1. You have to give Ann Althouse credit, as annoying as she often is. She lives in Madison, her blog readers once were predictably progressive, but she is relentlessly mocking the Axis’s inability to show the integrity and common sense to admit that President Trump finally taking action against Iran is praiseworthy.
- Here, she favorably cites Philip Klein in “Donald Trump Wasn’t Bluffing on Iran” (National Review), and notes,
“From the comments over there: “How Barack Obama must feel now, having tried sucking up to the Ayatollah, then bribing him (as did Biden later), and now finally realizing, after mocking Trump and denouncing Trump and lying about Trump, that the president who will be remembered as being truly consequential, is Trump. Sleep well, President Obama. Trump got him.”
- Here, she quotes “Fear turns to joy as ordinary Iranians see off Ayatollah Khamenei/There was smoke and a sound. We looked up. Did they kill Khamenei, they asked”
- Here, she reminds us that Trump-hater Sen. John McCain joked about bombing Iran nearly 20 years ago, wondering when we would “send them an airmail message. ” “Question answered: February 28, 2026,” she writes.
- Here, she notes that Glenn Greenwald appeals to the authority of Charlie Kirk to condemn the attack, a cheap shot by Greenwald.
- Here, she salutes (in her own, Ann-ish back-handed way), Sen. John Fetterman for being the only Democrat to openly support the President.
- Here, she points out how absurd and dishonest the Trump Deranged voices are claiming Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Left’s Epstein files obsession. I would add that if you want a Trump Derangement test, making that argument is as clear a positive for the malady as one could find.
- Here, she posts a TikTok video in which an Iranian schoolboy declares, “I Love Trump.”
- Here, she mock comedian Mike Benz, who tweeted that Trump had started WWIII, and then withdrew the dumb comment saying that he didn’t mean that literally but only figuratively because he didn’t know how to describe “what this is.” Ann: If you “don’t know of a 280 character way of describing whatever this is,” there is always the option of saying nothing…”
Meanwhile, her few remaining knee-jerk progressives are largely silent, as are the progressives, troll and non-trolls alike, who frequent Ethics Alarms. I think that is cowardly.
2. Over at MSNOW, the talking heads that routinely attack capitalism are warning that the Iran conflict might adversely affect the stock market.
Pages: 1 2
Ethics Alarms 
Regarding your point #5:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2027943807698829621.html
Very, very good read. I’d suggest all here read it.
I’ll point out a different ally though: Israel. They’re doing much of the heavy lifting. They’re more aggressive than us on ROE. The counter, though, is they use our money for their defense too.
I would also question how Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan would stack up? I hope the answer is favorable, and if we ever do all have to go up against China, it is more like a partner with Israel and not like Europe.
Thanks, Jack—I don’t follow Ann Althouse, but she scored some zingers here. It has been a (somewhat pleasant) rush of Schadenfreude to see many of my Lefty Trump-deranged friends bash (and of course Netanyahu) him for this attack, because in their heart of hearts they know it was the right thing to do.
It has been a (somewhat pleasant) rush of Schadenfreude to see many of my Lefty Trump-deranged friends bash (and of course Netanyahu) him for this attack, because in their heart of hearts they know it was the right thing to do.
Those people, driven by irrational moods (though it is not irrational to be extremely leery of Trump given his erratic style), cannot be paid much attention or considered. There is no guarantee whatever that this operation will be ultimately successful, and it is possible that it could become disastrous.
Are you so sure it really is “the right thing to do”? It might be “right” in a few senses and extremely wrong if there are destructive consequences months or years later.
That I am aware of only the Venezuelan operation was successful, all other of the last 20-30 year operations have been not successful, and destructive.
There are commentators (Jeffrey Sachs for one, a MacGregor for another) who offer fuller perspectives that are far less optimistic. How do you know what is “right”?
