Trump sent his stooges Jughead Jared, Witless Witkoff, and Jittery JD to Islamabad last weekend to deliver surrender terms under the pretense of “negotiations” — immediately upon the conclusion of which, he ordered a Naval Blockade, right in the middle of the supposedly ongoing “ceasefire” that had been declared a few days prior, with conspicuously unspecified terms.
Yes, Israel’s plans have always been the destruction of Iran as a functional state - adding to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Yes, that is the pattern of intention and action that underlies Trump’s minute by minute self-contradictions, confabulations and self-owns.
And so the Israel-owned President and the Israel-owned Congress continue on their genocidal way.
There are tens of thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea and Japan at a cost of many billions, way more than we spend on Israel. So, let's be clear, you just don't like Israel.
We don’t orient our entire middle eastern policy towards making Israel happy. This is a delusion. Perhaps you would prefer that the U.S. should orient our middle eastern policy to make the Palestinians happy?
Iran has had ample opportunity over decades to create nuclear weapons but didn't. Trump killed the ayatollah that outlawed their development. I guess they got the message and should revise their plans.
Name one piece of evidence that Iran helped plan or even gave the green light to 10/7? All evidence and reporting suggested that Iran was against any Hamas attack on Israel.
Iran gave green light, and China gave green light too. Chinese thinking was USA was already so overextended in Ukraine, it would crack with additional assault on Israel.
Oh really? Show me the hidden Iranian general sitting in Gaza or Lebanon. Iran never attacked Israel, its Israel and their loyal dog the USA who attacked Iran.
It doesn't do any favors to the critique of Israeli policy to adopt the hopelessly naive position that Iran has not / is not backstopping, supplying, bankrolling, and coordinating all these groups as proxy actors.
Marco Rubio said it was for Israel. Every US intelligence agency said Iran is no threat to Israel. It’s a war for Israel. Like both Iraq wars, the Afghan war, Libya and Syria.
Every war since 9/11 is a war for Israel.
Netanyahu owns Trump and he owns Congress. Everyone can see it now. Everyone knows it now.
1) Marco Rubio said Israel wanted the U.S. to join them in attacking Iran. President Trump decided to. Trump made the decision and is responsible for the decision. 2) Neither you nor I know what “every U.S. intelligence agency” thinks about whether Iran was a threat to Israel or not. 3) What is a “war for Israel?” I think President Trump makes decisions based on what he thinks is best for America. 4) The first Iraq was 10 years before 9/11. There is no evidence for any of this. 5) Netanyahu doesn’t even own Israel or the Knesset, let alone Trump, Congress or the U.S.A. 6) Trump ordered Israel to take the ceasefire with Hamas. Trump ordered Israel to ceasefire with Hezbollah. I think it is possible that Trump’s thinking in going to war with Iran has to do with his geo-political plans in regard to the Western Hemisphere and China.
The bottom line is that regular U.S. citizens only know (some of) what our government does and almost never the reason(s), and when the government says the reason, it might be bulls**t anyway.
Lebanon now, and Turkey seems to be next in line. Just won't stop. Can't stop. The logic of killing children just in case some might become a danger some day - that's irreversible, like a train without brakes, each new murder creates too much hatred. And there is now a long backlog. Can only expand until it explodes.
Well, brakes before the train wreck would be a lot courage from Israelis, which there are some, fighting for what's right in an ocean of tribal stupidity and cruelty, be they blessed, but far too few to make a change. And weapons are with the fanatics and the fearful haters, like often.
What maximalist demands do you think US should concede to get a resolution purely through diplomatic means and also without compromising US national security? Do you think US should go back to the JCPOA or something in the middle? I get the criticisms of the 'military excursion' but I do not understand what does your proposed alternative diplomatic solution to this mess look like.
It's not incumbent on me (or anyone) to propose an alternative policy prescription to bail Trump out of the mess he created (since 2018). I don't have anything close to the requisite information, such as: Who's actually running the Iranian government at the moment? Perhaps if Marco gave me a briefing, I could come up with some tentative recommendations.
Regardless of whether Trump himself created the mess, we can all agree we are in a mess now, right? And I agree, none of us outside the administration has all the requisite info. However you say that all the negotiations talk is a bluff or a pretense to a further military action which is inevitable by making all these maximalist demands that even Iran’s “moderate” faction would not agree too and given than you’re this passionately anti-military action, surely you must have some opinion as to what a non-maximalist demands in a good-faith negotiation would look like, no? So what’s your argument then? No military action whatsoever? Okay but then what? Do you have an opinion about whether there’s a solution out of this mess without blowing Iran to smithereens? I don’t have an answer either btw.
