trump to join its forces in escalating conflict.  CNBC reports that the President

said he is considering joining Saudi Arabia in its retaliation against Tehran-backed Houthis in Yemen after a deadly attack on Riyadh’s main airport, a move that could draw the U.S. further into a second front in the Iran war.

“We may. We’re going to look at it,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Saturday when asked if the U.S. would back Saudi Arabian strikes. “We just found out about the recent attack. So, we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly.”

Two Saudi Arabian government officials told MS NOW that the kingdom is requesting “urgent defense support” from the U.S. following the attacks.

The officials, including a senior member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did not want to be identified because of the matter’s sensitivity. They added that the U.S. needs to intervene “as soon as possible” to help the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen fight the Houthis.

This is nothing new because on September 10, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a real sweetheart kind of guy called President Trump twice   

urging him to launch strikes against the Houthis as the Iran-backed group closed in on a vital Red Sea chokepoint, two U.S. officials told Axios. Trump declined, and U.S. officials stressed the administration has no plans to intervene directly against the Houthis for now.

And that was nothing new, as applied elsewhere in the Mideast, for in February Trump launched a

wide-ranging attack on Iran after a weeks-long lobbying effort by an unusual pair of U.S. allies in the Middle East — Israel and Saudi Arabia — according to four people familiar with the matter, as Israeli and U.S. forces teamed to topple Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei after nearly four decades in power.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump over the past month advocating a U.S. attack, despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, the four people said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, continued his long-running public campaign for U.S. strikes against what he views as an existential enemy of his country.

The combined effort helped lead Trump to order a massive aerial campaign against Iran’s leadership and military, which in its initial hour led to the death of Khamenei and several other senior Iranian officials.

In March,Daniel C. Kurtzer and Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace explained

Netanyahu was not the only foreign leader pushing for Trump to attack Iran. Foremost among these was Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Other reports indicate Arab Gulf leaders have been urging Trump not to stop before further degrading Iranian military capabilities. The difference between Netanyahu and Arab leaders was that the latter told Trump quietly what they wanted but would not be honest with their own people. Still, Trump alone is responsible for the United States’ participation.

Trump and Netanyahu are skilled politicians, and both are adept in the art of the con. In this case, however, there was no con. Trump proved to be a willing and full partner. He was risk-ready and caught up in a self-generated aura of military power and invincibility after taking President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. He was poorly advised by a coterie of advisers unwilling to say anything to him other than yes— perhaps with the exception of Vice President JD Vance, who has backed Trump publicly but has expressed reservations in the past.

Netanyahu may have determined the timing of conflict, but Trump was likely already on his way to war…

Whatever accountability Netanyahu should face for the Iran war, the fact is that the conflict the United States is now fighting against Iran is Trump’s doing. It is a war based on a false and unproven threat assessment of “imminent threats” to the United States. It is a war being waged without bipartisan support, congressional authorization, or the buy-in of allies or the majority of the American public. And it is a war being prosecuted without the president thinking through potential costs and consequences.

It's a wonder that Israel is often blamed by the ultra-left and the ultra-right for getting the USA to start the war against Iran. To be fair to Marco Rubi ( which he generally doesn't deserve), when the Secretary of State in early March pointed to Israel's role in facilitating our involvement, he was referring to the timing of our attack"  He remarked “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Nonetheless, Netany and those evil "Zionists" get a lot of the blame on social media and otherwise for President Trump's disastrous mistake.But then, it's Israel's own fault that it has a lot of Jews.

Share |

Blinded, Not by The Light

If, God willing, Abdul el-Sayed loses his bid to become the Democratic nominee to replace retiring Democratic senator Gary Peters of Michigan, he can always take up a career in storytelling.

Here, Haley Steven's opponent states "I don't hate anybody but I love everybody." Presumably, that would include Benjamin Netanyahu, whom el-Sayed has reason to dislike. Yet we do not know becuase el-Sayed speaks a few lines which bear as little resemblance to reality as "I love everybody".

Abdul El-Sayed: “When AIPAC drops $30M on a race, you know why that is? It’s a $30M downpayment on a vote to send $3B somewhere else. And where does that go? To a foreign government that’s done genocide and apartheid and now has taken us to a war for the goal of annexing Southern… pic.twitter.com/RfZGcrsXPt

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) July 27, 2026

 It's astonishing that a nuclear power would commit genocide while ignoring Palestinians in Jordan and the rest of the Palestinian diaspora.  The habit of warning residents to vacate ahead of  a ground assault or air strikes? This is no way to conduct genocide. As explained in 2021 by Raphael Cohen-Almagor of the Middle East Study Group of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs 

Unlike the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, Israeli Palestinians are entitled by law to enjoy the same citizenship rights as the Jewish citizens of Israel. The Israeli Palestinians constitute a significant minority in Israel: 21% of the population. I will differentiate between full citizenship and formal citizenship, arguing that the Israeli Palestinians enjoy formal but not full citizenship. I detail the areas in which Israel needs to invest to make the Palestinians full citizens. It is argued that while Israeli Palestinians are discriminated against, there is no apartheid in Israel. Apartheid exists in the occupied territories....

Critics of Israel should clearly distinguish between the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinians are separated from Israelis who reside there and where Palestinians are routinely subjected to oppressive regulations of the occupation, and the condition of Israeli Palestinians inside the Green Line. As far as Israel’s Palestinian citizens are concerned, the apartheid argument does not stand. While Israeli Palestinians do not always receive equal treatment and they de facto at times are discriminated against, Israeli Palestinians do not live under anything that resembles South African apartheid.

