On January 13th, Donald Trump indicated “Help is on the way” for Iranian protestors. Allegedly tens of thousands (!) of dead protestors later, which would be approaching Nazi-style Babi Yar massacre numbers if correct, what is the POTUS going to do? Help how? Realistically what can he do that would meaningfully change things for the better for the protestors, if anything?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
So… is help on the way for Iranian protestors or not?January 31st, 2026 |
 67 comments to So… is help on the way for Iranian protestors or not?Leave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Even earlier than Jan 13, IIRC, Trump said the US stood with the protestors and warned the Mullahs not to do anything rash.
It all comes down to how good our intel is…and whether our Israeli friends will share theirs. If the intel is good enough, we can take out the Mullahs. Personally, I’d shoot (literally) for much more than just the Ayatollah, in fact, we could skip the old bastard and go for the jugular, the IRGC. We MUST have good intel on the location of their “barracks”. I doubt they are garrisoned in some nice, cruise missile friendly compound. Unfortunately.
What is the current location of the US Navy carrier strike force I read was headed to the Persian Gulf?
Even earlier than Jan 13, IIRC, Trump said the US stood with the protestors and warned the Mullahs not to do anything rash.
That was on Jan 2nd. Trump also said then that the US was “locked and loaded” and ready to help. Since then over 30,000 protesters were killed by the regime and another 40,000+ have been arrested and sentenced to death.
What is the current location of the US Navy carrier strike force I read was headed to the Persian Gulf?
Somewhere in the Indian Ocean south of Oman.
Perry – I fear “talks” – “negotiations”.
I am old enough to remember the Paris Peace Accords with the Communists in Indo-China – a disaster that led to the Vietnamese Boat People and Year Zero in Cambodia.
Agreements with enemies are worthless – but officials (diplomats and others) love them.
It’s not like Trump to back down like this…so, here’s hoping something big, and effective (!), is in the works.
By effective, I mean getting rid of the noxious mullahs who run Iran, along with their IRGC thugs.
Ideally, our solution will be like the scene in Iron Man where Downey rescues a village from thugs and leaves the boss thug on the ground, disarmed, with now armed villagers surrounding him. As he flies off: “he’s all yours”. I can dream!
One option I’ve heard discussed is cyberattacks to cripple the internal apparatus of repression. I don’t know how effective that would actually be, but if it really, say, makes it impossible for the theocracy to communicate orders to the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards or to get information about what’s happening in different parts of the country, it could at least create an opportunity for the internal resistance to rebel more effectively. They would also want to knock out military command and control to prevent an attack on Israel which could easily escalate out of control.
It’s hard to see how military action alone could dig out such an entrenched regime without causing substantial civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.
Nothing good comes of negotiations “talks” in politics – not overseas, and not domestically either.
President Trump always thinks he can “make a deal” – that may be good in business, but in political matters it does not work – in political matters you destroy your enemies or they destroy you.
One should no more “make a deal” with the tyranny in Iran, than with Keith Ellison and co in Minnesota – you destroy them, or they destroy you.
I agree with Paul, President Trump appears to have set his plans like requiring Sauron to keep the Nazgûl at home rather than ‘Would you like a few days to fly one-way to Moscow?‘.
In Venezuela, the regime has been left essentially intact, but ‘Finlandised’, rather than removed. The plan seems to be to obtain ‘assurances’ from the IRGC that they won’t kill people or develop nukes. We are seeing the return of Trump 45, floundering as the Blob carries on as before.
Meanwhile, the Ayatollahs probably plan to string things out until the mid-terms in the hope of a hostile House underwing the Administration.
I’ll take a flyer on “within nine days.”
Should the ayatollas/IRGC be removed there had better be a well prepared moderate west-friendly leadership to take their place lest an ISIS-like militia moves in and we’re back to square one. If such leadership exists you can bet the ayatollas are eradicating them as we speak. Russia and China might also be preparing shadow admins of their own.
The very real prospect of the current regime being replaced with something even worse might be what’s keeping them around.
Really? Regarding Ukraine he has given Russia countless “two week” deadlines to alter it’s stance or stop doing something it is doing or the US will do something bad but unspecified… Two weeks comes and goes and it all vanishes down the memory hole… to such an extent it is a meme in Ukraine that when someone is asked to do something they’d rather not do, the reply is “in two weeks”.
I had been wondering much the same thing.
Drop weapons? Might fall into the wrong hands. According to Tousi TV, regime opponents won’t know how to use those weapons. And we might be getting ourselves into a Syria-style situation where the revolution will be taken over by something even worse.
He could go after centres of command and control. If such things exist. That would make life difficult for the regime.
Seize the oilfields and the ports. Very Trumpy. But doesn’t help the protestors.
He might go after regime figures and regime demonstrations.
The Crozier Monarchy Theory states that the transition from monarchy to republic is bloody, that the repulicans then fight among themselves in a similarly bloody manner and things don’t calm down for a lifetime unless there is some external intervention. There is also some foreign adventurism involved at some point.
The point being that the Iranian regime is a long way away from being worn out. Which is why it can suppress opposition in a way the dying Soviet Union could not.
One notable thing to me about the official statements in the wake of the operation to capture Maduro was that they said the operation was ready to go for quite some time before it was sprung, but that it was held off until suitable triggering conditions were fulfilled.
Trump has now had several occasions when he’s initiated some military operation. At least to this observer, they seem to have had a common thread of being thoroughly planned, risk averse, and designed to show irresistable force. Examples: Khasham, Nangarhar, the airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and of course, Maduro’s capture itself.
I think Trump’s “locked and loaded” assertion was likely Trumpian bluster and exaggeration, because forces were still assembling which are now in place.
If and when we see US intervention, I believe it will share the characteristics of the previous examples–short, sharp, decisive. However, I suspect that as with Maduro, Trump and the Pentagon have likely agreed a set of trigger conditions, and they won’t move until those are fulfilled. With a situation as large and as fluid as Iran, this may take a while.
And if I had to speculate as to why we see this pattern with Trump’s interventions, I would suggest that the reasons come down to not wishing US service personnel to be killed in the cause of foreign interventions. He has long talked about wishing to avoid sending US troops to wars overseas, after all. And it doesn’t take much imagination to extrapolate what outraged protests would be forthcoming against Trump on the pretext of US troops dying abroad.