For an example of a negotiated settlement that Iran has previously accepted, and was complying with per IAEA monitoring, please google the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015). Whether a similar template would be achievable now, I have little ability to discern, for a variety of reasons, such as: there is very little information available about the current Supreme Leader, including whether he's even alive/conscious and making operational decisions. Not to mention that Trump is unlikely to suddenly determine that the "Obama Nuclear Deal" is a desirable "negotiating" framework.
Some international problems are just not soluble given the existing constraints and conditions. See also: Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine
So what’s your opinion on the group of people who say that JCPOA framework left a lot of loopholes (like these, https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/2043332577851752803?s=20)? Do you think these concerns are exaggerated, or legitimate but manageable (not to walk away from it if it is back on the table)? Whether or not Trump admin will go back, do YOU think we should go back to this if it was feasible, hypothetically?
What "mess" was allegedly created by the JCPOA that at all rivals the "mess" unfolding with Iran post-JCPOA? Isn't the US currently embroiled in an active war against Iran? I guess if you don't consider avoidable war to be a "mess," we have different definitions of what "mess" means.
My point is that what we see today in the Islamic Republic and its offshoots in Lebanon and Yemen (and via Hezbollah in South America) can be traced back to the JCPOA. So this fine mess we are in is thanks in my opinion to Obama. What I keep thinking about, what did he think would happen?
If the USA leaves Iran and has nothing in the entire neighbourhood, US national security would not be compromised . Nobody believes it was Iran who sent 2 assassins to him.
Am afraid accepting failure early is the least bad outcome at this point. Was worth a try perhaps, but failed. The crazy murderous regime has much more support, and is much smarter, than could have been hoped.
“ I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences.”
What are the pretences of our time and place?
Answer: the decolonial moral framework.
This is probably you and you are not aware.
Zineb Riboua explains:
“Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth casts colonialism as a total structure of domination, one that shaped not only material conditions but “consciousness” itself and one that could not be reformed from within.
Aníbal Quijano’s concept of the “coloniality of power” similarly holds that hierarchy did not disappear with “formal decolonization” but persisted through institutions and norms that organize the modern world. Within this framework, the United States is not evaluated as a particular state making choices under constraints, but as the most complete expression of a colonial, oppressive, and “morally evil” system whose legitimacy is already dismissed. So, Law is not seen as a mechanism that imperfectly but meaningfully constrains power, it is seen instead as a language through which domination presents itself as “universality”.
“Anti-American regimes are treated as agents of resistance regardless of their conduct, while American action is treated as suspect, evil, and ignorant, irrespective of its purpose.”
Did you know this about yourself, your position? Truly it is not the end of history, the decolonial moral framework it is very much part and parcel of history , it is not above or beyond.
Curtis Yarvin:
“Before the age of enlightenment the present considered itself part of the past. Any theory of presentist exceptionalism could only have been entertained as a joke. The age of technology gave us an excuse for exceptionalism. The excuse is fully disproven. From Aristotle’s time to ours, the rules of human political science have not changed. The 20th century just decided to unlearn them. It’s past time to relearn them.”
Our author is clearly perturbed about the changes that Trump is part (only part) of. This according to theory is natural:
“When a political formula is dominant, it recedes into the background, becoming part of society’s moral common sense. The decolonial moral framework, as progressivism’s political formula, can thus cease to be an ideology and instead become a mindset: the unquestioned framework through which people conceive morality.”
(This is our author and the really the only perspective taught from grade school to the academy: so, it’s no wonder.)
“Conversely, when a rising counter-elite persuades a significant portion of the public that the foundational moral assumptions of a regime are ideological rather than natural, the political formula comes under attack, a moral crisis emerges, and a paradigm shift may follow.”
This, I think, explains the hysteria as a matter of ideation and the Gaza conflict drives it home as a universal evil beyond any doubt and for all time.
This is our egregore and the apotheosis of liberalism.
Edward Fessor:
“ A Paranoid, delusional, hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them, where they do exist.”
“ In general wokeness, like Catharism - Gnostic heresy southern Europe approximately 1143 - 1321 - is essentially about the radical subversion of normal human life in the name of a paranoid metaphysical delusion …. It is fuelled by seething envy and resentment directed against the natural order of things.”
Well done. May your shouts into the gale of nonsense be heard.
Fwiw, I don't mind the epithets. "If the shoe fits wear it." Yes, Trump is particular about the shoes those around him wear. Literally. In this case, sadly, our leaders are sporting killer clown shoes, spit polished by the MAGA apparatchiks and allies who haven't yet fled. Figuratively speaking, of course.