According to Open Secrets, as of 2024, AIPAC was the 191st largest lobby in Washington, D.C. and from 2016-2026, nine countries spent more on lobbying than did Israel. But with the anti-Israel obsessives, it's always "AIPAC" and "foreign government."

And it has become widely accepted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled the strings that pulled Donald Trump into the war in Iran. However, the President's decision to launch Operation Epic Fury in lae February

in a joint operation with Israel followed weeks of behind-the-scenes pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia, the Washingron Post reported on Sunday, citing accounts from officials and regional sources.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly pushed for strikes against Iran, whileSaudi Arabia's role appeared more complex.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly made several private phone calls to Trump over the past month, pushing for an attack despite publicly endorsing a diplomatic solution, the Washington Post reported.

Simultaneously, Riyadh released a statement that the state would not allow its territory to be used in the event of an attack.

Salman reportedly warned US officials that if the strike didn't happen soon, Iran would come away stronger and more dangerous.

That shouldn't have been surprising given that both Israel and Saudi Arabia consider Iran their mortal enemy. And it didn't hurt that the president's son-in-law has extensive financial involvement, including a $2 billion infusion of funds from the Saudi Public Investment Fund to the Kushner's Affinity private equity firm, with the Kingdom. Good work, if you can get it.

There is a lot to dislike about the foreign policy of the Israeli government, beginning with the guy, the Prime Minister, ultimately responsible for it. However, a distinction needs to be made between that nation's current leaders and the nation itself, just as there are differences between the Trump Administration and the United States of America. There are a few Democrats who understand that, but their voices are being drowned out. 

Abdul el-Sayed, Hasan Piker's pal, is not among those making a cogent and rational argument against current Israeli policy. There are varied reasons for that, but we should acknowledge that one of them is the Jewish thing. 

***********************************************************************************

This blog is going on hiatus. Or at least I am. Please come back on the weekend.

***********************************************************************************

Share |

Where 47 Equals 0

If this is the road Scott Jennings wants to go down, I'm all in. And so it was that

A fiery CNN panel discussion Thursday night turned into a full-blown MAGA-on-MAGA collision when Jennings and former Trump White House aide Caroline Sunshine squared off over Iran, military intervention, and whether America has effectively been in conflict with the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

The clash occurred during a debate on CNN’s “NewsNight with Abby Phillip” over whether Congress should impose additional restrictions on President Trump’s authority to conduct military operations against Iran.

Jennings, who has emerged as one of the most aggressive defenders of Trump’s recent military posture toward Tehran, argued that America cannot afford to view Iran through the lens of diplomacy alone.

“We can’t be all rainbows and unicorns with the Iranians,” Jennings said before making the comment that ignited the segment.

“They’ve been at war with us for 47 years. Forty-seven years!”

Sunshine immediately challenged the framing.

“Forty-seven years? Why did I learn about… I’m sorry, the first time I’ve heard about the 47-year Iran war was like this year,” she replied. “We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school.”

Jennings responded with a jab that quickly went viral.

“I’m sorry you don’t read much. Did you just start following the news this year?”

Evidently not, because it has been only since President Donald Trump started this war that we have heard this "at war with us for 47 years" fabrication.  Since then, however, we have heard it from many supporters of the regime. Continuing

From there, things only escalated.

Sunshine argued that describing decades of hostility with Iran as a continuous war diminishes actual military conflicts involving American troops.

“We don’t teach about the 47-year war with Iran in school. Like, it’s insulting to actual conflicts that we’ve been involved in,” she said.

And, as Sunshine probably meant, insulting to the men and women, living and dead, involved in those actual conflicts. Nonetheless

Jennings fired back.

“It’s insulting to your intelligence that you have no idea what the Iranians have done.”

The exchange exposed a growing divide inside the broader America First movement over foreign policy, particularly as President Trump intensifies pressure on Tehran following renewed attacks on commercial shipping and escalating threats from Iranian leaders.

While Jennings argued that Iran has spent decades killing Americans through proxy forces, attacking U.S. allies, sponsoring terrorism, and seeking nuclear capabilities, Sunshine questioned whether the current strategy risks drawing America into another prolonged Middle East conflict.

“How many Americans have they killed on U.S. soil in the 47 years we’ve been in the war?” she asked.

Jennings responded that Iran-backed activities have killed and maimed thousands of Americans over the years.

“They’ve killed thousands of Americans — they have maimed American soldiers,” he said.

O.K., now Jennings has approached the realm of reality, though his numbers still are way off. Thousands are a lot more than hundreds and even if including terrorist groups Iran directly or indirectly supported, the figure is well inflated. 

In June, 2025, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neoconservative organization which has supported the current war against Iran, compiled a list of "Iranian and Iranian-Backed Attacks Against Americans" since November, 1979, when 66 Americans were taken hostage and held at the American embassy in Iran. (The word "Backed" is used very loosely.)

In all, 363 Americans, or 363 too many, were killed between 9/79 and 6/25, inclusive. From there (or something less comprehensive and accurate), Jennings gets his "thousands." The number does not include September 11, 2001, about which the Foundation notes

While the 9/11 Commission Report concludes that Iran had no foreknowledge of al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Center, the report indicates that Tehran facilitated the travel of some of the terrorists. “In sum,” the report notes, “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

Strong evidence. Facilitated. Transit. Into and out of Afghanistan (not the USA). Some of these. Compare that to another Middle East nation, which has been the subject of ongoing litigation by 9/11 fmilies. One individual has pointed out "There still remain all of these loose ends and paths that lead back to Saudi Arabia." Nonetheless, the centerpiece of President Trump's relationship with the Kingdom is "investments from, partnerships with, and high-value U.S. exports." Which is to say: the deaths of Americans in years past at the hands of a foreign nation or its proxies has nothing to do with Donald Trump's policy in the region.

