He's solely focused on increasing his wealth, fame, and power. So, yes, his only interest is in personal aggrandizement. As for stupid, I think he's actually extremely smart in certain ways. He's definitely politically smart, though maybe wily is a better word. He's skilled at manipulating the System, which means he will sometimes purposely allow himself to be manipulated when he believes that will help him achieve his goals. He's pathetically weak in that he's become hopelessly addicted to the false pleasures of wealth, fame, and power. He's likely incapable of experiencing any kind of true pleasure.
His own appointees ("only the best people!") have characterized him as an imbecile.
I would agree that he is talented as a salesman and a bullshitter, he is good at getting his way, which is very different from intelligence in an IQ test sense.
OK, here's my take on that issue, FWIW. Due to the fact that he's demonstrated a high level of skill in political manipulation, I suspect his score on an IQ test would fall well within the "normal" range. He might even have a somewhat above average IQ. But he appears to be an imbecile to many people because he has no interest in learning anything that isn't likely to increase his wealth, fame, and power. So he's extremely ignorant on many topics, such as history, law, science, and philosophy. But that doesn't make him an imbecile.
Respect for your early and accurate insights into Trump and Iran (and ditto for your coverage of Tulsi Gabbard). As someone who to some degree harbored a degree of naive optimism on both topics, I’m particularly grateful for your consistent refusal to have your analysis distorted by hope, tribalism, or anything else.
I can understand why you might be reluctant to do it—it might come across as self-congratulatory—but I’m curious if you have any sense of why your analysis has been so spot-on while others have been less accurate. After all, Trump has made any number of pretty speeches about cutting military spending, ending the American regime’s addiction to war, etc, and a lot of people went for those head fakes but you never did.
In contract law, there’s a rule of construction wherein a contradiction in language will be resolved in favor of the specific outweighing the general. Is that part of it? That is, Trump said lots of general things about war being bad and many specific ones about bombing Iran. But of course when he was out of office he also said specific critical things about Obama and Biden ginning up war against Iran. All of which is to say, he did offer “evidence” in favor of both war and no war.
Anyway again, you’ve been unusual in knowing which evidence to discount and which mattered. I think any insights into your approach would be useful to anyone who’d prefer to not get fooled again.
Everything that Trump has ever done or said with respect to Iran that's had any tangible policy specificity has weighed in favor of accelerating bellicosity toward Iran. People have decided to ignore or distort his first term record on Iran, which was marked by a drastic acceleration in bellicosity. What did he ever say or do that substantively indicated this would change in a second term? Nothing. As to campaign rhetoric, what has more tangible policy specifics: vaguely claiming you aspire to bring "peace to the Middle East" -- which could mean essentially anything -- or pledging to expedite weapons shipments to Israel, and endorsing an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Trump said all of the above in 2024, and discerning observers should have been able to cut through the noise, but didn't for a variety of reasons, including because many of them decided to disable their discernment faculties in service of rooting for a Trump victory.
Thanks. Maybe one lesson here is to distinguish between a politician's stated goals ("I'm for peace in the Middle East!") and the politician's articulation of means "I'm going to bomb Iran for peace!"), with the latter deserving of far more weight. This sounds obvious when said aloud but judging from the overall coverage of events, I think it's an unusual approach.
And that's probably the relatively easy part. More difficult is avoiding the various temptations of tribalism and the distortions it causes. For anyone looking for self-defense in this regard, I recommend a terrific short essay called Keep Your Identity Small, by Paul Graham.
My 2 picks the Nimitz will be the next "Remember the Maine" false flag. And that we will use tactical nukes( the new Pentagon toy) not bunker busters to get the Iranian sites .
To be elected president, you must kowtow to Israel, which is why they all do it. Come out against Israel and AIPAC and the Christian Zionists will hang your political scalp on the wall.
Michael— Didn’t Witkoff publicly state that the “deal” allowed for limited enrichment before Trump moved his own “red line” to zero enrichment, making himself a Monet of red line composition, and making his use of the phrase “red line” all the more notable, i.e., fraudulent?
So did Trump really follow through on the “red line” threat?
If that’s an accurate characterization, it only serves to further highlight the apparent and public shift from a tenable to untenable diplomatic solution, thus providing a clear indication of imminent military action.