LOL, time to shift topics, eh? I guess defending pedos didn’t work out too well for your reputation did it? Did Glenn Greenwald drop you like a hot potato?
Besides the stated reason for this post that Trump doesn't bluff, (and Tracey makes a good case that he doesn't) is the implied question; is this man mentally intact, and do we need, as a country, to be concerned about his ability to actually lead the country? Put aside for a moment, if you can, what side of aisle your on, and just listen to the what the man says and has said in the last 6mos. Ask your self what has he done? Do honestly believe the world is safer because of it? Do you feel better now and more secure since the war started? Was there anyway to keep the Straight of Hormuz open before he decided to bomb Iran and start a war that is quickly spiraling out of control with disastrous consequences. Is beating countries with a big stick a reasonable long and short term foreign policy? Trump plans seem to extend into the future no further than a couple of weeks/mos. at a time, concluding in a threat to blow somebody up, and he sometimes does.
How long do we let this go on before we start to have open discussions about whether or not this man actually has what it takes to lead the country in an increasingly complex world.
Yes, we do, meanwhile the complicit or cowardly “opposition” party won’t do anything but try to pacify us with sham commissions knowing the 25th will go nowhere unless they go in person and talk to their Rep “buddies” aka enablers as well as Vance + the cabinet like the sham ceasefires from Trump which are more bombing in disguise to dupe the fools in the legacy media or complicit evil there idk which probably a mix of both…I would take Vance at this stage since he’s not as unstable, it might cost us a little but good Lord Trump is willing to do anything to get out of his 41% average since he’s stuck there and he’s got nothing holding him back right now…
Would he do the worst thing imaginable to paint himself a winner of a war he’s lost, in Iran, to get support past his base cult which is with him even at close to but not quite lowest point in his second term (NBC is 100% biased towards Dems like Quinnipiac, as much as Rasmussen is 100% biased towards Reps like RMGResearch…I look at averages period and not Nate Silver’s outlier one but everyone else has him in low 40s so that’s the truth).
What happens when a President wins a war outright, to date? Exactly, what has happened with Republicans in the past? Trump has lost Iran’s otoh so is at close to his nadir in Term 2 unless…?
He imo would blow the world to the ground to win, he would, no guardrails on him unlike the first term and WW3 would be his only “out” no matter what hell he unleashes on the world next…yeah, be afraid.
A modest suggestion: you can always remove the compulsory epithets at the beginning and still not look like you support Trump. You're smart and tasteful enough to not have to resort to cheap, apologetic gimmicks.
I think there are a combination of factors. First, Trump is an old man and old people have degraded mental capacities due to restriction of blood flow to the brain. Second, he is surrounded by nutcase religious advisors, starting with the fake evangelist Paula White, who is mainly out for money. Trump appointed her as his official "spiritual advisor." Pete Hegseth is a member of what is basically a far-right cult that has adopted Puritan ideas. They have the misguided idea that they can somehow hasten the return of Christ by supporting Israel. Not to mention that he has Zionist Jews telling him what to do. The third possibility is that he really is being influenced by demons. Part of the problem is that few Americans know diddly about Iran - or Israel for that matter - and are easily influenced by propaganda.
Thank you Michael, for bring us up to date on Trump's ambitions to destroy Iran. I voted for Trump three times. Was I blinded by my hatred of the Democrats or was it just bad luck that Trump turned out to be a bloodthirsty SOB?
I'm like you. I voted for him all three times too. The problem is that he is just another liar who will say whatever it take to get votes, then do whatever he thinks he can get away with. He thinks he's a legislator, judge and executor all rolled into one. We were duped.
So... you're saying that, notwithstanding Democratic and Eurowanker screeching and whining, and notwithstanding all the noise out there, Trump has been 100% consistent in his objectives, has pursued them with ruthless efficiency and spectacular effectiveness, and is about to begin the final wallop that achieving those objectives require? And as an added bonus, you're saying Iran will be back in the stone age when all is said and done?
I mean, I've always argued that Democrats and Eurocrats ("Eurowankers" isn't bad) have an extremely impoverished understanding of Trump. See, for instance, my coverage of the NATO Summit last year.
I actually remember that coverage - it did have some entertaining moments.
To be honest, I find the coverage of what Trump SAYS (and what this Iranian official SAYS or that Iranian general SAYS, not to mention, what some Eurowanker in Brussels says - no need for capitals here, all they do is say things) tedious and a waste of time.