Off-topic of this post but presented for full context

The most revealing moment may have come later in the exchange when Sunshine questioned both the costs and end goals of the administration’s approach.

“If we’re going to keep going, what’s your number? How many U.S. troops are you willing to expend to achieve your objectives and what amount of money?” she asked.

Jennings was unmoved.

“What amount of money am I willing to spend to keep the American people safe from the worst regime in the world? A fair amount.”

The debate has been building on the right for months.

One faction believes Iran’s rulers have spent nearly five decades waging a shadow war against America through terrorism, proxy militias, hostage-taking, attacks on shipping lanes, and threats against U.S. leaders. Another faction remains deeply skeptical of any policy that could lead to an open-ended military commitment overseas, even under a Republican president.

Jennings: Iran has been at war with us for 47 years.

Sunshine: The first time I've ever heard about the 47 year Iran war was like this year. pic.twitter.com/fo6ahm1sWV

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 10, 2026

If we are to believe that "they've been at war with us for 47 years," then in all fairness, Jennings should be charging a prominent American with treason for actions with repercussions in the years since. An 
open letter from 47 Republican senators in March, 2015 "marked anusually public and aggressive attempt to undermine" President Obama and other world powers "to limit Iran's nuclear programs." 

Believed to be the author, Arkansas' Tom Cotton warned of "two features of our Constitution- the power to make binding international agreements and the different charcter of federal offices- which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress." He said that these two meant

that we will consider any agreement regrding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of  a pen and futrue Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

Cotton et al. were suggesting that Tehran shun the offer from the duly-elected president of the USA and five other world leaders. Bharging the Senators with treason would have been politically explosive and extremely divisive. However, the best legal reason not to do so would have been that a charge of treason would have been constitutionally dubious because this country was not at war with Iran.

Nor are we now at war with Iran- not now, not anytime in the past 47 years. Claiming that Iran has been at war with the USA for nearly the past half-century repesents an effort to convince voters that drastic action needed to be taken against the Mideast nation and that only President Trump had the courage and wisdom to do so, though it has made the region far more dangerous. It is an exercise in trying to make chicken salad from chicken-  well, you know.

Share |

Listening to What Is Said Publically

The President of the USA may not have been lying when

Mr. Trump said in a post on social media on Tuesday that Iran had “fully and completely agreed to the highest level Nuclear inspections,” adding that Iranian officials who claimed otherwise were making false statements. “If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!” he added.

The comments came hours after Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, responded with a flat “no” when asked if Tehran, in the latest round of peace talks, had agreed to permit inspectors from the United Nations to access its war-damaged nuclear sites. Mr. Baghaei told a news conference in Tehran that the two sides had not discussed nuclear issues in any detail, according to Iranian state media.

There also are other differences of opinion on what the agreement which, as described here, establishes "an immediate and permanent end to military operations while opening a sixty-day window to negotiate a final agreement. The sixty-day limit governs the initial negotiation period, not the duration of the ceasefire." 

Additionally, President Trump has contended that any Iranian assets unfrozen as a result of the "understanding" must be used to but agricultrual equipment or medical supplies, while Tehran argues "Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets."  Trump says the Strait of Hormuz will remain completely open but Iran insists it will maintain control of the Strait and it "will never return to its pre-war conditions."

 

One side may be lying. Or both sides may be; this is, after all, Iran and Donald Trump's government, neither of which has any credibilty. However, alternatively, the Vance team may be given assurances, or more likely indications, in private of improved Iranian behavior which don't appear in writing.

In such matters, it is wise to consider the words of Kian Tajbakhsh, a dual Iranian and American citizen detained with five other Iranian-Americans, all released in January of 2016 as part of the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama Administration with Tehran. Nevertheless, Tajbakhash has criticized that nuclear deal and supported President Trump's war of choice against Iran. He has been a professor in the USA in both urban planning and foreign affairs.

Tajbakhsh has periodically appeared on Abby Phillip's CNN NewsNight this year and on June 18 explained 

Unfortunately, they, you know, there's a kind of misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East, in the Middle East.  In the Middle East, what people say to you in private in English is usually irrelevant and meaningless.  It's only- it's only what they will say in their own language publicly that actually counts.  So it's actually the opposite of the U.S., you know.  

I don't want to insult any politicians here but politicians in the, you know, well, you know, politicians will actually say the truth only in public but in private, they'll say whatever you want to hear. So until we actually see what the terms are and how these negotiations go forward, on the face of it, I, you know, first of all, I wouldn't trust those backchannels and those, those commitments.  We'll have to see what they are on paper because that kind of vagueness is exactly where Iran is an expert at, basically using ambiguity for their own purposes. 

That's a little reminiscent of Donald Trump's game.  Donald, a talented former actor, has charmed Bill Maher, Anthony Scaramucci, and others when he has been in private with them. But that's the opposite of most American politicians who are typically more straightforward in private than in public. If Tajbakshsh is correct- as he probably is- it turns out that Iranian leaders are substantially the opposite. In private, they will tell you what you want to hear while being more revealing in public. 

We cannot know for sure whether President Trump and Vice President Vance understand this but know it's advantageous to claim the preliminary agreement is far more advantageous than it is. So they're either lying or being fleeced. Either way, this does not end well.

Share |

Debacle

If this is what victory looks like, I'd hate to see defeat.