The present operations, in a larger frame, are acts of the USA to recover world-level hegemony. That seem to be what MAGA actually is: a military-level operation on many fronts.
It should have been done years ago by Obama. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives—Arabs, Jews, Kurds, Baluchis, Yazidis, and of course Persians (including GLBTQ individuals) would’ve been saved.
The issue of rightness is, of course, separate from its success. That will depend on whether Trump actually listens to the professionals in the Pentagon, or is convinced by the likes of Tucker Carlson that he was duped by Netanyahu “and the Jews” and calls the whole thing off prematurely.
That said, there is no way anything in Iran would have ever changed without military action. The great irony is that it’s Trump who finally did what was necessary. Hypothetically (counterfactually, actually), if Harris, Biden, or Obama had done it, the L would be cheering.
That said, there is no way anything in Iran would have ever changed without military action. The great irony is that it’s Trump who finally did what was necessary. Hypothetically (counterfactually, actually), if Harris, Biden, or Obama had done it, the L would be cheering.
The US history in Iran goes back a long way. And actions were taken back then and by support of a dictatorial leader that aroused a mass, popular revolution. So the real ethical question is Was that right? Were the results positive or negative? That is one place where proper analysis can begin. The point where you are starting from is much further in the process. And now your view is: They must be bombed and harmed until the submit and agree to become vassals.
Also, people with your limited perspectives cannot take the real history of Israel into truthful, honest consideration, so again you are ignorant (willfully) of causal events. More ignorance. But you will offer your opinions which in fact is “going with the party line”. I.e. opinions which serve actors in the present. That is how political rhetoric and the media-systems work these days.
I am pretty sure that the “actual truth” is more complex, less binary, not driven by established narratives, harder to describe. But having my stance is non-productive for moving masses to take specific viewpoints that serve power-machinations.
We will of course see how things turn out. I hope that what’s positive will result. But every recent adventure of the US (excepting Venezuela at least when superficially viewed) has resulted in disaster and the progressive weakening of America. Wise to hold that thought in the mind, it seems to me.
You can insult me and my intelligence and call me names all you wish if it makes you feel better.
Oh I have no intention of such a thing! Put that thought aside. It is definitely not a question of intelligence, and as I thought it over (after I used the word ‘ignorance’) I realized that in Spanish ignorar and to be ignorante has a different, non-offensive sense. I mean that you lack understanding.
I am trying to point out that if your object really is to save all those lives (you provided a list) that really & truly the USA should have taken a very different route long ago. You must understand: the route of imperial economics (neo-imperial if you wish) often involves decisions and choices that result in many many dead. Are you *ignorant* of this? Who counts the dead of Iraq when we ‘made a mistake’? Wasn’t there not 2 or 3 millions of dead the result of Vietnam invasion? Are you aware that the US has been at war almost continually since WWll?
“Why”, you might ask “does she ask this question?” It is very very simple: The standard line is the US is a noble and good nation filled with thoughtful, sensitive people. But reread what you have written and consider the context (which I explored slightly). If you were really interested in justice at these levels your posture, and your rhetoric, would be different.
Why view? We are captured by narratives, and the narratives that capture us are devious constructs that pin us down into what is, essentially, the unethical.
But in no matter the case, if you wish to rain down bombs on Iran or any of Israel’s or the US’s enemies, do so with glee and abandon. Israel desires to destroy civic unity and if 50 years of civil strife results that is SUCCESS for Israel. Don’t you know this? And if not, why not?
Apparently many here have a twisted view of their own ‘goodness’. BS! You are as devious, devilish, selfish and malicious as anyone else. You simply refuse to self-examine in depth.
Ask me if I really care. No, I really don’t! My point, my endeavor, is to ‘see the world as it really is’. I do this for my own purposes.
My view
not
Why view?
You can insult me and my intelligence and call me names all you wish if it makes you feel better.
Oops. My post to you placed just above. I do not know why!
