…or at least stop weighing in during this President’s term.
What does it take for the Trump Deranged and hopelessly biased (or hopelessly stupid, or hopelessly dishonest) to be embarrassed? Surely there has to be a tipping point where the public starts pointing and laughing. Surely. Surely.
No? Wasn’t it obvious that Trump’s “war crime” ultimatums were designed to get Iran to make concessions? I don’t mean just obvious to me (“I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says!”) but obvious to doctors, lawyers, beggarmen, thieves and Indian chiefs along with anyone else who has watched this guy operate since his real estate days? Seriously? Really? No? Wow.
I’d like to make Rep. Ro Khanna the poster fool for this malady. Shortly after this EA post, Trump announced the two week cease-fire and Khanna did a double back-flip with a twist, stood on his metaphorical head and called the President a TACO, as in “Trump Always Chickens Out”! This is another clear Trump Derangement symptom. Attack the President on the presumption that he is doing or will do one thing, then attack him when he does the opposite.
Why isn’t this embarrassing to those exposed again and again as reflexively criticizing whatever the President does? Let’s see: the ethical values here are fairness, honesty, integrity, accountability, consistency (being consistently inconsistent doesn’t qualify), prudence, proportionality, humility…there are more, but I don’t feel like looking up the list. Ethics, analysis, logic and reality has nothing to do with how these critics react. It’s all emotion and the Cognitive Dissonance Scale:
Imagine, however, that sub-zero section reaching down forever to infinity, with Trump there rather than only at -10. Prof. Festinger’s theory holds that a negative bias that strong is enough to pull anything…literally anything, people, ideas, books, policies, bunnies, rainbows, babies, The Beatles, Taylor Swift, Nancy Guthrie, opposing cannibalism…into negative territory. What’s going on here? THAT’S what’s going on.
Podcaster Dave Rubin wrote on X: “Trump has been running the same negotiation playbook forever. Pressure, escalation, chaos… then leverage a deal. We’ve watched it happen again and again. This wasn’t complicated. It was basic pattern recognition.” Yup! What does this tell you about people who refuse to see that pattern? Go ahead: come up with a kind description. I can’t think of any.
While Fox News and even CNN were properly reporting on the developments in Iran (Not a word about Nancy Guthrie!) do you know what MSNOW decide was the big news? The danger that Trump was going to come up with some way to steal the mid-terms! Yes, that well-used “future news” subcategory of fake news.
Anyone who watches MSNOW for anything but amusement or intelligence on what the Axis of Unethical Conduct is plotting next should also be embarrassed. How I long to post an entry like this on Facebook…but that would be mean. But fun. But mean…
Over at the New York Post, conservative pundit and law prof Glenn Reynolds wrote, before yesterday’s late developments,
Ethics Alarms 
MS NOW weighs in: Trump desperately wants to claim victory over Iran — the facts say otherwise
Who knows what to make of this alleged ceasefire. The problem with Iran and Venezuela and Pakistan and Cuba and North Korea and Uganda and Russia is that the guys with the guns and tanks essentially own their respective countries’ economies. They own or shake down all the businesses that generate income and live extremely well off that money. They have no interest whatsoever in giving up those income streams or their Swiss bank accounts or their houses in Londonstan or Beverley Hills. They don’t need no stinking democracies. And these military/business guys will not give up their lifestyles unless there is a gun held to their head, and maybe not even then. They’ll roll the dice as they have nothing to lose.
In Iran, the mullahs are simply puppets manipulated by the military/business guys. So, the “revolutionary guard” guys in Iran will likely continue to play rope-a-dope and go right back to their nasty ways as soon as the whole thing blows over. Owning a country of millions of people that has lots of oil is very profitable. Even owning a shithole country is profitable. The Castro brothers lived like kings. And after all, what does it take to live well? A palace, a bunch of servants, a good cook, all the wine and Scotch you want, a bunch of nice cars, guys to drive you around in those cars, a couple of vacation homes, maybe a yacht, a mistress or two. After that, it’s all just gravy. If these guys get killed by an Israeli sniper, they’re dead. If the country gets taken away from them by a bunch of democracy people, they’re dead. So, they might as well hunker down. They have no downside. And if they survive, they’re rich and life is good.
Honestly, I don’t see that the all-Trump denigration all the time network’s vomit is worth noting or paying attention to at this point. It is biased, it isn’t trustworthy, and it isn’t objective, all while being agenda driven. That assessment is no more reliable than Iran’s.
But it’s worthwhile seeing what they’re saying. If nothing else, how stunningly, as you say, it aligns with Iranian propaganda. Can you imagine a similar report on VE or VJ day?
Honestly, I don’t see that the all-Trump denigration all the time network’s vomit is worth noting or paying attention to at this point. It is biased, it isn’t trustworthy, and it isn’t objective, all while being agenda driven. That assessment is no more reliable than Iran’s.
And here, I would suggest, is where you make an error. Yes, the “Axis” is all the things you say they are, and they certainly hate Trump, and their hatred and resentment blinds them, but Trump with this war has committed a very severe blunder. Now, instead of his civilization-crushing blow, he has effectively retreated and for this reason alone the Iran regime has stood up to significant American power. He could not, and indeed he will not, destroy the infrastructure of the country. If he did so it would result in a world-level rebuke. Of this there is no doubt.