Marco Rubio was labeled "Little Marco" in 2016 by Donald Trump, who also called him "Mr. Meltdown" and "lightweight choker" before the Florida senator was dispatched from the presidential race

On Tuesday,June 2 Little Marco appeared on the Hilll for a budget request hearing and

"We're no longer conducting sustained strikes inside of Iran to degrade their military, because Epic Fury is over," Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asserting that the US had secured victory….

"We define victory as destroying their defense industrial base, significantly reducing the number of missile launchers that they possess, significantly reducing their stockpile of drones," Rubio said.

"And we achieved all those, in addition to destroying what they had left of an air force and wiping out their entire conventional navy."

Grilled at the hearing by Democrat Cory Booker of New Jersey, the Secretary weirdly asserted "well, the war is over."

Yet, just this past week

Kuwait’s military said Iranian strikes that hit a terminal at its international airport killed at least one person and wounded 63 in the first deadly attack in the Gulf since a ceasefire on 8 April came into effect.

The US and Iran also exchanged fresh missile and drone strikes, further jeopardising efforts to secure a new ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Donald Trump said in an interview released on Wednesday that talks with Iran were continuing and he was not looking to escalate, adding: “We don’t need boots on the ground now.”

He later claimed Iran was “pretty close” to signing a peace agreement with the US and “it could happen over the weekend”.

If President Trump appears to be looking for a way out of this debacle, looks here are not deceptive. Sixteen days ago, after Donald asked for a 30-day extension of the ceasefire reached in April, Brookings Institution senior fellow Robert Kagan wrote

As the Institute for the Study of War reports, Iran has been using the cease-fire period to “normalize” its control over the strait by “compelling oil-importing countries” to establish transit agreements with Tehran and charging fees on vessels from nations without such deals. According to Iranian officials, the new strait regime will give Iran’s strategic partners, such as Russia and China, priority and allow nations friendly to Iran, such as India and Pakistan, to negotiate their own transit agreements. Vessels associated with nations that Iran regards as an adversary will be denied access to the strait entirely.

Several nations, including South Korea, Turkey, and Iraq, are reportedly already negotiating at least temporary transit agreements. Now that Trump has made clear he has no intention of fighting to reopen the strait, the stampede to get good terms with Tehran will begin. All nations heavily dependent on energy from the Persian Gulf will want to cut their deal quickly to get the oil and gas and other commodities flowing and rescue their battered economy. Those nations currently allied with the United States and friendly to Israel will feel pressure to distance themselves and make their peace with Iran. The international sanctions against Iran will collapse, and even more money will pour into the country’s accounts as its newly central role in the global economy becomes normalized. By the end of 30 days, most of the world will have a stake in the new arrangement and will oppose any resumption of hostilities, even in the unlikely event that Trump wanted to go back to war…

The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States. When Trump turns his back on Israel, as he must do to implement this policy, MAGA will gladly follow. The bipartisan anti-Israel consensus in the United States will grow and harden.

Will Israel go gentle into this good night? That is the wild card that may disrupt the financial markets’ dreams of a new stability in the Gulf. A stronger, richer, more influential Iran will mean new life for Hamas and Hezbollah. It will mean the end of the Abraham Accords, as the Gulf States will have to make their own peace with Tehran so that their economies can survive. Trump says that Netanyahu “will do whatever I want him to do.” But can Israel stand by while Iran replaces the United States as the arbiter of power in the region?

When a Memorandum of Understanding- or whatever it will be or will be called- is finalized, Donald Trump will declare victory, perhaps characterizing the Iran war as the greatest America ever has fought. Trump will be his lying, corrupt self, Little Marco will still be a sniveling loser, and the Middle East will be more unstable and dangerous than it has been in a very long time.

Share |

The Netanyahu Plunge

Oh, quite the irony. As we learned Wednesday morning (Israel Daylight Time)

A sharp public rupture broke out within Israel's cabinet Wednesday after National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's humiliation video of detained flotilla activists triggered an international firestorm, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar both publicly condemning their own colleague.

Netanyahu issued a rare public rebuke of his own minister: "Israel has the full right to prevent provocative flotillas of Hamas terror supporters from entering our territorial waters and reaching Gaza. However, the manner in which Minister Ben Gvir treated the flotilla activists is not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel. I have instructed the relevant authorities to deport the provocateurs as quickly as possible."

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar was more scathing.

Unfortunately, this disapproval by Netanyahu of aiding Hamas comes more than three years late. In an opinion piece printed by The Times of Israel the day after Hamas' terrorist attack on 10/7/23, Tal Schneider explained

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Nettanyahu also worked with Hamas to increase work permits for laborers from Gaza while

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Schneider added

Additionally, since 2014, Netanyahu-led governments have practically turned a blind eye to the incendiary balloons and rocket fire from Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel has allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas rulers of the Strip.

Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.

According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state....

Bolstered by this policy, Hamas grew stronger and stronger until Saturday, Israel’s “Pearl Harbor,” the bloodiest day in its history — when terrorists crossed the border, slaughtered hundreds of Israelis and kidnapped an unknown number under the cover of thousands of rockets fired at towns throughout the country’s south and center.

The country has known attacks and wars, but never on such a scale in a single morning.

One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday.

Netanyahu knew, or should have known, what might have been coming because, as Schneider noted

Just a few days ago, Assaf Pozilov, a reporter for the Kan public broadcaster, tweeted the following: “The Islamic Jihad organization has started a noisy exercise very close to the border, in which they practiced launching missiles, breaking into Israel and kidnapping soldiers"...

