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.
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.
“ 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.
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.
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.
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.
You can make up all the funny names you want for people, but Trump is a businessman. So why wouldn't he send send business people to try to make these fools see the possibilities for their countries if they would just play the game? But they're not professional diplomats! How gauche! Like that's worked for 40 years. The Shiites can have their religion and their Sharia Law, but why not turn a buck while they're at it? Have your hummus and eat it too. You don't have to like Israel - no one does anymore. They want their people to starve forever? For what?
Trump is clinically and observably insane, and all the world hears or talks about is Trump. He's driven all of us insane. We live in open air Trump insane asylums. And we think we're going to get out of this alive, or even minimally sane? All the world knows he's insane and yet 7.5 billion people can't get rid of this one madman (with Netanyahu as his equal partner in criminal insanity) and so we drift idiotically over the proverbial cliff to oblivion.
I guess you would rather we capitulate like Obama. Let them have a nuke, which they will use. They believe that they and not God, can bring about the end of times. They aspire for this to happen. They’ll use the nuke on Israel, which will retaliate with their own, slag Iran and turn the gulf into a radioactive wasteland. Think oil is expensive now.
Why would Iran nuke Israel knowing that Israel has a couple hundred nuclear bombs of its own? Zero logic or evidence that Iran wants a bomb for anything but to deter Israel's repeated attempts to destroy Iran. Israel is the only nuclear threat in the middle east.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Israel's hopes (not plans ) have been for the end of the Islamic Regime holding Iran ransom.
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
You think? What gave it away—the sham ceasefires and “negotiations” followed by strikes every time?
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".
I think your opinion is interesting, I think ultimately Trump is at a major pain point and can't stomach attacking again
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.
You can make up all the funny names you want for people, but Trump is a businessman. So why wouldn't he send send business people to try to make these fools see the possibilities for their countries if they would just play the game? But they're not professional diplomats! How gauche! Like that's worked for 40 years. The Shiites can have their religion and their Sharia Law, but why not turn a buck while they're at it? Have your hummus and eat it too. You don't have to like Israel - no one does anymore. They want their people to starve forever? For what?
Trump is clinically and observably insane, and all the world hears or talks about is Trump. He's driven all of us insane. We live in open air Trump insane asylums. And we think we're going to get out of this alive, or even minimally sane? All the world knows he's insane and yet 7.5 billion people can't get rid of this one madman (with Netanyahu as his equal partner in criminal insanity) and so we drift idiotically over the proverbial cliff to oblivion.
It’s a good thing you’ve not negotiating Mr Tracy!
I guess you would rather we capitulate like Obama. Let them have a nuke, which they will use. They believe that they and not God, can bring about the end of times. They aspire for this to happen. They’ll use the nuke on Israel, which will retaliate with their own, slag Iran and turn the gulf into a radioactive wasteland. Think oil is expensive now.
Why would Iran nuke Israel knowing that Israel has a couple hundred nuclear bombs of its own? Zero logic or evidence that Iran wants a bomb for anything but to deter Israel's repeated attempts to destroy Iran. Israel is the only nuclear threat in the middle east.
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.
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.
It's so much easier to write him off as a demented lunatic.
Thanks for contradicting our convenient narrative, Mr. Journalist.
Peregruzka