While it’s probably good domestic politics to keep US personnel safe ahead of other concerns, the obvious consequence for Iran is that kinetic support for the protestors waits, and protestors die in their tens of thousands.
I’ll leave this here, although I have somewhat less faith in the prescience of the markets than Bob McNally.
Perry, good point re Trump and Ukraine. I stand corrected…partly: Trump has not bluffed on many of his threats, once you account for the “Art of the Deal” aspect of the threats (theater!).
Plamus, regarding the story you linked, my understanding (from ChatGPT, so likely flawed!) is that Iran is evading sanctions and selling about 1/4 to 1/3 of what it would be without sanctions. It’s not selling much oil, so if that production goes down or stops due to US action, there shouldn’t be much market impact, right? Or is the issue that US action affects the entire region’s export pace?
Greg, the main concern is that Iran can – directly or through the Houthis in Yemen – (try to) close the Strait of Hormuz. A secondary concern is that the mullah stir general trouble in the region using other proxies. Link with apologies for linking to PBS.
Headline on the stone newspaper in the movie “The Flintstones”: “Mideast Peace Breaks Down”; byline, 10,000BC.
No change now.
On Ukraine – the Ukrainian government have refused the Russian government demands, and it is their RIGHT to refuse, and that means the war continues. “Victory” for Russia will have cost a vast number of men dead and wounded, for no-real-gains – Russia gains nothing in the Donbass or elsewhere that it did not ALREADY HAVE (in vast amounts). The war remains Mr Putin’s vanity project – he will remembered for failing to deal with the demographic decline of the Russian people (in the 1930s when the Russian fertility rate started to go down “Stalin” reacted by banning abortion and making contraception scarce (“no we have banned nothing – we just do not have any condoms right now, we might have some next month”), but Mr Putin has done nothing – instead he has waged terrible war on Ukrainians (who are, genetically and culturally, brothers and sisters of Ruskies) so he can change the colour on a map of a few areas – that is it, that is his “legacy”, vast numbers of Russians and Ukrainians dead for NOTHING.
With hindsight (20-20 vision) President Trump, perhaps, should not have got involved – but he (mistakenly) thought that as the war is in no one’s interest (indeed considering vast numbers of Russians and Ukrainians are being killed) he could make a peace deal between the two parties – but it now seems clear that this was not possible. The war will continue till Mr Putin has his “victory” which gains Russia nothing that it did not already have (in vast amounts) and will NOT bring dead Russians back to life, or restore the bodies and minds of those Russians who have been maimed – some “victory”.
This entire convo has progressed without one person mentioning what Europe might do for Iran. It’s all about how Trump hasn’t yet saved the day. Scornfully, even.
Have y’all just completely given up?
On the Islamic Republic of Iran – for those libertarians who oppose intervention….
The attack on the American embassy in 1979 was an Act of War – American diplomats were held hostage for a year, it is still astonishing that nothing was done in response by the American government. And the IRI aggression has not stopped – from terrorist attacks all over the world, to targeted attacked on Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere, to the endless (47 year old now) chant of “Death to America” – which is meant quite literally. American is an “infidel” nation – and all “infidels” must be killed or made to submit in ritual humiliation.
And, like the People’s Republic of China (so beloved by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer) the Islamic Republic of Iran tyranny is a firm ally of Mr Putin.
A firm ally of Mr Putin – NOT of the Russian people, who the tyranny in Iran despises as “infidels”.
bobby b – Europe can do nothing real to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Western European nations can not (or will not) even save themselves from Islamic forces – who are increasing in numbers each day.
It is much the same with Mr Putin.
When President Trump (in his first term) warned the Europeans not to get dependent on Russian energy, they laughed in his face – literally, they did get dependent on Russian energy and now the Europeans are finished economically.
And they still spit their hatred of “Trump” – every day, you only have to look at a European newspaper, or watch a European television station.
I do not know why President Trump does not just walk away from the European establishment) – they make it clear that they not only hate him, they also hate core American principles – such as the 1st and 2nd Amendments (both of which are particularly hated by the British establishment).
Why does he have anything to do with these people?
By the way the same international establishment is plotting against the Ukrainians – yes the Ukrainians.
You see after the war is over Ukraine will, supposedly, have a “manpower shortage” which would be “solved” by opening up Ukraine to migration from Africa, the Middle East and so on.
Translation – the agenda is to wipe out the Ukrainian people (for them to share the death of the Germans, Austrians, French, Dutch, Spanish, British – and so on)
Fight a terrible war against the brutal dictator Mr Putin (and Mr Putin is a brutal dictator) and then get destroyed by your “friends”.
And, as Mr Navalny often said, Mr Putin is doing the same thing to the Russian people that Western elites are doing to Western peoples – Mr Putin is a traitor, a traitor to the Russian people – he has sold them out to their enemies (both the forces of the Crescent Moon and the People’s Republic of China tyranny) – sold out the Russian people for his own personal gain.
Both sides (Western establishment and Mr Putin) make a great show of how different they are – but I see much the same policies, declining fertility (not an accident – the cultural changes are top-down NOT “organic”), high density housing (blocks of flats), mass Third World immigration and the natural increase in these populations, and so on.
Look past the shiny cities (Moscow and St Petersburg) – to the real Russia, the villages and farming towns, which are DYING. The soul of Russia is dying.
People who think that Mr Putin is an alternative to the dying West – are FOOLS.
Based on the track record of the EU on Iran, sadly, I think and fear “what Europe might do for Iran” is “prop up the regime by way of relief from sanctions, infusions of cash, diplomatic succour, and a petulant and reflexive condemnation of any positive move that Trump makes.”
I suppose that means I have given up on the EU, but frankly that happened a long time ago.
@bobby b
[Summary: What is Europe doing in Iran?] Have y’all just completely given up?
Maybe because they figure it is none of their damn business?
I think it was Madelyn Albrite, Secretary of State under Clinton, who said “The problem with having a big Navy is that you want to use it all the time.” With Trump’s decision to nearly double the military budget in his less than two years of office, the guy has gone full on neo-con, which is not what people voted for. To put it in perspective, if instead of spending $700bn MORE on the military, like he is doing, he had instead given a $4000 tax credit for purchasing medical insurance, it would have cost about the same and would RADICALLY changed the economic situation here. Especially so if he leveraged it to eliminate some of the horrendous crap that insurance companies do to drive up the prices — something he could probably even have gotten through congress past the filibuster.