Hamas became stronger and used the auspices of peace that Israelis so longed for as cover for its training, and hundreds of Israelis have paid with their lives for this massive omission.

The terror inflicted on the civilian population in Israel is so enormous that the wounds from it will not heal for years, a challenge compounded by the dozens abducted into Gaza.

The columnist was wrong about one thing, though. She maintained "judging by the way Netanyahu has managed Gaza in the last 13 years, it is not certain that there will be a clear policy going forward."

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his policy over the past 31+ months. It has been a disastrous on. Investigating the flotilla fiasco and punishing individuals responsible for misbehavior would be a small, yet significant, step in the right direction. 

Nonetheseless, as writer, author, and foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan wrote this past week

The Iran war may end up as the single most devastating blow to Israel’s security in its brief history. On the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times stronger and more influential than it was before the war. It will exercise leverage with dozens of the richest nations in the world, all of which will have an acute interest in keeping Iran happy. They will be unlikely to take Israel’s side in any conflict that it has with Tehran or with its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, because Iran will have the means to punish them if they do. Israel will emerge more isolated than it has been at any time in its history—and not least from its only reliable protector, the United States. When Trump turns his back on Israel, as he must do to implement this policy, MAGA will gladly follow. The bipartisan anti-Israel consensus in the United States will grow and harden.

Netanyahu denounced Ben-Gvir for actions "not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel." treated the flotilla activists is not in line with the values and norms of the State of Israel."   The Foreign Minister said of the National Security Minister "you are not the face of Israel."  Regrettably, under this coalition government, Israel's security has been weakened and its values and "face" severely degraded.

Share |

Boosting Mainland China

In the infamous June, 2024 debate which ultimately led to the withdrawal from the presidential race of President, Joe Biden, Donald J. Trump claimed

We now have the largest deficit in the history of our country under this guy. We have the largest deficit with China. He gets paid by China. He's a Manchurian candidate. he gets money from China. We have to- I think he's afraid to deal with something. Buit you notice he never took out my tariffs becasue we bring in so much money with the tariffs that I imposed on China. he never took them away.Can't, because it's too much money. 

A few weels after Donald was (re-) elected, we were reminded

One of Trump's key promises on the 2024 campaign trail ws imposing 60% tariffs on  all Chinese imports to the U.S., a drastic increase from when his previous administration raised tariffs on most Chinese products to 25%. Trump has said that tariffs "are the greatest thing ever invented," and will protect american manufacturing and businesses. The president-elect also promised to revoke China's trade status, which was meant to provide mutual advantages such as low tariffs and other trade advantages.

God is in the details, and whatever the benefits of a less China-friendly policy than we had been accustomed to, the tariffs of the second Trump term have proven economically disastrous. But enough about  the economy! 

Recently, David Frum interviewed Phillips O'Brien, a military historian and professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews.  Frum asked his guest

If the war ends with some kind of armistice, where Trump gets some piece of paper with the word nuclear on it, Iran has effective control over the Strait of Hormuz—which I suppose it had before, but now it’s really proven that it can do it—and a lot of damage to Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s missile program, some damage in turn to the American forces, who’s the winner of that war?

O'Brien responded, "the winner of that war is China" and when asked to explain, stated

Well, because, basically, the Chinese will come out of this as a far more influential force in the region. The United States will come out looking much weakened, with a degraded military, an inability to get what it wants through military force, and looking capricious and, in some ways, unable to assert itself over Iran. The Iranian regime will not come out of it in great shape. It’s been damaged. It has been damaged militarily. Certainly, the Iranian people will be the losers ’cause they will suffer a great deal of oppression, one assumes, coming out of that. But the Iranians would have survived, and the other regimes in the area are gonna have to cut some kind of deals with them. But the Chinese are just sitting there. They are gonna be seen [as] a bastion of stability. They’ll get a huge amount of reconstruction contracts. Their ally in Iran will still be there. And one assumes that a lot of the other powers in the region will want good relations with China going forward.

Regardless of whether the U.S. secures concessions from Iran, China will emerge the victor from the conflict, the military historian Phillips O’ Brien tells @davidfrum: “They are going to be seen as a bastion of stability.”

Watch The David Frum Show: https://t.co/KTgrYBoU1p pic.twitter.com/T1gxFL7pU5

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 20, 2026

I don't know whether President Trump "gets paid by China," as he so dishonestly claimed of President Biden. And he's not quite as owned by President Xi Jinping as he is by President Putin, though he was sliced and diced by the Chinese leader last week earlier this month in Beijing.

Mainland China is the country which could use regime change. Obviously, that was not going to happen but Trump's elective war against Iran has made Beijing and Russia stronger and the USA weaker. Imagine that (militarily) Iran loses a campaign but then refuses to concede and, unfortunately, comes out the stronger in the long run. It's what apparently is happening, a scenario which Donald Trump, with his experience, should have considered before he began this disastrous war.

Share |

Please, Mr. Trump, No More Winning!

Sadly, Joseph Goebbels is not dead (metaphorically, that is). At :38 in a video on a David Pakman podcast, Anna Kelly, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary, is asked on May 11 by Fox News a question ending in "What does President Trump say today abut these high energy prices"?  She responded

.... Well, look, thee's a ot of confusion now about the state of play with Iran. Let me be clear. Iran has been incredibly decimated mlitarily. their navy is at the bottom of the ocean. Their ballistic missiles are destroyed. Their production facilities are demolished. Now, they're being totally crippled economically by the weight of Operation Ecconomic Fury.

So the President is not in a  rush. He has all his cards at his disposal because he knows Iran is getting weaker and weaker by the day while the United States is getting  stronger and stronger.