Focusing on what is actually DONE by the actors is far more illuminating.
I don't read Trump's tweets - but if your familiarity with them serves to highlight Trump's consistency in pursuit of a coherent plan - far be it for me to argue.
“Trump has been 100% consistent—ruthless efficiency—spectacular effective” if I were an arsonist (l’m not) and consistently, effectively and efficiently burned down houses — occupied, unoccupied, historically significant, or necessary for human life (such as hospitals) would you be praising me? No, you would ask if I had any moral core to care if I destroyed homes, hospitals, irreplaceable historical sites. While we’re destroying their lives we’re corrupting ours no matter who “wins.”
“When you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes back into you.” — spoken by the greatest nihilist who ever lived 100+ years ago. He saw what happens when humans gave up even the smallest pretense of caring for each other and abandoned honor completely.
What hospitals has Trump burned down? Answer: zero. What significant (or even insignificant) irreplaceable historical sites has Trump destroyed? Answer: zero.
There are no historical sites of any significance in Iran. A few minor ruins here and there, from a time before Islam came to Persia, is all you'll find. And no serious person will consider a few old rocks in the middle of nowhere "irreplaceable".
Persepolis to name one. There are 29 World Heritage sites. These are not easily replaced. It’s been in the news hospitals have been hit, universities, apartment buildings and of course, the infamous attack on the girls school the first day by Tomahawk missiles.
As I said, a few old rocks, in this case, oriented vertically.
Incidentally, has Trump bombed a single one of those rocks? No? I didn’t think so.
“There are 29 World Heritage sites. These are not easily replaced.”
What is there, that anyone even cares about? A few rocks that, if you saw them at a garage sale, you wouldn’t pay $5 for them.
Not to mention, why would we waste munitions on these rocks anyway? The rocks are safe from Trump, worry not.
“It’s been in the news hospitals have been hit,”
I don’t recall any hospitals in the news.
“universities”
Yes, labs for missile research and production that are embedded into those “universities”. Those so called “universities” need to be razed to the ground.
“apartment buildings”
Where IRGC generals and the ayatollahs live – targets that are not only legitimate, but vitally necessary.
“ the infamous attack on the girls school the first day by Tomahawk missiles”
The school which the IRGC deliberately placed inside the territory of one of its bases – a war crime by the IRGC.
So according to this story: "The hospital is opposite studios and offices owned by the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which may have been the intended target of the strike."
This is obviously an IRGC hospital, which is part of the IRGC propaganda complex. And even this story - and the BBC is as anti-Trump and anti-Israel as they come - admits that the hospital wasn't the actual target - the IRIB facility was - and there was only minor damage to the hospital.
Case closed, as far as I am concerned.
"Do US military bases have schools? And on top of that the school was not on a base, but next to it."
No, it was on the base. IRGC later moved the fence that delineated the base boundary, so they get a propaganda victory out of it. The IRGC is delighted the school was hit.
In any event, with 20,000+ targets hit, and two or three cases of collateral damage, I am perfectly fine with it. Or are you seriously arguing that somebody is DELIBERATELY targeting hospitals and schools, and yet only 0.01% of all the targets hit are hospitals and schools? If so, their aim is piss-poor.
Yes, Israel’s plans have always been the destruction of Iran as a functional state - adding to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Yes, that is the pattern of intention and action that underlies Trump’s minute by minute self-contradictions, confabulations and self-owns.
And so the Israel-owned President and the Israel-owned Congress continue on their genocidal way.
Yes, because Iran’s plans for Israel have been so benign
Not to mention Israel’s actual actions against Iran. But yeah “plans”.
Remind me again why Americans should die for Israel’s wars and pay for Israel’s wars?
There are tens of thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea and Japan at a cost of many billions, way more than we spend on Israel. So, let's be clear, you just don't like Israel.
We also don't orient our entire far eastern policy towards making South Korea happy.
We don’t orient our entire middle eastern policy towards making Israel happy. This is a delusion. Perhaps you would prefer that the U.S. should orient our middle eastern policy to make the Palestinians happy?
We certainly don't do that.
How would our foreign policy look different if Israel did have an outsized influence on our foreign policy?
Ukraine costs far more than Israel, by the way.
Depending how you count. And in how many US states is it a criminal offence to criticise Ukraine?
It’s long past time to all foreign wars and all foreign influence.
Have you heard main stream media criticizing Ukraine?
No way. We’ve been fighting Israel’s wars (and the neocons’ wars) in the Mideast for decades.
Who said that Americans should die for Israel’s wars and pay for Israel’s wars?