Why do we need all this military money? Is the United States under imminent threat of attack? Perhaps the answer is in the change from “Department of Defense” to “Department of War”.
Can we PLEASE stop interfering in foreign countries. What? Did the last middle eastern adventure go so well that we want to try again?
Fraser Orr – if you do not “interfere” with enemies, they interfere with you.
The Etruscans were vastly more wealthy and powerful than the Romans – but they would not make the sacrifices necessary to destroy the Romans, so they were conquered by the Romans. Carthage could have destroyed Rome – but it would not fight all-out (or even support Hannibal after his great tactical victories) and kept trying to make deals – and so was destroyed.
What part of 47 years of chanting “Death to America” by the Islamic Republic of Iran regime do you not understand – and it is NOT just 47 years, President Jefferson asked the envoys of the Islamic states in North Africa why they kept attacking Americans, and they replied (honestly and correctly) that it was their religious duty to do so. Hence the first and second American expeditions against them (one under Jefferson, one after his time), before the French, a few years later, ended more than a THOUSAND YEARS of Islamic raiding from North Africa (look at the flags of Corsica and Sardinia sometime – who do you think the decapitated head represents – and why do you think that towns in southern Italy are built on hills).
European nations were in, the 1960s, vastly richer and more powerful than the North African and Middle Eastern states – but the nations of Europe were (and still are) ruled, by a decadent and foolish establishment (and that is a generous interpretation – it is quite possible that they are ruled by an establishment of traitors) who have allowed the enemies of European peoples into Western European nations and allowed them to increase their numbers, whilst, at the same time, pushing cultural changes (very much “top-down” NOT organic social change) that have reduced the fertility of Western peoples.
Such folly has also hit the United States – over many years.
By the way – military spending needs to be understood as a proportion of the economy, not in terms of inflated “Dollars”.
If you really think that President Trump has doubled military spending (in real terms), then I have a nice bridge to sell you.
GregWA
I have been thinking about what you said – and trying to think of a time when there was peace and prosperity in the Middle East.
Fools cite the Ottoman Empire – but that was actually a time of chaotic despotism and endless incidents of violence between various groups. The Middle East was less developed at the start of the 19th century (yes the start of the 19th century) than it had been in Classical times.
The closest I can find to a true period of peace and prosperity in the Middle East is the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius – just over 20 years.
There was not total peace under him – there was raiding by tribes that meant that some towns in North Africa had to be fortified, but generally his time was a time of peace and prosperity.
So such periods in history do exist – “anything is possible”, even a kindly Roman Emperor who ruled for over 20 years and was very concerned with protecting orphans, especially vulnerable young girls – Antoninus set up a special charity in the name of his late wife.
Marcus Aurelius, who Antoninus choose as his successor, was also a decent man – but lived in troubled times and had to spend his entire reign at war.
Marcus Aurelius loved peace and tried for it many times – for example he settled Germanic people (as free people – not slaves) rather than killing them. Of course, they soon massacred their neighbours and had to be killed – but peace was an experiment worth trying.
By the way – the Romans ruled the lowlands of Scotland under Antoninus Pius (the Highlands were considered of no value) so what is now Glasgow and Edinburgh were in an area that was then Roman.
The moment the US gets involved in Iran – the entire dar-el-Islam unites against the Infidel, and the more feckless/vindictive “allies” in ROW immediately remember that this is deplorable colonialism, and start denouncing and refusing to cooperate.
Any real reform in the Arab world must come from within.
The Abraham accords are… cute. They buy Israel some time, and draw the Saudis to our side… “keep your enemies even closer” . But nothing lasting will come of them until we see real internal reforms in Saudi Arabia. Trump loves to brag but I don’t think he has any illusions that this is more than realpolitik.
Kindly remember that this is an important election year in the US… It looks like Trump is planning another Venezuelan-style surgical dictator removal, thus keeping his “no boots on the ground” promise to his core constituency…. and preventing the Left – which has consistently ignored the Iranian freedom movement – from spinning any American involvement as “Imperialism” and suddenly worrying about “soldiers killed in another foreign adventure”.
@Paul Marks.
Fraser Orr – if you do not “interfere” with enemies, they interfere with you.
Really? Are we expecting an Iranian invasion any time soon?
What does happen though is if you invade them and take their territory they will send suicide bombers to blow themselves up in concerts full of little girls. So, I think, in some respects, the exact opposite is true.
Fraser Orr – many Americans have already been killed by the IRI regime – I am sorry you do not know this, you should know. As for invaders inside the United States – you have many of them, so many they can elect some members of Congress, and do. In case you do not know – these people want to destroy you. Robbing you will not be enough for them – not in the long term.
On Marcus Aurelius – for those who do not know, the Germanic tribes took advantage of a terrible plague (from which Roman civilization never fully recovered) to launch invasions that got as far as Italy.
Marcus, after defeating the invaders (no easy task – it took many years) thought he could behave in a different way – these are people who want new homes and, because of the plague, we have a lot of empty land – why not let them peacefully settle!
It did not work, the policy was a disaster – but I can understand why he tried it.
The people in the Kibbutz settlements (not a way of life I have any sympathy for – but they are voluntary) tried to make friends with the people in Gaza – giving them jobs, and also lots of help (medical care and so on).
Of course, these idealists were raped, mutilated and killed – but should NOT sneer.
“Kill or be killed” “destroy or be destroyed” is a grim maxim of human relations between groups – no one should be happy about it, we should always seek another way – for example peacefully keeping hostile groups out (and thus preventing civil conflict) – the Hungarian government has done that (used peaceful means to safeguard the nation – the people), but the International Community is working to remove that government in the April elections.
As for England – the government says that rural areas (what is called “the countryside” here) are “too white” and that much money and effort should be directed to making these areas “more diverse” (i.e. get-rid-of-the-English).