Witkoff went on Hannity's show April 14 and vaguely suggested the notion that Iran may be allowed to retain enrichment at 3.67%, which was the old JCPOA benchmark. Here's the exact quote: "They do not need to enrich past 3.67%, in some circumstances they're at 60%, in other circumstances 20%. That cannot be. And you do not need to run, as they claim, a civil nuclear program where you're enriching past 3.67%." Some construed this as a policy statement that Trump Administration "negotiators" would accept the continuation of enrichment at 3.67%, but the wording was ambiguous at best. Either way, Witkoff rushed to offer a firm clarification the very next morning, posting on his official government X account that Iran must "eliminate its nuclear enrichment." Full quote:
“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal. Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East -- meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program. It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do.”
After that point, Witkoff became much more unambiguous with his public wording: the "red line" was no enrichment whatsoever. "We cannot allow even one percent of an enrichment capability." (May 18)
Iran’s been in the crosshairs long before this current crop of budget middle managers got their grubby little mitts on the leash of the system’s muscle bound attack dog (the american state apparatus). Horrifying, lamentable in the extreme yes. Surprising no, as you rightly point out, rather as predictable as late Colombo. “Just one more thing…..”
Great work, Michael. It's an uphill battle to try to explain the time line of events that brought us to this precipice. From Trump's first campaign onwards, I always noticed that he has a particular hate on for Iran. And here we are.
Trump slithered out of 4(?) bankruptcies, ditched his wives when they aged out and, in general, beat every rap so he’s not used to facing consequences for lies and backstabbing. I do think there’s a dim, flickering light going off in his head that he’s in way over his head and this could turn into a nuclear war and nobody can escape those consequences.
Excellent article and I remember reading your tweets about RFK Jr.
Trump is weak, stupid and has no interests other than his personal aggrandizement.
This leaves him eminently easily manipulated.
He's solely focused on increasing his wealth, fame, and power. So, yes, his only interest is in personal aggrandizement. As for stupid, I think he's actually extremely smart in certain ways. He's definitely politically smart, though maybe wily is a better word. He's skilled at manipulating the System, which means he will sometimes purposely allow himself to be manipulated when he believes that will help him achieve his goals. He's pathetically weak in that he's become hopelessly addicted to the false pleasures of wealth, fame, and power. He's likely incapable of experiencing any kind of true pleasure.
His own appointees ("only the best people!") have characterized him as an imbecile.
I would agree that he is talented as a salesman and a bullshitter, he is good at getting his way, which is very different from intelligence in an IQ test sense.
OK, here's my take on that issue, FWIW. Due to the fact that he's demonstrated a high level of skill in political manipulation, I suspect his score on an IQ test would fall well within the "normal" range. He might even have a somewhat above average IQ. But he appears to be an imbecile to many people because he has no interest in learning anything that isn't likely to increase his wealth, fame, and power. So he's extremely ignorant on many topics, such as history, law, science, and philosophy. But that doesn't make him an imbecile.
Perhaps.
Or any kind of true empathy, personal or strategic.
Respect for your early and accurate insights into Trump and Iran (and ditto for your coverage of Tulsi Gabbard). As someone who to some degree harbored a degree of naive optimism on both topics, I’m particularly grateful for your consistent refusal to have your analysis distorted by hope, tribalism, or anything else.
I can understand why you might be reluctant to do it—it might come across as self-congratulatory—but I’m curious if you have any sense of why your analysis has been so spot-on while others have been less accurate. After all, Trump has made any number of pretty speeches about cutting military spending, ending the American regime’s addiction to war, etc, and a lot of people went for those head fakes but you never did.
In contract law, there’s a rule of construction wherein a contradiction in language will be resolved in favor of the specific outweighing the general. Is that part of it? That is, Trump said lots of general things about war being bad and many specific ones about bombing Iran. But of course when he was out of office he also said specific critical things about Obama and Biden ginning up war against Iran. All of which is to say, he did offer “evidence” in favor of both war and no war.
Anyway again, you’ve been unusual in knowing which evidence to discount and which mattered. I think any insights into your approach would be useful to anyone who’d prefer to not get fooled again.