Then we can agree that needs to stop.
Iran has had ample opportunity over decades to create nuclear weapons but didn't. Trump killed the ayatollah that outlawed their development. I guess they got the message and should revise their plans.
Remind me, how many times has Iran attacked Israel?
Iran was behind every attack by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Name one piece of evidence that Iran helped plan or even gave the green light to 10/7? All evidence and reporting suggested that Iran was against any Hamas attack on Israel.
Iran gave green light, and China gave green light too. Chinese thinking was USA was already so overextended in Ukraine, it would crack with additional assault on Israel.
Oh really? Show me the hidden Iranian general sitting in Gaza or Lebanon. Iran never attacked Israel, its Israel and their loyal dog the USA who attacked Iran.
It doesn't do any favors to the critique of Israeli policy to adopt the hopelessly naive position that Iran has not / is not backstopping, supplying, bankrolling, and coordinating all these groups as proxy actors.
How many of those have died lately? How many children have those countries killed lately with US money and weapons?
You do know that this war for Israel is costing $2 billion per day right? But sure. Israel first. It’s always Israel first.
The war is not for Israel. Israel does not control the U.S. or order around President Trump.
Marco Rubio said it was for Israel. Every US intelligence agency said Iran is no threat to Israel. It’s a war for Israel. Like both Iraq wars, the Afghan war, Libya and Syria.
Every war since 9/11 is a war for Israel.
Netanyahu owns Trump and he owns Congress. Everyone can see it now. Everyone knows it now.
1) Marco Rubio said Israel wanted the U.S. to join them in attacking Iran. President Trump decided to. Trump made the decision and is responsible for the decision. 2) Neither you nor I know what “every U.S. intelligence agency” thinks about whether Iran was a threat to Israel or not. 3) What is a “war for Israel?” I think President Trump makes decisions based on what he thinks is best for America. 4) The first Iraq was 10 years before 9/11. There is no evidence for any of this. 5) Netanyahu doesn’t even own Israel or the Knesset, let alone Trump, Congress or the U.S.A. 6) Trump ordered Israel to take the ceasefire with Hamas. Trump ordered Israel to ceasefire with Hezbollah. I think it is possible that Trump’s thinking in going to war with Iran has to do with his geo-political plans in regard to the Western Hemisphere and China.
The bottom line is that regular U.S. citizens only know (some of) what our government does and almost never the reason(s), and when the government says the reason, it might be bulls**t anyway.
Lebanon now, and Turkey seems to be next in line. Just won't stop. Can't stop. The logic of killing children just in case some might become a danger some day - that's irreversible, like a train without brakes, each new murder creates too much hatred. And there is now a long backlog. Can only expand until it explodes.
Well, brakes before the train wreck would be a lot courage from Israelis, which there are some, fighting for what's right in an ocean of tribal stupidity and cruelty, be they blessed, but far too few to make a change. And weapons are with the fanatics and the fearful haters, like often.
Israel's hopes (not plans ) have been for the end of the Islamic Regime holding Iran ransom.
What maximalist demands do you think US should concede to get a resolution purely through diplomatic means and also without compromising US national security? Do you think US should go back to the JCPOA or something in the middle? I get the criticisms of the 'military excursion' but I do not understand what does your proposed alternative diplomatic solution to this mess look like.
It's not incumbent on me (or anyone) to propose an alternative policy prescription to bail Trump out of the mess he created (since 2018). I don't have anything close to the requisite information, such as: Who's actually running the Iranian government at the moment? Perhaps if Marco gave me a briefing, I could come up with some tentative recommendations.
Regardless of whether Trump himself created the mess, we can all agree we are in a mess now, right? And I agree, none of us outside the administration has all the requisite info. However you say that all the negotiations talk is a bluff or a pretense to a further military action which is inevitable by making all these maximalist demands that even Iran’s “moderate” faction would not agree too and given than you’re this passionately anti-military action, surely you must have some opinion as to what a non-maximalist demands in a good-faith negotiation would look like, no? So what’s your argument then? No military action whatsoever? Okay but then what? Do you have an opinion about whether there’s a solution out of this mess without blowing Iran to smithereens? I don’t have an answer either btw.
For an example of a negotiated settlement that Iran has previously accepted, and was complying with per IAEA monitoring, please google the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015). Whether a similar template would be achievable now, I have little ability to discern, for a variety of reasons, such as: there is very little information available about the current Supreme Leader, including whether he's even alive/conscious and making operational decisions. Not to mention that Trump is unlikely to suddenly determine that the "Obama Nuclear Deal" is a desirable "negotiating" framework.