With the Etruscans and Carthaginians it was folly (a mixture of foolishness – for example the refusal of other Etruscan cities to come to the aid of an Etruscan city-state under attack “we are not directly being invaded – so we will do nothing”, although their League was supposed to do that, and unwillingness to spend the money, and lives, necessary to destroy enemies) – with modern Western nations it is more like treason. Governments and allied Corporate bodies actively working to destroy their own peoples.
As for Islamic attacks in Manchester (“blowing up little girls”) or Nice (running over vast numbers of people with a truck) or elsewhere.
Anyone who really believes that such attacks are because Westerners “invaded Islamic lands” is mistaken – Mohammed did not need any such excuse to kill infidels (including ones to whom he had sworn friendship) and nether do his followers – not over the last 14 centuries.
Nor is Iraq or any other Islamic land ruled by Westerners – not one. They all have Muslim governments – the one in Iraq elected by the people in Iraq.
Westerners looking for some “good reason” for why their enemies hate them, fail to see that the belief system (belief systems – for there is more than one) of these enemies provides the “good reason” regardless of what Westerners do or do not do.
No Islamic territory has been “taken” (or rather retaken – for all the land they hold they conquered) for many years. The last time was the First World War when the Ottoman Empire unwisely allied with Imperial Germany – and Britain and France got Trust territories for a couple of decades.
German agents pushed interesting ideas to the Islamic public – spreading stories about how the Kaiser had converted to Islam and would give them the British and French women as sex slaves – it was all lies, the Kaiser had not converted and had no plans to hand out British and French women to the faithful.
Leftist (and Corporate) Americans import people from Latin America – with promises of benefits and government services, and are then astonished (or pretend to be astonished) when these people behave like Latin Americans from the various nations.
And they even import Haitians (with the same promises) – and are astonished (or pretend to be astonished) when they behave like Haitians, do they expect them to be behave like Vulcans?
Crossing a border is a not a magic spell – it does not turn people into some other sort of people.
It is possible for a person to reject their culture, their belief systems and their way of life (and adopt totally different beliefs and
way of life), but it is very difficult – it takes real effort. One should not expect it from a great mass of people.
And it is also a very practical matter – for very many years left-establishment Americans (such as Hollywood – but also the government) have applauded “land reform” in various Latin American nations – such as that foolish person Woodrow Wilson intervening to prevent “reactionaries” returning to power in Mexico – he was also dedicated to preventing the return of “reactionaries” to power in Russia.
If “land reform” (i.e. plundering and murder) is good in Latin American nations – why is this not good in the United States?
At least the “hard” left is consistent – it wants vast numbers of “Social Justice” supporters, the MS-13 types and so on, in the United States – because the hard left WANTS plundering and murder – in order to destroy the existing society in the United States.
In theory this is because the left believes that a wonderful new society will emerge from the ashes of the old “capitalist” one – but I suspect that the plundering and killing is, now, for its own sake.
For example, does not the ex M-19 terrorist who is now the democratically elected President of Colombia really believe in Marxism? Did he ever really believe in it? Or was it just an excuse to steal and murder?
I suspect I know what answer “Chesty” Puller would have given to that question.
“Only a tiny percentage of the people own most land in X Latin American nation”.
That is true in any nation – for example only a “tiny percentage of the people” “own most land” in Texas.
Wise people in Latin American nations (and there are quite a number of wise people in the various nations) know when someone starts coming out with “only a tiny percentage of the people own…..” they are going to try and kill you, unless you kill them first. And you owning nothing will NOT save you – remember the “henchman of the Kulaks” doctrine in the Soviet Union.
“This person owns nothing at all – so why are we killing them?” “Because they are a HENCHMAN of the Kulaks – and if you open your big mouth again, you will be one as well”.
People who think it would be any different in the United States are mistaken.
Although, I must confess, I would not shed any tears if the people the “liberal” establishment in California have imported, arrive at their big houses demanding “Social Justice”.
Which-they-will.
Paul Marks.
many Americans have already been killed by the IRI regime – I am sorry you do not know this, you should know. As for invaders inside the United States – you have many of them, so many they can elect some members of Congress, and do.
And invading Iran, and Venezuela, and Colombia, and Cuba and Greenland fix that problem exactly how? I mean if you want to support the US invading these people as some sort of avenger of moral righteousness then at least I can understand that viewpoint even I think it is completely wrong, or if you want to support it from a realpolitik point of view of controlling the oil belonging to another country, then I suppose there is some logical consistency to that, even if I think it is immoral, or at least ammoral. But I find the argument that they are an actual threat to the USA utterly unpersuasive.
As for the specific examples you cite, Gaza is on the border with the Kibbutzim, the Germanic tribes were on Rome’s northern border. They could readily attack and destroy. America has the luxury of two gigantic oceans to protect it, one cannot fly a paraglider from Tehran to Los Angeles. Nobody is sacking Washington, and nobody is invading either, especially now the border is closed. You can pretend that electoral losses are somehow the equivalent to the battle of Teutoburg Forest, but I presume we can agree that the US military should not be engaging in overturning American elections?
What is a threat to the American people is the economy in chaos. Using resources for pointless overseas engagements that could be used to fix the actual problems that Americans care about is a gross abuse of Trump’s electoral mandate.
There was a special forces operation in 1980 to try to rescue the hostages but it was botched and abandoned before the helicopters reached Tehran. As the hostages were released the same day Ronald Reagan became president, that is probably why nothing else was done in response.
What is more astonishing is how the governments of the USA, Britain and Israel all provided weapons to the Islamic Republic in the 1980s.
Also, this may – or not, that’s definitely an option – mean something.
To the Fraser & Paul conversation, mostly a question to Fraser, left to itself, would Iran develop nuclear weapons? Lots of them? Would they develop credible delivery systems (missiles)? Lots of them? Would they keep them to themselves for purely defensive purposes? Would they share a nuke with a non-state actor even more unhinged than the mullahs?
And recently one of their ministers said something along the lines of “you can destroy our nuclear facilities, but not our knowledge. We will re-build.”
They are at their weakest since the Shah fell. Take them out now. By “them” I mean the mullahs–take out a thousand or so, no need for overkill! And the IRGC.
Btw, related, but side question: in another blog/thread, someone who generally posts rational stuff claims that most of the killing in Iran has been by the “protestors” against security forces and innocent civilians. Sounds like total propaganda from the regime to me, but is there any truth to this? How would we know?