You can insult me and my intelligence and call me names all you wish if it makes you feel better.
Interesting: when I click on your name the website for the Institute For Historical Review appears. If you are affiliated with it, I know all I care to know about you, and your opinions, name-calling, and tone.
I don’t remember setting that up as a link but I do appreciate some of their work. I do “believe in” limited and careful revision. So you see that controversy follows me like a shadow! I like to believe I can, despite my own affiliations, think critically and freely.
In any case, have it your way.
Interesting: when I click on your name the website for the Institute For Historical Review appears. If you are affiliated with it, I know all I care to know about you, and your opinions, name-calling, and tone.
Interesting: when I click on your name the website for the Institute For Historical Review appears. If you are affiliated with it, I know all I care to know about you, and your opinions, name-calling, and tone.
Re: No. 6: What do these people want?
Meanwhile, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have raised The squad’s red flag of revenge.
I love how the media reported the red flag of revenge being raised as if it’s a gesture we’re supposed to be aware of and terrified of. Didn’t someone snark that given how compromised Iran’s security operation is, he suspected the red flag of revenge had been raised by Mossad.
Reminds me of the media talking about “the vaunted Republican Guard” as if they knew all about Iraqi troop strength. Journalists beclown themselves in time of war when, all of a sudden, they change from anti-military know-it-alls to military strategy, tactics and armaments experts vastly superior to anyone actually in the military.
#5: According to the Washington Post, both Israel and Saudi Arabia argued in favor of the attack, and (obviously) Israel is conducting military operations. So the NYT can’t claim that the US is doing this without “international partners”! #6: “I got that right?” “Why, yes, you do have that right. And your point is…? Are you perhaps trying to imply that a country which massacres protesters by the thousands is in some way equal to a country in which two protesters armed with deadly weapons got killed while physically assaulting law officers? Have you no shame, sir? No sense of proportion? Please, be more specific, rather than emitting a cloud of innuendo!”
Pointing out all the Trump deranged arguments of those who oppose the attack on Iran may soon get boring. It is like shooting fish in a barrel, with nary a new ethical insight.
On another note I am wondering about what the ground game in Iran is going to be. Somebody has to assume the power, and hopefully it is not a new set of mullah’s or IRGC. The following tweet is interesting; does Trump count on the people of Iran to rise up again?
President Trump promised to stop war. He also promised that Iran would not be allowed to rebuild its nuclear powers. Promise kept, most likely.
Everyone cheering this on should do it from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
Yeah, I remember that flawed argument from the Vietnam war days. Amazingly, some still like to try it out.
If the poling is correct, polling done before the preset war was began, there is a minimal support of about 1/5th of people. And when this campaign carries on for a month it is intuitively obvious that support will fall more. The “experts” say you cannot bomb a country to “regime change”. Without physical occupation it cannot be done (they say it has never been done so far). The only apparatus in Iran that can maintain “security” when the social and economic order in Iran falls to chaos — is the same apparatus of the existing power-structure. And if they were brutal before, it is reasonable they will be more brutal when their power is challenged.
The trumpeted Trump promise was to make America great. But not through war adventures which do not benefit the base that voted for him. It was to be through rebuilding industries and all those promises that he campaigned on. It now begins to look like an astounding betrayal and I assure you people are noticing. I refer to vox populi voices on dissident websites and voices like Nick Fuentes. Influencers who desire “America First”. The betrayals are perceived as outrageous, as more bald-faced, more treacherous and more devastating than other political betrayals. What will be, what are, the results?
What is then Trump’s “project”? It is actually a manoeuvre to reestablish American hegemony in various zones. It is also the first moves in obvious but undeclared war against powers competing against the American hegemony which, as everyone knows, is weakened. For example China is said to depend on Iranian oil and this American attack will be felt. The fact is: war has begun. And there are all sorts of dangers when war is risked.
