War on Iran

Yeah, my apologies. It's really got fuck-all to do with this "excursion", apart from a bizarre, ham-fisted attempt to substitute some sort of "justification" for her equally bizarre little tantrum from before.

I think I just find absolutely everything about this subject unfathomably depressing, infuriating, and incoherent--the idea that a single dim-witted fucking sociopath could so easily tank the global economy and destabilize the world for some obscure reason which we'll likely never learn. Who knows? That (tanking...destabilizing...) could very well be the intent, as part of some accelerationist tactic to hasten the onset of whichever brand of the "endtimes" to which they subscribe. Though if that be the case, then Trump's role in instigating such would be markedly diminished.
I sympathise.

This senile, malignant old buffer got fooled by Netanyahu, who played upon his vanity to persuade him it would be an easy win. It was no risk for Netanyahu, as he doesn’t care about the world economy. It suits him nicely to have turmoil all over the Middle East while he completes his design to exterminate or displace the Palestinians and take over their land.

That’s essentially what happened. And Trump has no way out that does not leave Iran in effective charge of the Strait. Failure for him is baked in, which is why he is so furious. Long term, Iran’s control of the Strait may prove a diminishing asset as countries develop workarounds, but those will take 5-10 years.

 
Bait and switch works, so long as millions of voters don't pay much attention and get their little bumper stickers of information from propa-media. And with the Internet MAGA can use the illusory truth effect


so effectively that the Turnip administrations can piss on them and get them to believe it's rain. Piss is rain. Piss is rain. Piss is rain. Piss is rain.

The current wallet-sucking inflation is so dramatic and inescapable that it's becoming the greatest campaign gift Democrats ever received. Some of the faithful in the MAGA cult are starting to notice the urine flavor in their rain. And (my sliver of optimism for the day) when someone detects one crack in the facade, they start to notice others.
Conversely, noticing subsequent cracks may require taking on a more active role. In the absence of that, said crack is simply an anomaly.

I've got plenty of weirdly literal illustrations of the illusory truth effect in play, but they all require some pretty long-winded... illustrating. The short of it: Focalized seizuress can last days, but typically last a few minutes to a few hours (extended by interictal... strangeness). Gotta emphasize the focalized here, generalized (primary or secondary) lasting that long invariably result in death. Anyway, people are frequently astounded to learn that I actually figure out that I'm sick pretty early into the episode, but continue to act as though the (purportedly) illusory reality were the "real" one. For instance, the knowledge that a stream cannot flow upward doesn't really do one much good if you continue to look at the stream and it's flowing upward. I'll even rationalize it to myself by saying that it is, in fact, flowing that direction, but it only appears to be upward because all the vegetation in the vicinity is leaning strangely, or something to that effect.

And so, unless reality intervenes in more obtrusive ways, i.e., subsequent cracks, said first crack can easily be rationalized away.
 
Edit: Never mind, thirty pages later is no better an idea.
 
An interesting interview with Trump in Time magazine. Such profundity from the POTUS. May we bask in his eloquence and insight.

Last week, you said you might annihilate Iran. That was the word you used.
Yeah, I would do that. It's possible.

You've made versions of that threat before. You've also called yourself the President of Peace.
Yeah.

How can the President of Peace be calling for the annihilation of an entire people.
Because by annihilating Iran, we've created peace in the world. With Iran, I don't think you could ever have peace.


So, the "President of Peace", the actual President of the USA, calling for the annihilation of an entire country, an entire people (note how he didn't correct the interviewer on that matter, but accepted the premise). Even when the interviewer offered him the chance to clarify, Trump didn't.

Then he claims that the incursion into Venezuela (to abduct the then-President Maduro) was a war. He actually claims it. Next he'll be claiming an argument he has with Melania is a war. But, anyway, this "President of Peace" has admitted to starting 2 wars.

(link to transcript: https://time.com/article/2026/10/01/donald-trump-2026-interview-transcript/)
 
Because by annihilating Iran, we've created peace in the world. With Iran, I don't think you could ever have peace.

So, the "President of Peace", the actual President of the USA, calling for the annihilation of an entire country, an entire people (note how he didn't correct the interviewer on that matter, but accepted the premise). Even when the interviewer offered him the chance to clarify, Trump didn't.
Sounds like the rationale is the same one used for the Jews in the 1930s. "There can be no peace until every last Jew is gone!"
 
Sounds like the rationale is the same one used for the Jews in the 1930s. "There can be no peace until every last Jew is gone!"
I must say I think you are both overanalysing this. The guy is senile. Nothing he says is coherent.

I don't know why Time bothered to interview him. What is the point? He just comes out with random shit that he may, or may not, contradict within 48hrs. The Iranians and other world leaders know this and treat his pronouncements accordingly - increasingly by ignoring them.
 