Of all the reasons I can come up with, that isn’t one of them.
@bobby b
Of all the reasons I can come up with, that isn’t one of them.
FWIW, that made me laugh so hard that coffee came out my nose. Because, of course, you are right. When it comes to Europe “doing the right thing” is the least likely explanation.
@GregWA
To the Fraser & Paul conversation, mostly a question to Fraser, left to itself, would Iran develop nuclear weapons? Lots of them? Would they develop credible delivery systems (missiles)?
I’d not be concerned about Iranian missile delivery since it is very unlikely they could build missiles capable of hitting the United States. Not anytime soon anyway. However, ballistic missiles are the ONLY existential military threat to the United States, and so it is an outrage that we have not developed sufficiently good ABM to deal with that threat. I know that Trump has talked about this golden dome, and I certainly think that is a legitimate use of military funds. But there is a lot of money swilling around in the pot: they don’t need to add any money for that. Maybe we could make do with just twelve aircraft carriers rather than thirteen, and free up the money that way? FWIW, Israel has done remarkable work in this area, and we could certainly buy and extend what they have done.
But there is a danger of smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States, and so, I think the US has a legitimate interest in destroying their nuclear capability. I think Stuxnet was money well spent. I was not in favor of the attacks on their nuclear facilities at the time, but I’ll say, in retrospect, I was wrong. That was a good decision by Trump, and the weak tea response by Iran tells you that it was enough to subjugate them for a while.
But since you bring it up — although Iran is a sucky place to live it is certainly not as bad as, for example, the remnants of our last middle eastern adventure — Afghanistan. And North Korea is a vastly worse place. And they actually have nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the United States. So why is Iran the priority?
”I’d not be concerned about Iranian missile delivery since it is very unlikely they could build missiles capable of hitting the United States.”
Iran has *already* built missiles capable of hitting the United States. What it doesn’t have is the bomb.
”North Korea is a vastly worse place. And they actually have nuclear weapons and missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the United States.”
North Korean missiles are capable of hitting the entire United States, not just the West Coast.
”So why is Iran the priority?”
So we can stop them *before* they develop nuclear weapons.
But I’ve got to confess: I suspect that if a military strike against North Korea appeared imminent you’d be asking “Why is North Korea and not Iran the priority?” Am I right?
7 months ago the White House said Iran’s nuclear facilities were ‘obliterated’.
Unless that was overoptimistic boasting (very possible) or they have proof Iran has rebuilt these facilities already (seems unlikely if they were ‘obliterated’) why would there be a need to attack Iran again right now?
Fraser Orr “fix that problem exactly how?”
If you kill your enemies they are unable to kill you – that is “how”.
For example, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard needs to be dead – they need to be assisted in being dead.
You also bring up Venezuela – are you against the arrest of the Dictator of that country who was sending boats filled with armed gang members directly to the United States.
That is an invasion – an armed invasion.
And before anyone brings it up – the CIA did NOT overthrow the pro Soviet regime in Iran in 1953 (which allowed “democratic elections” only in those areas where it controlled the voting), the CIA operation failed – it was an internal effort a couple of weeks later that succeeded, but some CIA officers rewrote history to take the credit for themselves.
@mkent
But I’ve got to confess: I suspect that if a military strike against North Korea appeared imminent you’d be asking “Why is North Korea and not Iran the priority?” Am I right?
No you are not right. I’d be asking “what alternatives are there to military action”, same as I’m asking now about Iran. Trump in his first term did an amazing job managing North Korea, he should have continued those actions to neutralize the threat even further.
And as to priorities? As I have said many times the actual risk of destruction to the United States is from its dreadful economy and massive federal debt and obligations. Fixing that is my priority. Spending an extra $500 billion on foreign wars is entirely counterproductive. Me? I remember the days when a billion dollars was a lot of money.
And, FWIW, here in the United States we have a civil war brewing in Minnesota. I’d consider that far more of a priority than Iran. The promise of MAGA and Trump was a President who, for once, was focused on the domestic agenda. WTF happened to that Trump?
Since 1945 (or rather since Joe I -1949?) nukes are the ultimate backstop. That is probably the main reason the Norks have ’em and probably the only reason Israel does.
Iranian nukes wouldn’t have to be used or even exactly threatened to be used against the USA to make Iran dangerous. Their existence means a country can’t be invaded or seriously took-down militarily. It would allow the Ayatollahs to continue the antics they have developed over nearly 50 years with no serious potential for consequences. That in itself is a massive risk. There are of course other risks associated with Iran having nukes. The first is of course proliferation – Iran gets the bomb – you betting against Turkey and Saudi Arabia next?
The idea has been mentioned above that regardless of sophisticated delivery methods there is the risk of the bomb being smuggled in in the manner of “The Fourth Protocol”. Imagine if Iran (or a proxy) snuck a bomb into the USA (or an ally). Imagine if they detonated it next to an air or naval base. There would be a lot of people believing this was an accident or a false flag… Just like the plan in “The Fourth Protocol”
One has peace with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard by killing them – just as they have peace with other people by killing them.
It is the same with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups – you kill them, or they kill you.
This was why I was so upset when the former head of Shin Bet said he did not understand why he had not managed to “deter” the October 7th mass attack (the attack by thousands of Islamic warriors determined to rape, mutilate and kill) – you can not “deter” such people, his use of that word “deter” meant that he knew nothing about them, about their beliefs.
I fear that the Israeli military top-brass are much the same as him – they think in terms of “deterring” and calculation, and making deals.
They think like Carthaginians – and the Carthaginians were exterminated. Exterminated in spite of their wealth, their cleverness, their tactical victories, and so on. They did not understand an enemy that just wanted to destroy them (all of them) regardless of the cost in the lives of their own people.
War is not business – it is not about making deals, it is about removing your enemies from this Earth, or being removed by them.
I’d argue it’s the only real guarantee of national sovereignty, at least so long you have full control over the nuclear weapons. So the US, China, Russia, France, DPRK, India, Pakistan, Israel etc are fully sovereign. Britain’s nuclear weapons are dependent on the USA too much for Britain to really be sovereign.