Some international problems are just not soluble given the existing constraints and conditions. See also: Israel/Palestine, Russia/Ukraine
So what’s your opinion on the group of people who say that JCPOA framework left a lot of loopholes (like these, https://x.com/davidharsanyi/status/2043332577851752803?s=20)? Do you think these concerns are exaggerated, or legitimate but manageable (not to walk away from it if it is back on the table)? Whether or not Trump admin will go back, do YOU think we should go back to this if it was feasible, hypothetically?
How are we in a "mess"? Or do you mean the mess that started with the Obama administration and the JCPOA?
What "mess" was allegedly created by the JCPOA that at all rivals the "mess" unfolding with Iran post-JCPOA? Isn't the US currently embroiled in an active war against Iran? I guess if you don't consider avoidable war to be a "mess," we have different definitions of what "mess" means.
My point is that what we see today in the Islamic Republic and its offshoots in Lebanon and Yemen (and via Hezbollah in South America) can be traced back to the JCPOA. So this fine mess we are in is thanks in my opinion to Obama. What I keep thinking about, what did he think would happen?
Hezbollah and Yemeni Shiism long predate the JCPOA.
If the USA leaves Iran and has nothing in the entire neighbourhood, US national security would not be compromised . Nobody believes it was Iran who sent 2 assassins to him.
Am afraid accepting failure early is the least bad outcome at this point. Was worth a try perhaps, but failed. The crazy murderous regime has much more support, and is much smarter, than could have been hoped.
Henry Kissinger:
“ I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences.”
What are the pretences of our time and place?
Answer: the decolonial moral framework.
This is probably you and you are not aware.
Zineb Riboua explains:
“Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth casts colonialism as a total structure of domination, one that shaped not only material conditions but “consciousness” itself and one that could not be reformed from within.
Aníbal Quijano’s concept of the “coloniality of power” similarly holds that hierarchy did not disappear with “formal decolonization” but persisted through institutions and norms that organize the modern world. Within this framework, the United States is not evaluated as a particular state making choices under constraints, but as the most complete expression of a colonial, oppressive, and “morally evil” system whose legitimacy is already dismissed. So, Law is not seen as a mechanism that imperfectly but meaningfully constrains power, it is seen instead as a language through which domination presents itself as “universality”.
“Anti-American regimes are treated as agents of resistance regardless of their conduct, while American action is treated as suspect, evil, and ignorant, irrespective of its purpose.”
Did you know this about yourself, your position? Truly it is not the end of history, the decolonial moral framework it is very much part and parcel of history , it is not above or beyond.
Curtis Yarvin:
“Before the age of enlightenment the present considered itself part of the past. Any theory of presentist exceptionalism could only have been entertained as a joke. The age of technology gave us an excuse for exceptionalism. The excuse is fully disproven. From Aristotle’s time to ours, the rules of human political science have not changed. The 20th century just decided to unlearn them. It’s past time to relearn them.”
Our author is clearly perturbed about the changes that Trump is part (only part) of. This according to theory is natural:
“When a political formula is dominant, it recedes into the background, becoming part of society’s moral common sense. The decolonial moral framework, as progressivism’s political formula, can thus cease to be an ideology and instead become a mindset: the unquestioned framework through which people conceive morality.”
(This is our author and the really the only perspective taught from grade school to the academy: so, it’s no wonder.)
“Conversely, when a rising counter-elite persuades a significant portion of the public that the foundational moral assumptions of a regime are ideological rather than natural, the political formula comes under attack, a moral crisis emerges, and a paradigm shift may follow.”
This, I think, explains the hysteria as a matter of ideation and the Gaza conflict drives it home as a universal evil beyond any doubt and for all time.
This is our egregore and the apotheosis of liberalism.
Edward Fessor:
“ A Paranoid, delusional, hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them, where they do exist.”
“ In general wokeness, like Catharism - Gnostic heresy southern Europe approximately 1143 - 1321 - is essentially about the radical subversion of normal human life in the name of a paranoid metaphysical delusion …. It is fuelled by seething envy and resentment directed against the natural order of things.”
Well done. May your shouts into the gale of nonsense be heard.
Fwiw, I don't mind the epithets. "If the shoe fits wear it." Yes, Trump is particular about the shoes those around him wear. Literally. In this case, sadly, our leaders are sporting killer clown shoes, spit polished by the MAGA apparatchiks and allies who haven't yet fled. Figuratively speaking, of course.
It's also pretty funny for the Trump-sympathetic to take umbrage at the use of "epithets."