Surely, President Trump does have all his cards at his disposal.  The probably for this regime, however, is that Trump has only his cards at his disposal. He does not hold all the cards, nor nearly so.

Iran is getting weaker. However, as The New York Times reported on May 12

The Trump administration’s public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what U.S. intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers and underground facilities.

Most alarming to some senior officials is evidence that Iran has restored operational access to 30 of the 33 missile sites it maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten American warships and oil tankers transiting the narrow waterway.

 People with knowledge of the assessments said they show — to varying degrees, depending on the level of damage incurred at the different sites — that the Iranians can use mobile launchers that are inside the sites to move missiles to other locations. In some cases they can launch missiles directly from launchpads that are part of the facilities. Only three of the missile sites along the strait remain totally inaccessible, according to the assessments.

Iran still fields about 70 percent of its mobile launchers across the country and has retained roughly 70 percent of its prewar missile stockpile, according to the assessments. That stockpile encompasses both ballistic missiles, which can target other nations in the region, and a smaller supply of cruise missiles, which can be used against shorter-range targets on land or at sea.

Military intelligence agencies have also reported, based on information from multiple collection streams including satellite imagery and other surveillance technologies, that Iran has regained access to roughly 90 percent of its underground missile storage and launch facilities nationwide, which are now assessed to be “partially or fully operational,” the people with knowledge of the assessments said

Kelly is not completely wrong, given that

The Joint assault on Iran by the United States and Israel inflicted considerable damage on Iran's defenses and damaged or destroyed many strategic sites around the country. Many of Iran's senior leaders have been killed and its economy is staggering under the pressures of the war, leaving questins about how long it can sustain its hard line on a negotiated end to the conflict and the halt on nearly all oil tanker traffic and other shiipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Yet, if Donald Trump is holding more cards than are the Iranians, it's news to the latter. Several days ago, Tehran delivered unto Washington via Pakistan a proposal which "included demands for a permanent end to the war on all fronts, compensation for war damages, an end to the U.S. Naval blockade, lifting of sanctions on Iran, and the end to a U.S. ban on Iranian oil sales."  Oh, and Iran would assume control over the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump rejected the proposal outright, because surrender is not in the cards, as spokesperson Kelly would put it. (If Iran included a proposal which would include a significant boost to Trump's personal profile, now we're talking!). Although the Iranian demands were wildly unrealistic, they still reflect an apparent willingness to see the war through, at least for now.  Abject fear does not seem to have overcome the Iranians, who as with almost everyone is now expecting a military assault from the Trump Administration.

Donald Trump, a veteran of the real estate industry, believes in the zero sum game. He sees Iran getting weaker and might actually believe that means the USA is gaining. But consider that as the Times noted in late April

Before the war with Iran started, American military commanders redirected the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group from the South China Sea to the Middle East. Since then, two Marine Expeditionary Units, each with about 2,200 Marines, have been sent to the Middle East from the Pacific. The Pentagon has also moved sophisticated air defenses from Asia to bolster protection against Iran’s drones and rockets.

As the USA has become embroiled in the Middle East, the nation has left the Asian theater largely undefended. And now Donald Trump has landed in Mainland China, where he will speak to, and hopefully not negotiate with, Xi Jinping.  Hopefully, President Trump will not do there what he has done in the Mideast to America's national interest.

Share |

Warped

Elise Stefanik, for whom "whole civilization" means "regime":

Heated clash erupts on CNN as Jake Tapper presses Rep. Elise Stefanik over President Trump’s rhetoric toward Iran

Tapper pushes: “A president threatening to wipe out an entire civilization… you’re applying two different standards”

Stefanik fires back: “He is targeting the… pic.twitter.com/4wzoYHun83

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) April 19, 2026

What part of "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" does former Representative Elise Stefanik not understand? Donald posted on Untruth Social on April 5

A whole cvilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?  We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

What we found out was, praise be to God, that TACO. Trump backed down, and so Iran- and thereafter, possibly the entire Middle East- was not wiped out

During the interview CNN's Tapper had with Stefanik on CNN's State of the Union on April 19, the latter claimed that President Trump

is targeting the Iranian terrorist regime. Everyone seems to understand that Jake, except for CNN.

And what did it do? It brought the Iranians to the table, delivering a cease-fire, and, frankly, bringing this terrorist regime to its knees. It has been very important for us to address, frankly, this conflict that has been going on for decades, the terrorist regime that has not only hijacked the Strait of Hormuz, but has been the number one state sponsor of terror.

After Trump's threat, Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, which temporarily relieved the nation of bombardment. On April 10, Vice President Vance negotiated with the Iranians for one day, which came to no avail.  In light of the ceasefire, Tehran was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but then reneged when it contended that the continuation of Israeli military operations in Lebanon violated terms of the agreement. 

Responding to the breakdown of talks, the US military began a blockade of Iran's ports on April 13, prompting Tehran to threaten to retaliate against the ports of its Gulf neighbors. Israel and Lebanon then agreed to a ceasefire and Iran backed down. But on April 20, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf of Iran "issued a sharp rebutall to US President Donald Trump, laying out a multi-point counter that challenges"  several claims made by the American President. And Ghalibaf announced that the Strait wouldn't remain open and "Iranian authorization" would be required to sail through it.

Stefanik made her "brought the Iranians to the table" boast one day prior to that. However, negotiations currently are suspended, the Iranians aren't at "the table," and the notion that "this terrorist regime (has been brought) to its knees" is delusional, or would be if she believed it. That is, unless "brought to its knees" means "radicalized and emboldened."