Recent US and Russian foreign policy would support this. Ukraine ignored John Mearshimer’s advice and chose for superpower assurances over having it’s own nuclear deterrent, see how that worked. Meanwhile, the one country in the infamous American ‘axis of evil’ that actually has nuclear weapons is the one America dares not to attack, despite it probably being a much worse regime than many of the others that have faced American wrath.
It’s a crap world but the past few decades have made me think the best advice for any medium sized power is keep calm, build a fully independent nuclear deterrent and not trust any promises or assurances the superpowers make.
Side issue – I had to pass through two enemy vehicle checkpoints this morning. They stopped us, asked us questions, and then ran my license plate to see who I was. They were armed. They were guarding against ICE, and apparently also against rabid right-wingers.
This is in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I did not feel safe. THEY should have felt far less safe than I.
Of interest is that they must have active help from the coppers. You cannot run a vehicle license in Minnesota if you are not LEO. They ran mine, came back with my name.
Watch this space as things explode.
bobby b, if that isn’t a wake up call, a warning to good men to act, I don’t know what is.
How were your checkpoint guards armed? Were they violating any laws in what they did? How much firepower would it have taken to counter them? Asking for a friend.
GregWA – At one, two pistols on belt holsters, one open-carry AR. These people are nuts. All legal, but one person with a pistol could take them all out quickly, and they’re inviting that to happen.
In Minnesota, I can defend myself (i.e., shoot someone) if I reasonably fear they are going to kill me or do me great bodily harm, and I cannot merely leave and be safe. A hostile vehicle stop by armed people comes quite close to that situation, I think.
You just have to convince a jury that your fear was reasonable. A Minneapolis jury would be problematic, but it only takes one to agree with you to be found not guilty. (We need a unanimous 12-person jury to convict of a felony.)
I have taken to leaving my gun home when entering Minneapolis, for obvious reasons. If you think you’re going somewhere a gun is necessary, just don’t go. I can probably talk myself out of trouble, so carrying there would be more of an ideological move than a tactical one. I’ll leave my ideological battles to anon internet typing. 😉
@bobby b
Side issue – I had to pass through two enemy vehicle checkpoints this morning. They stopped us, asked us questions, and then ran my license plate to see who I was. They were armed. They were guarding against ICE, and apparently also against rabid right-wingers.
I have a clients in the twin cities that I talk to most days. The word I’d use to describe them is “terrified”. The city has been taken over by mobs — by what possible right do these people think they can stop your car and check you? The only right they have is a threat of violence if you don’t. And where are the police? The mayor seems quite happy to concede the city to the mob since it serves his political purpose. From what I can see Minnesota has all but succeeded from the Union, with the one exception that they demand we keep sending them money. They have effectively declared that federal law does not apply there. In the twin cities anyway, I imagine it is better in more rural areas.
It is important to note for people who aren’t close to this that what you see in the media is almost completely a lie, and does not at all represent what is happening. Trump tried to make a deal with Walz and Frey (mayor of Minneapolis) with four points: the police will respond to 911 calls from federal agents, the police will control the demonstrations, the police will let the feds know where illegal alien felons are within the jail system, and if so Trump will pull the LEOs out. Walz and Frey refused these very basic conditions. Why? Because what is happening is exactly what they want. The more people killed the better it is for them. And, honestly, it is a miracle that only two people have been killed given the situation.
I think the only option left is simply to withdraw all federal law enforcement from the city and perhaps the state. To do everything it can to stop sending federal money of any kind there, and, for some scurrilous third party to start an advertising campaign indicating that if you are an illegal alien, especially one with felonies, that the safest place to go is Minneapolis. If Minnesota loves these people so much, let them have them. I’d be perfectly happy to send a couple of hundred bucks to fund a bus service to transport illegal aliens from Florida, Texas or even California up to Minnesota.
And then try to shine a spotlight on what this is all really about — offering shade for the earthshaking level of corruption at every level of government in the state, and send in the feds to arrest as many people as possible.
But continuing to be there is just feeding the monster. There are plenty of people to deport outside of Minnesota. Focus there, and let the worst ones go live in the place that loves rapists and child molesters the most.
With apologies to the decent people, BobbyB included, who have to endure the consequences.
Perhaps we can get a bill through congress where Minnesota succeeds and is absorbed into Canada (we will take Alberta in exchange.) That seems a much better fit for everybody.
“7 months ago the White House said Iran’s nuclear facilities were ‘obliterated’. Unless that was overoptimistic boasting (very possible)…”
It was. The airstrike on the centrifuge complex was a major setback to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it did not end them. Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium and a (now smaller) network of distributed centrifuges to make more. And by its own admission, the Iranian government retains its intention to build nuclear weapons and its desire to use them against the United States.
“Trump in his first term did an amazing job managing North Korea…”
No, he didn’t. North Korea continued to make additional nuclear weapons, continued to develop ICBMs and SLBMs, and continued to develop nuclear submarines. It reduced its missile testing somewhat, which kept it out of the headlines, but its threat to America and our allies continued to increase albeit at a slightly slower pace.
To be fair, North Korea doesn’t have an easy military solution, but that’s because of its artillery as much as its nuclear weapons. North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces buried in mountains within range of Seoul that could level the city within a few days. The result would look like a nuclear strike, but it would be done entirely with conventional weapons. Their nuclear weapons are to deter the United States from seeking retribution afterward.
It would be better to take care of Iran before it gets to the North Korea stage.
”The promise of MAGA and Trump was a President who, for once, was focused on the domestic agenda. WTF happened to that Trump?”
The same thing that happened to George W. Bush: events. George W. campaigned on a domestic agenda and was focused on it during the opening months of his presidency. Then 9-11 happened, and the rest of his presidency was forced to focus on foreign policy.
The same thing is more slowly happening to Trump. His complete misunderstanding of the causes of the Russia-Ukraine war led him to issue checks in the campaign that his competence couldn’t cash. Ditto with his ego leading to his “locked and loaded” and “help is on the way” comments regarding the protests in Iran. The Ukraine war and the Iran protests are the two biggest global events of his second term, and he hasn’t handled either very well.
If he continues to flounder, he could see himself fighting a world war on two separate fronts halfway around the world from each other. That would be a catastrophe, first for the horrific death toll, second for what it would do to America and the world at large, and third for his domestic agenda which would no longer be able to be carried out. And while I criticize president Trump for his foreign policy missteps, it’s our enemies in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran who are driving the events.