Sounds like the rationale is the same one used for the Jews in the 1930s. "There can be no peace until every last Jew is gone!"
Oh for the good ol days when Turnip was declaring he either had, or had not, read Mein Kampf. And liked some of the ideas. Or had no idea what they were. Or it was some other book by Hitler like New Order. And that his 2024 speeches about immigrants being vermin and poisoning the blood of America were, well, yeah Hitler said stuff like that but totally meant something totally different...yeah, I miss Turnip's former clarity!
 
I must say I think you are both overanalysing this. The guy is senile. Nothing he says is coherent.
But it's still worth pointing the issues out. The trouble with American politics at the moment is that they have effectively normalised this shit. That in itself deserves pushback, and its own outrage.
Yes, we in the rest of the world might just roll our eyes, but everything he says has its own impact, let alone what he actually then does (or doesn't do) - e.g. oil prices rose on his claimed desire to "annihilate" Iran.
Just rolling eyes and saying "well, it's just Trump being Trump" is to reduce the global significance of having a senile narcissistic turd at the head of one of the more powerful countries. When he opens his mouth and defecates on the pavement, you could just shake your head, "tut", and move on, or you could point at him, point at what he's done, and let people know about it.so they can avoid it, and perhaps not let people like him foul the footpath again.
Maybe/hopefully after the midterms I'll be more inclined to treat him like the senile patient he is, should Congress grow a spine.
I don't know why Time bothered to interview him. What is the point? He just comes out with random shit that he may, or may not, contradict within 48hrs. The Iranians and other world leaders know this and treat his pronouncements accordingly - increasingly by ignoring them.
Maybe it's an agreement with some medical professionals to track his senility in a manner he won't recognise as such. ;)
At worst it will work as ongoing evidence in support of how history will view him.
 
That is a point: it's good to have plenty of documentation of demented sociopath turds when they are running loose. Makes it a wee bit harder for apologists to loftily assert, "one cannot diagnose mental conditions without meeting a patient."
 
I must say I think you are both overanalysing this. The guy is senile. Nothing he says is coherent.

I don't know why Time bothered to interview him. What is the point? He just comes out with random shit that he may, or may not, contradict within 48hrs. The Iranians and other world leaders know this and treat his pronouncements accordingly - increasingly by ignoring them.
I gave up listening to anything Trump says some time ago.

Much of what he says is lies and the rest is just babbling whatever pops into his brain at the moment. What pops into his brain most often amount to grasping at any straw to try to make himself seem important and/or powerful. It's quite pathetic, actually, given that the guy is the President of the United States, albeit the worst one in living memory.

It's only worth paying attention to what the Trump administration actually does. It's also worth worrying about the Project 25ers who are quietly advancing their own project of unravelling the American democracy and turning it is into a theocratic autocracy.
 
I gave up listening to anything Trump says some time ago.

Much of what he says is lies and the rest is just babbling whatever pops into his brain at the moment. What pops into his brain most often amount to grasping at any straw to try to make himself seem important and/or powerful. It's quite pathetic, actually, given that the guy is the President of the United States, albeit the worst one in living memory.

It's only worth paying attention to what the Trump administration actually does. It's also worth worrying about the Project 25ers who are quietly advancing their own project of unravelling the American democracy and turning it is into a theocratic autocracy.
Spot-on, James, my sentiments entirely. Trump is an expert at dominating the news cycle and getting in everybody's head, whether we like it or not. I resent his ubiquitous presence on our screens and in our newspapers when he talks shit most of the time, which is nevertheless earnestly parsed and analysed, as if it meant something.

But indeed, Prarject 2025, for whom Trump is a useful idiot, is well worth keeping an eye on.
 
I resent his ubiquitous presence on our screens and in our newspapers when he talks shit most of the time, which is nevertheless earnestly parsed and analysed, as if it meant something.
Unfortunately, the "legacy media" still treats what he says as if it matters, like it would if he was a regular President who was moderately honest and well-intentioned, rather than being completely self-obsessed and living in a fantasy world of "alternative facts" made up to bolster his own ego.

I wish the media would realise that what he says only matters insofar as his followers/enablers use his words to justify taking actions that have real-world effects on other people's lives.

Trump has the media hanging on his every word, if for no other reason than so they can all try to be the first to report on the latest outrageous thing he said. But 90% of what he says in every press conference or campaign rally is of zero consequence. A lot of it is factually false, with quite a lot also being lies deliberately told. And a lot of the rest is inconsequential because he'll just change his mind later, or because it's just pointless, self-absorbed grandstanding.

It's partly a problem of the general dumbing down of the press, especially the move from investigative reporting of the news towards opinion-based commentary and partisanship in political reporting. And that's before we start considering the "new" media.

