Trump Is Not Bluffing
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.
US military assets have been arrayed against Iran in a holding-pattern posture since the onset of this so-called “ceasefire” — “locked and loaded” — with thousands more troops deployed in the meantime. The “ceasefire” has not brought de-escalation, as the term would seem to superficially imply, but escalation — a Naval Blockade is an act of war by any intelligible definition, and Trump brags this one is even more powerful than the Blockade he previously imposed on Venezuela. Hopefully most of us still retain the capacity to remember things that happened more than five seconds ago, and can summon the memory of what the Venezuela Blockade was a precursor to.
This whole Iran “ceasefire” period since April 7, slated to expire after a two-week window on April 21, has been an extremely transparent ruse. The point of the ruse, as can be observed over and over again with Trump’s policy on Iran, is to justify further military action — an almost identical reprise of what transpired in February 2026 and June 2025. That is: send Steve Wiktoff and Jared Kushner to conduct ostensible “negotiations,” and declare that the only acceptable “negotiated” outcome is one that would require Iran to submit, humiliatingly, to maximalist US dictates. That was the M.O. when Witkoff was “negotiating” at Trump’s behest in April/May/June 2025, at which time he similarly sauntered in with demands that Iran renounce all uranium enrichment, and dismantle their nuclear facilities under US and Israeli supervision. In other words, self-inflict an abject national humiliation. Anyone who’s followed the Iran nuclear issue for any length of time, including pre-Trump, would have instantly recognized that even the most “moderate” Iranian political factions could never accept such a “deal.” And so, predictably — as had been resoundingly telegraphed — the outcome was war.
Fast-forward to February 2026, and Kushner has been inserted into the diplomatic mix, following the great triumphs he supposedly achieved with his management of the Russia/Ukraine portfolio (whatever happened with that?) and his business-savvy development of a new governance strategy for Gaza, whereby his father-in-law had been appointed the territory’s new Supreme Leader — with Jared himself organizing the new Gazan police force, among other innovative nation-building projects. That “ceasefire” was also not quite a “ceasefire,” in the sense that fire has not ceased in Gaza, even if the outright pulverization offensive was temporarily dialed back. Lo and behold, the ceasefire also served as a perfect opportunity for Israel to regroup and prepare for the Big Enchilada, Iran, without being interminably bogged down by the nuisance of Hamas.
In early 2026, Jared and Wiktoff continued right where Trump left off in Summer 2025, repeating the “zero enrichment” surrender condition in the new round of Oman-mediated “negotiations.” In short order, per blindingly obvious recurring pattern, the bombing would soon again re-commence.
And now we’re in another phase of the alleged “negotiations,” with Vance shoehorned in for the Pakistan junket, bearing demands that were just as maximalist as ever, perhaps even more so, with the Strait of Hormuz added as another “diplomatic” flashpoint. Despite triumphantly announcing a few days ago that the Strait was gloriously open for business, Trump now says Iran has “Totally Violated” the agreement that had supposedly been reached, as the IRGC began firing on commercial vessels. Notably unresolved: the paradox that the Strait was somehow “open,” even as Trump forcefully clarified that his Blockade would continue unabated, barring usage of the relevant Iranian ports. So that was another jumble of gibberish, which of course never made any sense as a sustainable resolution to the conflict. What made far more sense: it was another precursor to aggressive military action, since Trump could surely claim, as he has this morning, that Iran was in “violation” of some agreement that he mostly seems to have conjured in his own head.
So today he declares “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY” and repeats his threats from two weeks ago to blow up the entire country if Iran does not capitulate within approximately 72 hours, pursuant to the “negotiations” he’s sending off Jared and Witkoff to oversee. (Kiss of Death.) And some people will still treat this whole charade with unwavering credulity. How much more data could you possibly need?!?! For Christ’s sake. (Sorry for taking the Lord’s name in vain. I disavow.)
But seriously, do you think Trump is just kidding around when he demands “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”? And threatens to blow up the whole of Iran, so as to destroy the existing state apparatus? (Destruction of which would seem to be a necessary precondition for imposing “unconditional surrender” — the same condition imposed on Japan and Germany in WWII.)
Most of the stuff Trump has threatened to do with respect to Iran, he’s ultimately done! It’s not just a “bluff,” or run-of-the-mill “Art of the Deal” bravado.
— In March 2025, he said if Iran did not capitulate within 60 days, “there will be bombing.” There was in fact the promised bombing, in June 2025, the minute the 60 day ultimatum window expired.
— In June 2025, he threatened to assassinate the Supreme Leader. In February 2026, he did it. “I got him before he got me,” Trump said, hours after “Operation Epic Fury” was launched. “They tried twice. Well I got him first."
— In September 2024, he gave a prepared speech threatening to bomb the entirety of Iran to “smithereens,” and destroy “the country itself.” That’s currently in progress. “If they don’t sign this deal, the whole country is going to get blown up,” Trump said today, April 19.
— He’s called for “regime change” (or more accurately, “regime destruction”) in June 2025, January 2026, and February 2026 (non-exhaustive). That is also currently in progress.
— In April 2026, he threatened to wipe out all of Iranian civilization, which he seemingly defines as bombing their remaining national infrastructure, perhaps with some ancient Persian cultural sites thrown in for good measure. Since issuing this threat, he and his stooges have been laying the groundwork to effectuate it. (Pete Hegseth must be prayerfully salivating at the prospect.)
Is it really so implausible to fathom that he’d actually go ahead with this oft-threatened plan, and bomb the entire country back to the “Stone Age,” just as he’s been vowing to do over and over? That’s where this policy trajectory has always been headed. There was a time when it seemed just as extreme and implausible that he would actually go ahead and assassinate the Supreme Leader. Threats to that effect were just his standard hardball “negotiating,” we were assured.
UPDATE BECAUSE I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THIS: “To the victor belong the spoils,” Trump said on April 6. That’s his declared intention for the ultimate end-state in Iran. As he’s explained, this vision includes him personally selecting the next Iranian political leadership (as with Venezuela) and also personally controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Because he would love to “take the oil” — one of his few consistently-articulated (and increasingly, implemented) foreign policy convictions. None of these Trump-declared goals are attainable if the current governmental structure of the Islamic Republic remains in place.
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.
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.”