In other words, as much as I might want to mend the _relationship_ with my girlfriend, as long as there are Antifa rioters setting up roadblocks in front of the house (good heavens!)*, I’m going to be focused more on her safety. Events can drive priorities.
*Unlike for some here, this is a hypothetical situation for me. Good luck to those threatened.
“I think the only option left is simply to withdraw all federal law enforcement from the city and perhaps the state.“
No, no, a thousand times “No!”
If you cede Minnesota to a revolutionary communist organization, the problem doesn’t go away. It gets bigger — way bigger.
Antifa is a national (indeed international) organization. It will use its success in Minnesota to establish similar strongholds in Michigan, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, and the entire East Coast from Maine to Virginia except for New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
The battleground then moves to the purple states of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona. (Georgia should be red, but the Republican governor is compromised. Nevada should be blue but has a Republican governor, so he may be able to stop things.)
An armed camp threatening people in their homes and cars is not a peaceful protest. It is an insurgency, in this case a communist revolutionary one. These people do not want peaceful coexistence. They want to destroy you. Ceding them whole states in which to do so is not a winning move.
@mkent
To be fair, North Korea doesn’t have an easy military solution
Ah there’s your problem there. Apparently you think that blowing things up is the only way to solve these problems. Thankfully Trump of that era did not agree.
The same thing that happened to George W. Bush: events. George W. campaigned on a domestic agenda and was focused on it during the opening months of his presidency. Then 9-11 happened, and the rest of his presidency was forced to focus on foreign policy.
What events? Practically nothing changed vis-a-vis our relationship with Iran or Venezuela. And Bush was absolutely not forced to focus on foreign policy. He may well have had to do something but he sure as hell didn’t have to invade Iraq.
If he continues to flounder, he could see himself fighting a world war on two separate fronts halfway around the world from each other.
Or alternatively he could not fight a war on any front and just get on with doing what he promised.
it’s our enemies in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran who are driving the events.
Not in America they aren’t, or aren’t necessarily unless Trump decides to blow shit up.
@mkent
If you cede Minnesota to a revolutionary communist organization, the problem doesn’t go away. It gets bigger — way bigger.
I don’t know if that is true, but if he doesn’t stop the bleeding in Minnesota he will get crushed in November, the Trump presidency will be over and we will most likely get a Democrat president and congress in 2028. Which is another way of saying America will come to an end.
Sometimes a strategic withdrawal is the best course of action.
Antifa is a national (indeed international) organization. It will use its success in Minnesota to establish similar strongholds in Michigan, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Colorado, New Mexico, and the entire East Coast from Maine to Virginia except for New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
BLM was everywhere. This is only in Minnesota. There is good reason to believe that once it is over there, it’ll be over, if that weren’t true why is it not happening right now in the states you mention? FFS there were BLM riots in London for some reason. There doesn’t seem to be the appetite for it anywhere else.
“And Bush was absolutely not forced to focus on foreign policy.“
Did 9-11 not happen in your world? It happened in mine, and it was a life-changing event for most Americans.
“Or alternatively he could not fight a war on any front and just get on with doing what he promised.“
Do you really think that when China invades Taiwan and Russia invades Poland and the Baltics we’ll be able to sit out the resulting war?
mkent – you have a point about Minnesota.
At least half the population there are not leftists – the election “victory” margins of pro Communist forces (for example the weird, contradictory, mixture of Marxism and Islam to be found in State Attorney General Keith Ellison) are tiny – and made up of people who either do-not-exist (like many urban areas in the United States), or should NOT be in the United States.
There are indeed members of Congress who should not have been allowed to enter the United States – they do not even make a secret of their hatred of the United States and their desire to destroy the United States (so their swore loyalty to the Constitution FALSELY – so by long standing Supreme Court decisions, they are NOT citizens).
Nor is it just a matter of Minnesota (or rather of the Twin City area) – MOST large cities in the United States are controlled by vicious anti American forces, are all of them to be ceded?
As for President Bush – he defeated his own “war on terror” a couple of days after 9/11.
President Bush made a speech at the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. massively praising Islam – ignoring the teachings and personal actions of Mohammed followed by his sincere followers for 14 centuries.
Instead President Bush, like the Western establishment generally, presented a false picture of Islam – claiming that a few bad people had twisted and distorted a noble and peaceful religion.
This had a direct effect on foreign policy.
After all if Islam is good then it would be morally right to liberate the vast majority of good people in Afghanistan and Iraq from a handful of wicked people who had so dishonestly distorted this noble and peaceful religion.
If, however, the Taliban (and so on) were CORRECT in their “interpretation” of Islam – then the whole position becomes very different.
This is why the attack of the LEFT on both the Afghan and Iraq wars was so misguided – for the left AGREED with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that Islam was noble and almost all Muslims were good people.
If one makes that assumption, that Islam is good – and the only problem is a small group of people who have twisted-and-perverted it, then the Afghan and Iraq wars are entirely just (an effort to free the vast majority of good people from a handful of evil people who have lied about beautiful and peaceful Islam, and brutally repress the good people – the vast majority of peaceful Muslims) – indeed a wonderful moral operation.
By the arguments of the LEFT (yes the left) both the Afghan and the Iraq wars were GOOD – and this includes libertarians who make the same argument that Islam (which is a philosophy and legal system – not just a “religion” in the modern Western sense) is good, with the only problem being a few people who have “twisted and perverted” it.
If, however, most people in these lands are NOT the wonderful peaceful people, with a beautiful peaceful religion, that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair claimed them to be, then this casts the attempt to free them in a different (very different) light.
One can not free people from THEMSELVES.
Iran.
The question is – do the people there really believe in Islam, or are they only pretending to believe in it out of fear of the regime?
That is the great question.
Going over old ground that’s been argued over and over, but while some sort of military response to 9/11 was perhaps inevitable, I don’t think it made a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan or an invasion of Iraq inevitable (the latter seemed to mostly benefit Iran ironically as it removed an implacable enemy and placed their fellow Shia in charge of Iraq by virtue of being the majority while the occupation sapped American lives and resources to Iran’s benefit).