Trumptards, like their idol, are notoriously thin-skinned and lacking in self-awareness.
LOL, time to shift topics, eh? I guess defending pedos didn’t work out too well for your reputation did it? Did Glenn Greenwald drop you like a hot potato?
Besides the stated reason for this post that Trump doesn't bluff, (and Tracey makes a good case that he doesn't) is the implied question; is this man mentally intact, and do we need, as a country, to be concerned about his ability to actually lead the country? Put aside for a moment, if you can, what side of aisle your on, and just listen to the what the man says and has said in the last 6mos. Ask your self what has he done? Do honestly believe the world is safer because of it? Do you feel better now and more secure since the war started? Was there anyway to keep the Straight of Hormuz open before he decided to bomb Iran and start a war that is quickly spiraling out of control with disastrous consequences. Is beating countries with a big stick a reasonable long and short term foreign policy? Trump plans seem to extend into the future no further than a couple of weeks/mos. at a time, concluding in a threat to blow somebody up, and he sometimes does.
How long do we let this go on before we start to have open discussions about whether or not this man actually has what it takes to lead the country in an increasingly complex world.
Yes, we do, meanwhile the complicit or cowardly “opposition” party won’t do anything but try to pacify us with sham commissions knowing the 25th will go nowhere unless they go in person and talk to their Rep “buddies” aka enablers as well as Vance + the cabinet like the sham ceasefires from Trump which are more bombing in disguise to dupe the fools in the legacy media or complicit evil there idk which probably a mix of both…I would take Vance at this stage since he’s not as unstable, it might cost us a little but good Lord Trump is willing to do anything to get out of his 41% average since he’s stuck there and he’s got nothing holding him back right now…
Would he do the worst thing imaginable to paint himself a winner of a war he’s lost, in Iran, to get support past his base cult which is with him even at close to but not quite lowest point in his second term (NBC is 100% biased towards Dems like Quinnipiac, as much as Rasmussen is 100% biased towards Reps like RMGResearch…I look at averages period and not Nate Silver’s outlier one but everyone else has him in low 40s so that’s the truth).
What happens when a President wins a war outright, to date? Exactly, what has happened with Republicans in the past? Trump has lost Iran’s otoh so is at close to his nadir in Term 2 unless…?
He imo would blow the world to the ground to win, he would, no guardrails on him unlike the first term and WW3 would be his only “out” no matter what hell he unleashes on the world next…yeah, be afraid.
You think? What gave it away—the sham ceasefires and “negotiations” followed by strikes every time?
A modest suggestion: you can always remove the compulsory epithets at the beginning and still not look like you support Trump. You're smart and tasteful enough to not have to resort to cheap, apologetic gimmicks.
The epithets were not "compulsory." I included them voluntarily -- and enjoyed it.
Well, if your enjoyment supersedes good sense, then no harm done
Otherwise, very well written
I think there are a combination of factors. First, Trump is an old man and old people have degraded mental capacities due to restriction of blood flow to the brain. Second, he is surrounded by nutcase religious advisors, starting with the fake evangelist Paula White, who is mainly out for money. Trump appointed her as his official "spiritual advisor." Pete Hegseth is a member of what is basically a far-right cult that has adopted Puritan ideas. They have the misguided idea that they can somehow hasten the return of Christ by supporting Israel. Not to mention that he has Zionist Jews telling him what to do. The third possibility is that he really is being influenced by demons. Part of the problem is that few Americans know diddly about Iran - or Israel for that matter - and are easily influenced by propaganda.
Thank you Michael, for bring us up to date on Trump's ambitions to destroy Iran. I voted for Trump three times. Was I blinded by my hatred of the Democrats or was it just bad luck that Trump turned out to be a bloodthirsty SOB?
I'm like you. I voted for him all three times too. The problem is that he is just another liar who will say whatever it take to get votes, then do whatever he thinks he can get away with. He thinks he's a legislator, judge and executor all rolled into one. We were duped.
So... you're saying that, notwithstanding Democratic and Eurowanker screeching and whining, and notwithstanding all the noise out there, Trump has been 100% consistent in his objectives, has pursued them with ruthless efficiency and spectacular effectiveness, and is about to begin the final wallop that achieving those objectives require? And as an added bonus, you're saying Iran will be back in the stone age when all is said and done?
OK. I agree with you, Mr. Tracey.
I mean, I've always argued that Democrats and Eurocrats ("Eurowankers" isn't bad) have an extremely impoverished understanding of Trump. See, for instance, my coverage of the NATO Summit last year.
I actually remember that coverage - it did have some entertaining moments.