But that is nothing compared to Stefanik's obscene perspective on genocide.  Jake Tapper asked the ex-congresswoman repeatedly about the President's threat to wipe out Iranian civilization. And, with slight wording change, each time her response was the same:

- He was focusing on the Iranian regime.

- And it's very important to note that the- I'm talking he was focused on the Iranian terrorist regime.

-But that's- Jake, you can ask this question but the reality is it was targeted toward the Iranian terrorist regime.

-President Trump was not calling for genocide. Shame on CNN for saying that.

Stefanik argued "if you want to compare the President of the United States to the university presidents who failed to call for the condemnation of calling for the genocide of Jews, that's on you, Jake."  This was worse than classic bothsiderism or moral equivalence. She strongly implied that statements from the "from the river to the sea" students and college presidents who did not squelch their anti-semitic speech were worse, and more significant, than President Trump's threat against the Iranian people.

Those words included "a whole civilization will die tonight." Then as if to make sure that everyone understood, Donald added "never to be brought back," making crystal-clear his wet dream of destroying an entire people. The civilization would be unrecognizable and irretrievable, victim of unparalleled death, destruction, and horror. The USA instantly would have become an international pariah and a society which would forever be placed alongside Nazi Germany in the history books.  A good thing, according to Elise Stefanik.

 

 Share |

Iran: a Threat?

In a previous post, I favorably quoted international relations scholar John Mearsheimer.  A longtime critic of Israel, Mearsheimer justifiably is opposed to President Trump's attack on Iran. However, it appears his opposition may be rooted in hostility to the one democracy or republic in the Middle East.

Piers Morgan: "Iran is no threat to the United States?"

John Mearsheimer: "No, it's not."

Piers Morgan: "They fund terrorist organizations dedicated to the obliteration of Israel."

John Mearsheimer: "You're making the argument that because we're joined at the hip with Israel,… pic.twitter.com/LlpYaxmZ0g

— Red Pill Dispenser (@redpilldispensr) April 14, 2026

The assertion that "Iran is no threat to the United States" is hogwash, obviously flapdoodle (vying to be the one American to invoke "flapdoodle" anytime this calendar year). In early March, CBS News reported

Iran has been designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. It has launched more than 1,600 drone attacks on U.S. allies in the Middle East since the war began last week, according to the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel.

On "CBS Mornings," two former counterterrorism officials and CBS News national security contributors, Sam Vinograd and Joe Zacks, discussed the potential threats to the U.S. and what Americans should know to help protect themselves.

Vinograd said Iran represents a "multi-dimensional threat to the homeland."

"They seek to inflict damage in our physical spaces, in cyberspace and in terms of the actual information that we're ingesting and digesting and circulating right now," said Vinograd, a  former DHS assistant secretary for counterterrorism and threat protection.

She said Iran has a "deep bench of players they tap into to inflict damage," including proxies — regional, like-minded terrorist organizations — along with state agents.

Iran has also developed what she calls "surrogate networks here in the United States — regular criminals that they actually hire and pay money to do things like murders and assassinations."

Then there was a report issued on March 20, in which

the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies cautioned that Iranian government "poses a persistent threat" to U.S. military and government personnel and buildings, Jewish and Israeli institutions, and Iranian dissidents in the U.S. Despite those warnings, the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center had not identified broad threats to the American public, the report said….

The March 20 report - titled "Public Safety Awareness Report" - was issued weeks after Reuters and other news outlets reported that the White House blocked the release of a similarly described intelligence product. At the time, the White House said it was ensuring any information was properly vetted before release.

Iran does pose a threat to the USA. It posed significantly less of a threat to the USA before the Trump Administration launched its attack on Iran on March 1, 2026. And it posed even less of a threat to the USA before the Administration last autumn reassigned individuals from cybersecurity to deportation of immigrants. 

John Mearsheimer believes we're "joined at the hip with Israel." Corrction, sir: the Trump Administration is joined at the hip with Benjamin Netanyahu, a small but critical distinction. Iran is a threat to the USA, even though he prefers to believe that any enemy of Israel is no enemy of ours.

Share |

Not Best Friends

We knew Pope Leo XIV was in trouble with President Trump when in the first week of January when Robert Francis Prevost remarked

The good of the beloved Venezuelan people must prevail over every other consideration This must lead to the overcoming of violence, and to the pursuit of paths of justice and peace, guaranteeing the sovereignty of the country, ensuring the rule of law enshrined in its constitution, respecting the human and civil rights of each and every person, and working together to build a peaceful future of cooperation, stability and harmony, with special attention to the poorest who are suffering because of the difficult economic situation.

Justice and peace? National sovereignty? Rule of law? Human and civil rights? Cooperation, stability and harmony?  In an earlier time, a priest might as well have preached celibacy to (the late) Wilt Chamberlain. These are not things Trump believes in.

And now the Pope has gone and done it again. In March, he said "I am praying for peace. I hope that [a] ceasefire would be the most effective way to work together to find peace for all parties, to respect all parties and to come to a solution."  Earlier this month, he seemed to take a swipe at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, remarking that Jesus Christ "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war."

So on the Lord's Day, Trump tweets

Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about “fear” of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart. I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn’t! I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History. Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise. He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican. Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me, nor does the fact that he meets with Obama Sympathizers like David Axelrod, a LOSER from the Left, who is one of those who wanted churchgoers and clerics to be arrested. Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church! President DONALD J  TRUMP            

     

Pope Leo must be so weak on crime that he was criticized by the president who pardoned

1,583 people arrested in connection with the Capitol attack. It covered not only the misdemeanor trespassers who wandered through the building taking selfies, but also those convicted of assaulting police officers with bear spray and flagpoles, members of militia groups found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government, and individuals who had pleaded guilty to some of the most serious charges the Justice Department had brought in its history.