Likewise the large immigration of Muslims that continued into the United States, Canada and Western Europe after 9/11 wasn’t inevitable, but seems to have been the choice the rulers of these countries made.
@mkent
Did 9-11 not happen in your world? It happened in mine, and it was a life-changing event for most Americans.
Yes. But that doesn’t mean Bush’s response was correct. In fact his response was a disaster. It gave us twenty years of mostly pointless war, millions of dead, a destabilized Middle East, a massively increased risk or terrorism against the United States, seven trillion dollars in debt, a humiliating scandal in Guantanamo and left us to leave with our tails between our legs twenty years later. Plus, not entirely to do with foreign policy, it gave us the Patriot Act, the TSA and the surveillance state. I cannot think of a single thing positive that came out of that disastrous intervention.
Do you really think that when China invades Taiwan and Russia invades Poland and the Baltics we’ll be able to sit out the resulting war?
We have a treaty obligation to Poland and the Baltics. As to China and Taiwan: honestly I don’t really care politically who rules in Taipei, and I certainly don’t think it is worth a world ending war with China to maintain the status quo. I do care a lot about the risk associated with TSMC which is why I am glad to see a lot of that work being on-shored, including my main man Elon who is building one of the largest chip fabs in the world for manufacturing AI chips in good ole Texas.
If the Chinese invade Texas though, I’m all in.
Fraser Orr – the Republic of China, Taiwan, has been an American ally for longer than NATO has existed (it was a de facto ally way back in the 1930s – against Imperial Japan) – and the Communists only took mainland China because Washington (“the old China hands” to be specific – pro Communist traitors) betrayed Chang – first insisting that the 1946 Manchurian offensive (which was succeeding) be stopped, so there could be “talks” with the Communists, and then, at a key moment later in the Civil War, cutting off arms, ammunition, and other basic supplies – the same treachery (plus the cut off of air support) occurred concerning the Republic of Vietnam and Cambodia in the early 1970s (as it had in Cuba in the late 1950s) – leading to the Vietnamese Boat People and “Year Zero” in Cambodia – as well as the massacres in Laos.
However, it may not be possible to win a conventional war in Taiwan – due to the utterly insane policy of building up the People’s Republic of China followed by American Presidents from Nixon onwards.
Forget Watergate (which was utterly trivial) – the real crime of Richard Nixon was crawling to Mao, who was one of the largest scale mass murderers in human history.
The establishment talk of “Nixon went to China” as if it was a good thing – it was perhaps the worst thing any American President has even done, the most disgusting – the most vile action, and it started the lunatic policy of building up the PRC which carried up for 50 years.
Make no mistake – the monster that is the People’s Republic of China of today, was created by that American policy over 50 years. And it has vast numbers of missiles and attack craft, that would make a conventional war around Taiwan very difficult (perhaps impossible) to win.
Policy towards the People’s Republic of China was a double treachery – it allowed the PRC Communist Party tyranny to build up its armed forces and make them high tech (swarms of drones, missiles and attack craft – truly vast numbers), and, at the same time, it destroyed many American industries – destroying many communities.
“But it was Free Trade” – if anyone really thinks this (this demented policy towards China over decades) is what Adam Smith and the others meant by “Free Trade” you are wrong – wildly wrong.
Infidel753, yes, but…
IMIO (ignorant opinion), such a broad scale and devastating cyber attack could tip our hand regarding our capabilities. And all for a target that means nothing next to China. OK, Iran is not “nothing” next to China, especially if Iran gets nukes. And I suspect, we could arrange cyber attacks in such a way that their scope and origin was obscured. But if I tell you more, I have to shoot you! 🙂
But speaking of cyber attacks, sidebar: I would LOVE to see Trump use the US intel community to track down the cyber thieves that rob little old ladies and the like. Track them, gather the evidence, and then send in some Spec Ops dudes to “extract a fee”. My preference for the fee: they lose their hands, a very Muslim punishment, right? Hard to hack without hands!
I don’t think it’s as simple as Nixon goes to China in 1972 inevitably created what exists today. The US still didn’t recognise PRC diplomatically until 1979, long after Nixon left office for a start. Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 against normalising relations with PRC, but didn’t do much in office to reverse it, and visited PRC in 1984. Trade between the two countries didn’t begin as large. The persistent trade deficit with China only began midway through the Reagan presidency in 1985. The US could have altered policy after the Tianannamen massacre, and this could have made sense even from a purely realpolitik point of view given that Soviet-NATO relations were so much better in 1989 than they were in 1972 (and obviously the USSR dissolved a few years later anyway). Americans could have elected a Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot like president who opposed offshoring factories but instead opted for ‘free traders’ like Bill Clinton and the Bush family. Most of the American Congress in 2000 voted to approve PRC membership of the WTO, while opponents of this were told they were protectionist dinosaurs. It’s only during the Bush Jnr presidency that American governments became very reliant on PRC financing national debt etc.At any of these points, a different approach could have been followed but wasn’t.
I would tend to agree that contemporary trade with PRC isn’t exactly free trade on the Adam Smith model, but almost every so-called contemporary free trader supported liberalising trade with PRC.
Martin I AGREE – it was not just the fault of President Nixon, it was the fault of every American Administration before “Trump”.
Clinton and Obama were particularly bad in relation to the PRC.
As for Islam – Nigel Farage says that we in Britain must not oppose Islam, and supports putting followers of this faith in leading positions in his political party.
Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib (the latter coming from Muslim Pakistan) have already commented on this blindness concerning Islam – this Bush-Blair idea of Islam that Nigel Farage is following.
So there is no need for me to comment further – other than I hope that what Mr Farage really thinks is different from what he says. In these days – when people can be punished for their words, there is no shame in thinking one thing, and planning one thing, whilst saying something totally different.
The regime already has weapons so it hardly matters if some weapon shipments go astray. Plus using small arms is not a dark art, it is very much something you can learn “on the job”. The protestors are mostly facing militias used to gunning down unarmed protestors, not highly trained soldiers.
And I struggle to even imagine how anything that follows the Islamic Republic could be worse. We are apparently seeing Nazi Einsatzgruppen style massacres on a scale not seen since Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pretty much *anything* that follows is likely to be an improvement.
Give them weapons.