To be honest, I find the coverage of what Trump SAYS (and what this Iranian official SAYS or that Iranian general SAYS, not to mention, what some Eurowanker in Brussels says - no need for capitals here, all they do is say things) tedious and a waste of time.
Focusing on what is actually DONE by the actors is far more illuminating.
I don't read Trump's tweets - but if your familiarity with them serves to highlight Trump's consistency in pursuit of a coherent plan - far be it for me to argue.
“Trump has been 100% consistent—ruthless efficiency—spectacular effective” if I were an arsonist (l’m not) and consistently, effectively and efficiently burned down houses — occupied, unoccupied, historically significant, or necessary for human life (such as hospitals) would you be praising me? No, you would ask if I had any moral core to care if I destroyed homes, hospitals, irreplaceable historical sites. While we’re destroying their lives we’re corrupting ours no matter who “wins.”
“When you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes back into you.” — spoken by the greatest nihilist who ever lived 100+ years ago. He saw what happens when humans gave up even the smallest pretense of caring for each other and abandoned honor completely.
Now do some of Nietzsche's quotes on slave morality.
What hospitals has Trump burned down? Answer: zero. What significant (or even insignificant) irreplaceable historical sites has Trump destroyed? Answer: zero.
There are no historical sites of any significance in Iran. A few minor ruins here and there, from a time before Islam came to Persia, is all you'll find. And no serious person will consider a few old rocks in the middle of nowhere "irreplaceable".
Persepolis to name one. There are 29 World Heritage sites. These are not easily replaced. It’s been in the news hospitals have been hit, universities, apartment buildings and of course, the infamous attack on the girls school the first day by Tomahawk missiles.
“Persepolis to name one.”
As I said, a few old rocks, in this case, oriented vertically.
Incidentally, has Trump bombed a single one of those rocks? No? I didn’t think so.
“There are 29 World Heritage sites. These are not easily replaced.”
What is there, that anyone even cares about? A few rocks that, if you saw them at a garage sale, you wouldn’t pay $5 for them.
Not to mention, why would we waste munitions on these rocks anyway? The rocks are safe from Trump, worry not.
“It’s been in the news hospitals have been hit,”
I don’t recall any hospitals in the news.
“universities”
Yes, labs for missile research and production that are embedded into those “universities”. Those so called “universities” need to be razed to the ground.
“apartment buildings”
Where IRGC generals and the ayatollahs live – targets that are not only legitimate, but vitally necessary.
“ the infamous attack on the girls school the first day by Tomahawk missiles”
The school which the IRGC deliberately placed inside the territory of one of its bases – a war crime by the IRGC.
"The school which the IRGC deliberately placed inside the territory of one of its bases – a war crime by the IRGC."
Do US military bases have schools? And on top of that the school was not on a base, but next to it.
"I don’t recall any hospitals in the news."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw004xqxnjo
So according to this story: "The hospital is opposite studios and offices owned by the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), which may have been the intended target of the strike."
This is obviously an IRGC hospital, which is part of the IRGC propaganda complex. And even this story - and the BBC is as anti-Trump and anti-Israel as they come - admits that the hospital wasn't the actual target - the IRIB facility was - and there was only minor damage to the hospital.
Case closed, as far as I am concerned.
"Do US military bases have schools? And on top of that the school was not on a base, but next to it."
No, it was on the base. IRGC later moved the fence that delineated the base boundary, so they get a propaganda victory out of it. The IRGC is delighted the school was hit.
In any event, with 20,000+ targets hit, and two or three cases of collateral damage, I am perfectly fine with it. Or are you seriously arguing that somebody is DELIBERATELY targeting hospitals and schools, and yet only 0.01% of all the targets hit are hospitals and schools? If so, their aim is piss-poor.
Incorrect. Iran, formerly Persia contains 29 UNESCO sites some of which are prehistoric.
Slop from a bot.
Losers whine and whiners loose.
Cope.
Trump whines a lot and has never won an election when running on his own record sitting in the White House. What a loser.
It’s a good thing you’ve not negotiating Mr Tracy!
It's so much easier to write him off as a demented lunatic.
Thanks for contradicting our convenient narrative, Mr. Journalist.
Just watch these guys every week if you want to know what is really going on. Scott Horton and Daryl cooper
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxfMGKvsCgM
Cambridge distionary:
ceasefire
noun
/ˈsiːsfaiə(r)/
an agreement to stop fighting; a period of not fighting
blockade
noun
something which blocks every approach to a place by land or sea
fighting
noun
a situation in which people fight each other
It would seem that a blockade is not "fighting".