A report publicshed in December identified

at least 33 insurrectionists who have been rearrested, charged or sentenced for other crimes since January 6, 2021. The charges range from possession of child pornography to sexual assault, child molestation and aggravated kidnapping. Many incidents occurred before the pardons; only four insurrectionists allegedly reoffended since receiving their pardons.

 “I found it really disturbing that the pardons put people on the street again who had been held to account,” Honl-Stuenkel said. “All that was swept away with the stroke of a pen. And that has consequences mostly for the women and children in the orbit of these insurrectionists.”

At least six of the pardoned insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes; five were charged with illegal possession of weapons, including two who had previous domestic violence convictions; and two were charged with rape.

So Donald Trump accusing someone of being soft on crime is akin to, oh, Wilt Chamberlain criticizing someone for being promiscuous. Trump's "landslide" included winning a minority, 49.97%, of the popular vote.  In Venezuela, "the state-embedded drug trafficking structure is also largely intact." If Trump ordered the kidnapping of  President Nicolas Maduro to end the drug traffic into the USA, he failed miserably. And Pope Leo is no advocate for proliferation of nuclear weapons.

No doubt His Holiness is sincere, even more so since Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby threatened war against the Vatican in a private meeting with Pope Leo's then-ambassador to the USA at the Pentagon in January. "America haas the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Hurch had better take its side" will tend to focus the mind.

It was Trump being Trump in his Easter Sunday message to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and spiritual leader of over 50 million Americans and hundreds of millions abroad. He has ratcheted up the division, disunity, and hatred in the USA.

Donald could have said something simple, such as "I admire Pope Leo as a religious figure but He doesn't have the intelligence available to us and is misugided." Trump still would have been wrong about the war but he wold have goten his point across. He would have been wrong but he wouldn't have been cruel and hateful. And how better for President Trump to prove he's a honest-to-God believing Christian? Oh, yea- there is one way:

Share |

Uncertain Allies

In 2005, minister and theologian Wayne Stiles argued "We will always struggle with temptation in this life. But God has not left us alone in the struggle. He has provided all we need to defeat sin and Satan (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 John 4:4). He noted

More than thirty years ago Flip Wilson kept America in stitches with his television characters “Reverend Leroy,” the friendly, pompous pastor of the “Church of What’s Happening Now,” and “Geraldine Jones,” the sassy African-American woman in a miniskirt. Whenever Geraldine would impulsively buy a dress—or do anything she shouldn’t—she excused her urge by uttering the line she made famous, “The Devil made me do it!”

America laughed at Geraldine for her obviously lame excuse. In fact, to say, “The Devil made me do it,” became the rage all over the country. Of course, we all know that the Devil wants us to sin, but everybody knew the truth.

Scofff all you wish, but this applies to the Iran war, in which a few influential far-right figures are claiming "the devil made me do it"- or rather, "the devil made President Trump do it."

In hisletter resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center and "subsequent remarks", Joe Kent

has claimed that President Donald Trump was “led to believe” that military action against Iran would be swift and effective, alleging that Israel played a key role in shaping that perception.

Kent said that following protests in Iran earlier this year, Israeli officials pitched the idea that targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would pave the way for protesters to take control. According to him, the plan was presented as a limited and straightforward operation, similar to past regime-change expectations in other conflicts.

“In essence, we were told we would be greeted as liberators — that strikes on the IRGC would allow protesters to take over,” Kent said, describing the proposal as overly optimistic.

On March 27, Megyn Kelly

criticized right-wing politicians and commentators for “pushing” President Trump to launch military operations against Iran.

“As this goes south, we need to know exactly who talked him into it and what representations were made to convince the president that this was a good idea,” Kelly said.

The former Fox News host specifically named Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “first and foremost” and said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was “equally to blame.”

Kelly also slammed conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro for “pushing this war” on his show and said radio host Mark Levin was “chief among” the right-wing advocates for military action against Iran.

“There were very prominent activists on the right who were frothing at the mouth for this thing,” Kelly said. “And now that it’s not only going poorly, but the president’s poll numbers are in a precipitous free fall, we'd love to see more accountability.Who? Who promised him what?"

Then on March 30, Fox News host Laura Ingraham

called into question whether President Trump understands the “complexity” of the U.S. military operation in Iran.

The host used her opening monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” to talk about how, despite the April 16 deadline set by the president, Trump faces complications to his calls for negotiations with the Iranians amid his threats of further escalating the conflict.

“Now, knowing what little time we have and how quickly this can spiral out of control, we still have a lot of questions,” she said. “For instance, was the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning? And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this? How complex it could actually get, and further possibilities of casualties or other damage –– the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick, in and out?”

So alpha "please, Mr. Trump, no more winning" male was told that the war would be a quick enter and exit, or he was pushed or talked into going into Iran.  However, when this war end- and however it ends- Donald Trump will take credit for not only a "victory" but for attaining peace.

Kent, Kelly and Ingraham are opposed- sort of- to the current war against Iran. But they're also apologists for the President. They can turn on a dime by supporting Trump. and probably will, on another important issue or perhaps even this one.

They are, thankfully, not Tucker Carlson. However, it is almost (almost) as true of them as it is of Carlson, of whom it has been said that he "is one of the clearest examples of how the 'enemy of your enemy' is not in any reliable way your friend".

Share |