It is true but simplistic to merely state “war is a racket” though the transfer of money from the populace that earned it to industries that they don’t have much ownership interest in is a fact of economics. One aspect of the military-industrial complex is that it operates like a racket — and the sentiment among that class who voted for an America First transformation will understand that this war is definitely part of a non-America First geo-political travesura that will have to be deciphered by the betrayed.
True, I cannot predict what will come of this. Yet my vision and my intuition tells me it is reckless, adventurous, extremely dangerous and in no way guaranteed to succeed (if America’s benefit is the measure.
“If the polling is correct” means nothing in this context. The public’s views on such matters are useless, unless you have a President (like Obama) who governs by polls. 1) The public would always prefer no war to war unless the US is being actively attacked. 2) The public is largely ignorant of the history behind this situation and the threat Iran poses to the region.
The public’s views on such matters are useless
In one way you are right, but the support of the Republican Party comes from the class that responded to his campaign messaging (which now sounds like siren songs). No political strategist should discount what average people are perceiving, thinking, talking between them, and believing. I would mention here Fuentes who, in his talks, does show quite a bit of understanding of the history of the region. And he has a wide audience (I do not advocate him, I am aware of him because I am interested).
Frankly, if Iraq and Afghanistan are taken as examples, experts cannot be trusted! But I do take your point about the ignorance of the masses.
Presently, the US military and political power-structure is attempting to restructure the hegemonic power of the US by way of war strategy and tactics. If this is successful there will be benefits to the population. If it is not, it may well be one more strategic blunder exacerbating the general decline of America.
In the only way that matters I am right. Presidents are not representatives. They are leaders. IF FDR was paying attention to polls, the Nazis would have won the war. Bill Clinton infamously polled whether he should lie or not. Polls also reflect media disinformation, which includes polls. Trump made the ethical and practical decision to minimize the power of the news media.
Alizia,
Does any of your analysis take into account that Trump being willing to utilize American military power in precise, limited strikes is potentially a good deterrent, and thus would ultimately prevent more wars? I certainly think that we have wars boil up, generally speaking, because ambitious parties believe that their adversaries are too weak or too timid to respond. In other words, the USA demonstrating a willingness to strike will make other parties more eager to come to the table rather than sabre-rattle, which would actually do a great deal to defang the military complex.
Oh certainly. I am aware that I am and can only be an (opinionated) observer and that I have certain ‘agendas’ (as do both Jack and you).
The object of Israel, and the US, is not to “limit wars”! This is where I think “your-plural” thinking is biased and not clear-seeing. The entire purpose of Israel was and is to destabilize the region. I think Jews in leadership positions are extremely clear about their larger intentions and objects. Why obscure this basic, obvious fact? Why self-deceive?
Israel’s object is to engage in war and to destabilize Iran so that it can be better managed. I do not, and not for one second, the object is the well-being of Iran. The purpose is to foment civil and social crises.
I am in no position to perform as a soothsayer as to whether Trump’s limited ‘strike’ will result in general good. Maybe! I am aware that I do want my side to win. But I do not believe Trump et al actually have America’s victory as their objective. Put differently I am at least 65% ‘sure’ that this will not turn out well.
That is, if the object is the rebuilding of America and that set of objectives (promises) made during his campaign.
My position is completely coherent. I have little idea what your-plural’s actually is.
Alizia,
When you write, “The entire purpose of Israel was and is to destabilize the region,” I have to laugh a little. That statement implies far too much in the way of planning and conspiracy. Israel exists because Jews have wanted to reestablish themselves in their homeland since they were expelled by Emperor Hadrian, and they finally had sufficient numbers, resources, and political backing to make it happen. Doing so was a bull-headed, come-hell-or-high-water attitude, and it certainly led to American advantage to have a staunch ally in the region. But to suggest that it was a plan to destabilize the region implies forethought and maliciousness for which the only evidence I have seen is from rabid, anti-Jewish sources who believe that the Jews have been secretly pulling the strings across the world.