Meanwhile, some "news" outlets have essentially given up on reporting news of any consequence. Instead, they have become entertainment platforms that people can watch to feel like they are winning a culture war, usually as their own standard of living continues to decline.
 
Unfortunately, the "legacy media" still treats what he says as if it matters, like it would if he was a regular President who was moderately honest and well-intentioned, rather than being completely self-obsessed and living in a fantasy world of "alternative facts" made up to bolster his own ego.

I wish the media would realise that what he says only matters insofar as his followers/enablers use his words to justify taking actions that have real-world effects on other people's lives.

Trump has the media hanging on his every word, if for no other reason than so they can all try to be the first to report on the latest outrageous thing he said. But 90% of what he says in every press conference or campaign rally is of zero consequence. A lot of it is factually false, with quite a lot also being lies deliberately told. And a lot of the rest is inconsequential because he'll just change his mind later, or because it's just pointless, self-absorbed grandstanding.

It's partly a problem of the general dumbing down of the press, especially the move from investigative reporting of the news towards opinion-based commentary and partisanship in political reporting. And that's before we start considering the "new" media.

Meanwhile, some "news" outlets have essentially given up on reporting news of any consequence. Instead, they have become entertainment platforms that people can watch to feel like they are winning a culture war, usually as their own standard of living continues to decline.
You should really pay closer attention to what he says.

If it was not for him we might never have known that the nuclear facilities in Iran are just a front for drug factories.

 
Just another random thing he has pulled out of his arse
And CNN reliably runs over to sniff at it.

As James R et al have done, I've been skipping most of the popular press except outlets insulated from corporate control, like NPR, AP, or the guardian. And they do better at covering actions ( what 2025ers like Russell Vought are up to, where the money's going, state-level machinations, etc) and not mouth flappings. Politico is another good one, going for depth on matters ignored by the legacy media.
 
ETA - though I'm not pleased with Politico's newest owner, Axel Springer, which has tried to put its thumb on the scale in a couple areas. The newsroom seems to have managed to sneak stuff around the boss, though, and kept some integrity.
 
You should really pay closer attention to what he says.

If it was not for him we might never have known that the nuclear facilities in Iran are just a front for drug factories.

That is totally new for me. I understood the story differently. Well, is not "understanding" but "speculating" about what happened in certain events of the war.

According to news after the entrances of the nuclear facilities under the mountain were bombed, a weird release said that Iran was warned of the attack and that Iran had few days to move the Uranium to a safer place. The assumed reason was that if the explosions reach the uranium it can cause a environmental crisis in the whole area. I think for this reason Iran has bombed near the nuclear facilities of Israel as a warning, but never hit those directly.

Well, let's believe that such is what happened, Iran moved the uranium.

Iran, according to what was released later, gave a warning that will attack such and such US headquarters as a response to the attacks in its nuclear facilities entrances. Even the president gave thanks to Iran in one of his known speeches, that thanks to the early Iran's warning, no US troop died in those attacks.

I didn't believe that this kind of war was happening. This war is like a neighbor telling you in advance he will brake the front fence of your property so you better keep your dog lashed in the backyard, not so loose in the front yard. You do so, you agree with it. You move the dog to the back and your neighbor destroys with a bulldozer your front yard fence.

So, now it's your turn.

You give a warning to your neighbor telling him not to stay inside the living room but to watch TV in the kitchen located at the back of the house, because you will break all his front windows. Your neighbor agrees and he and his family stay most of the time far away from the living room area. Then you use bricks and break all the windows in the font of his house.

Do you really call to all of these, a war?

But, it happens, always speculating, that losing the military headquarter buildings is nothing in comparison to the satellite information giving the location where the uranium has been moved to. Then, is to sent an airplane or drone to survey the area. The airplane was shoot down, the pilot survived and sent the signals of his location. The US army sent not a helicopter but big bulky airplanes besides other war airplanes to rescue the US pilot. The idea, always speculating the events, was stealing the uranium besides the rescuing the pilot.

The Iranians suspected from the very beginning the intentions of their enemy and waited for the assuming rescuing with heavy artillery, drones and more. The rescuing was successful, but several US equipment, including airplane(s) were lost in the confrontation. The uranium stayed in Iran. Days later the president openly offer the peace agreement solely if Iran gives its Uranium and the conflict to end for good.

One can speculate lots of things in this "war".

If I see the sea near Iran full of US warships and thousands of troops ready for "invasion", such is not distraction but to me, speculating again, is to repeat the war strategy used in the war against Iraq: the football game strategy, if you can remember those days.

Iran will expect attacks from the sea, but at this step the ships and troops ready to land are the hook holding a worm, Iran -the fish- will go for the worm, and the fisherman will caught it from the back with the fisher net.

About the CNN release, I speculate that such is a way to say, "well, the uranium stuff didn't work, let's changed it, say it's drugs instead".
 
Back
Top