Everything that Trump has ever done or said with respect to Iran that's had any tangible policy specificity has weighed in favor of accelerating bellicosity toward Iran. People have decided to ignore or distort his first term record on Iran, which was marked by a drastic acceleration in bellicosity. What did he ever say or do that substantively indicated this would change in a second term? Nothing. As to campaign rhetoric, what has more tangible policy specifics: vaguely claiming you aspire to bring "peace to the Middle East" -- which could mean essentially anything -- or pledging to expedite weapons shipments to Israel, and endorsing an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Trump said all of the above in 2024, and discerning observers should have been able to cut through the noise, but didn't for a variety of reasons, including because many of them decided to disable their discernment faculties in service of rooting for a Trump victory.
Thanks. Maybe one lesson here is to distinguish between a politician's stated goals ("I'm for peace in the Middle East!") and the politician's articulation of means "I'm going to bomb Iran for peace!"), with the latter deserving of far more weight. This sounds obvious when said aloud but judging from the overall coverage of events, I think it's an unusual approach.
And that's probably the relatively easy part. More difficult is avoiding the various temptations of tribalism and the distortions it causes. For anyone looking for self-defense in this regard, I recommend a terrific short essay called Keep Your Identity Small, by Paul Graham.
Before this article was published, where did you contemporaneously document it all?
My 2 picks the Nimitz will be the next "Remember the Maine" false flag. And that we will use tactical nukes( the new Pentagon toy) not bunker busters to get the Iranian sites .
Thank You Michael
To be elected president, you must kowtow to Israel, which is why they all do it. Come out against Israel and AIPAC and the Christian Zionists will hang your political scalp on the wall.
Iran can hardly be considered a fount of peace and stability. I want to avoid being involved in another ME war but I have no love for the Mullocracy.
Michael— Didn’t Witkoff publicly state that the “deal” allowed for limited enrichment before Trump moved his own “red line” to zero enrichment, making himself a Monet of red line composition, and making his use of the phrase “red line” all the more notable, i.e., fraudulent?
So did Trump really follow through on the “red line” threat?
If that’s an accurate characterization, it only serves to further highlight the apparent and public shift from a tenable to untenable diplomatic solution, thus providing a clear indication of imminent military action.
Witkoff went on Hannity's show April 14 and vaguely suggested the notion that Iran may be allowed to retain enrichment at 3.67%, which was the old JCPOA benchmark. Here's the exact quote: "They do not need to enrich past 3.67%, in some circumstances they're at 60%, in other circumstances 20%. That cannot be. And you do not need to run, as they claim, a civil nuclear program where you're enriching past 3.67%." Some construed this as a policy statement that Trump Administration "negotiators" would accept the continuation of enrichment at 3.67%, but the wording was ambiguous at best. Either way, Witkoff rushed to offer a firm clarification the very next morning, posting on his official government X account that Iran must "eliminate its nuclear enrichment." Full quote:
“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal. Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East -- meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program. It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do.”
After that point, Witkoff became much more unambiguous with his public wording: the "red line" was no enrichment whatsoever. "We cannot allow even one percent of an enrichment capability." (May 18)
Iran’s been in the crosshairs long before this current crop of budget middle managers got their grubby little mitts on the leash of the system’s muscle bound attack dog (the american state apparatus). Horrifying, lamentable in the extreme yes. Surprising no, as you rightly point out, rather as predictable as late Colombo. “Just one more thing…..”
Most Americans and Europeans.
https://babylonbee.com/news/guy-who-cant-settle-dispute-between-his-toddlers-pretty-sure-he-has-this-israel-iran-thing-solved
Great work, Michael. It's an uphill battle to try to explain the time line of events that brought us to this precipice. From Trump's first campaign onwards, I always noticed that he has a particular hate on for Iran. And here we are.
Trump slithered out of 4(?) bankruptcies, ditched his wives when they aged out and, in general, beat every rap so he’s not used to facing consequences for lies and backstabbing. I do think there’s a dim, flickering light going off in his head that he’s in way over his head and this could turn into a nuclear war and nobody can escape those consequences.
Excellent article and I remember reading your tweets about RFK Jr.
Great article Michael. We are ruled by the most despicable and vile fuckers on earth. This is an evil country in a cruel world.