As to my position, which will differ a certain amount from any other commenter here, the purpose of the American Federal Government is twofold: to protect American borders, and to mediate over disputes between states. Thus I would like to see all the bloat that has crept into the Federal Government over the years trimmed back. Trump has been working on reducing the bureaucracy and close our borders to illegal immigration, so I support him in those efforts. I acknowledge that American security extends beyond the physical borders of the United States. This said, there is also a responsibility that America bears for the fact of being the world’s superpower and wealthiest nation. It has a responsibility to help other, weaker nations (within prudential limitations), and it has a responsibility to demonstrate that it is powerful enough to handle even major players likes Russia and China. If it fails to demonstrate it has the power or the will to exercise this power, it makes the world (and thus Americans) less safe, because then the belligerents across the globe start to believe they can exercise their power with impunity. Thus Ukraine, thus Gaza, thus China in its ever-increasing military posturing about Taiwan.
That’s the broad picture; if you want to know about any particulars, I can try (time allowing) to clarify.
But to suggest that it was a plan to destabilize the region implies forethought and maliciousness for which the only evidence I have seen is from rabid, anti-Jewish sources who believe that the Jews have been secretly pulling the strings across the world.
To this I respectfully suggest a closer examination of the men who accomplished the Zionist project in the days before and after the establishment of the state. They are 100% pragmatic and unencumbered by ethical principles except those that pertained to their own people success. And in so many ways they were definitely malicious.
In the spirit of hearing and understanding points of view likely different from the ones you now have (though I cannot be certain) I would suggest Miko Peled who came from a very dedicated Zionist background and who changed the views that he received as he studied the ‘real history’.
Do you notice, as I notice, that the positions I take are not useful for developing politicized plans of action? In order to have a plan of action, an activist position, you need simple, reduced and best binary positions that allow for decisiveness.
Now, though I like Miko Peled and admire his zealousness, his is just one point of view. My actual position is just as I say: Power makes choices based on needs, wants and exigencies. And then it seeks to weave ‘justifications’.
The topic of ‘anti-Semitism’, and especially the sort of antipathy for Zionist Jews (who are powerful in America and work very hard to determine the American policy) is really a separate conversation. I am neither antisemite nor specifically pro-Israeli. I have a qualified position that is anti-Zionist. But my position is made complex because I accept the Christian revelation (which I explain in non-traditional terms) and see classic Judaism as backward, because it cannot and is not universalist. These are subject best not discussed today. Everyone is primed to misunderstand.
This is a fuller outlook on Peled’s views.
”In this video, Douglas Macgregor delivers a stark warning about the **escalating crisis between **United States, **Israel and **Iran, arguing that **President **Donald Trump’s handling of the situation may be his biggest strategic blunder yet.”
MacGregor is an irrelevant, anti-Isreal “old soldier” “expert” relied-upon by the Axis media to build opposition to Republican foreign policy.
I think your analysis is partially valid and therefore not overtly wrong, but the perspective you have, and the way you frame it (as absolute condemnation of the man, attempting to provoke rejection of his argument) is not an attitude I choose to take. I prefer a more fluid, cautious and circumspect approach (to knowledge generally).
I do not know what is right in the entire situation unfolding. Nor in the condition of America. I can only form opinions based on the analyses of others.
I do not think his views, or anyone’s views, can be dismissed so easily as irrelevant. I value his perspectives and, as far as I am aware, am not a member of The Axis. He may not be reflexively pro-Israel but there are thousands of Israelis who critique Israels choices and actions (and many Diaspora Jews as well).
My view is that you set up your arguments within too strict binaries. I have no good reason intellectually to do so.
Some interesting ripple effects. It’s reported that Ukraine is having increased success using their (our?) drones against Russia, as the Russians are no longer being resupplied with Iranian drones.
Greece has put their hat in the ring with their navy to add to missile defense.