It would be better for your information and interpretive project to consider some of the opinions coming out of Europe and other places, and certainly to listen to the more wise among the American opponents not of America but of an unwise enterprise.
You have to step outside of bias, un-objectivity, and all agendas to be able to see what is going on. You cannot do it from within the system itself. You cannot gain that objectivity from Iran, nor from the US Department of War, nor from the Iran government.
That’s a good description of the motivations of those in power in a number of places. Understanding the various things people might want out of life (and what they may have come to expect, which doesn’t have to be the same thing) is critical to understanding human politics, let alone accomplishing something useful in the field.
Why isn’t this embarrassing to those exposed again and again as reflexively criticizing whatever the President does?
Because evidently Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a metaphorical condition, it’s an actual medical condition. The 2016 election literally broke something in TDS sufferers’ brains.
Now I have to write a comment that could be title “Please do not make me defend Ro Khanna”.
I do not think what happened is good for Trump and for the United States and Israel. The IRGC government in Iran will stay in power, and keep possession of enough nuclear material for at least 11 nukes. My prediction is that the negotiations will not accomplish anything, as the IRGC will stall and cheat (Israel is still being bombed), and the USA has lost momentum and political support and will not finish the job. Russia and China will help rebuild Iran, and ten years from now Iran will be just as dangerous as it was a year ago. The trouble is that the lesson the USA will draw is to never do such an operation again, certainly not when the Democrats regain power. So I am afraid that his operation was as successful as a cancer treatment that only got 95% of the tumor.
Dan McLaughlin from National Review has the following to say:
“The cease-fire in Iran, which seems likely to be the end of the war for all practical purposes, fails my simple test for victory: There is not a visible win here that the average American citizen can see without the need for mediating explanations from intelligence assessments. As I’ve said from the beginning, this war was worth fighting — if and only if it brought a permanent end to the Islamic Republic government that was founded in 1979 and has been effectively at war with us ever since. That would be a grand-strategic victory in taking Iran permanently off the board as a weapon against us. Instead, we’re stopping now; they’re just pausing.“
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nation-probation-wars-are-worse-than-nation-building/
In the past the USA fought wars that achieved lasting strategic victories as in World War II, resulting in regime changes in Germany and Japan. Public support and resolve was essential to win these wars. This public resolve was created by a traumatic event, namely the attack on Pearl Harbor; prior to that event the mood of the country was isolationist. The problem today is that the mood of the country is against war after losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he half of he country that votes Democrat is not truly patriotic and are more interested in a loss of Donald Trump than in winning in Iran. I am afraid that nothing short of an actual successful nuclear attack on the USA will create the national resolve to finish the job in Iran.
Trump’s communication style was not helpful. He has not defined in advance what victory in Iran looks like. That makes the Trump administration susceptible to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where a shooter hits an object, draws a target around the bullet holes, and declares himself a good marksman. His blusterous remarks yesterday followed by an agreement to a ceasefire with IRGC meeting any conditions that warrant a ceasefire does not project strength; it looks more like a climb down after somebody called your bluff. And that gives Ro Khanna the ammunition to call Trump a TACO.
Jaundiced eye and assuming the worst case scenario. That’s not analysis. The National Review has been and ever is a “NeverTrump” publication. Iran’s nuclear development has been set back by years. The leadership has been decapitated. The military has been degraded. Essential scientists are dead. US casualties have been ridiculously small. The US military resolve and might has been highlighted, including the rescue of the downed airman. Win…win..win…win…win..win…win. Unlike Obama, Trump cannot be accused of sitting by and giving empty encouragement while Iran experienced a popular uprising. Win. If Iran’s public can’t seize the opportunity, that’s their problem.
Plus we now know that Europe’s NATO allies and the UN are useless when the chips are down. Good to know. Iran has suffered consequences for its attacks on US citizens and terrorist activities. All positive.
Is the US and the world, better off today than when the operation began? Certainly. The only ones who would answer in the negative are those who regard anything better than a Trump failure as a tragedy.
“Iran’s nuclear development has been set back by years. The leadership has been decapitated. The military has been degraded. Essential scientists are dead. US casualties have been ridiculously small. The US military resolve and might has been highlighted, including the rescue of the downed airman.”
But, the mainstream media is not broadcasting that information. The MSM has declared that Iran was/is not a threat to international peace and securty, that the Mullah’s a peaceloving religious guys simply following the peaceful dictates of the Kuran, that Trump failed to seek advice and consent of Congress, that the Administration’s messaging is contradictory and full of lies, and that those two servicemembers in Iran – regardless of their rescue and safety – should never have been put in that position to fight Israel’s agenda with Iran. Oh, and Trump is evil so anything he says, does, thinks, or might say, do, or think is simply pure evil sui generis.
The real problem is the Arab world. Leaving the Republican Guard and anybody even remotely associated or linked to the mullahs or Iranian government in power will be perceived as an Iranian victory and a loss for the US and especially israel because we all know of the Arab world’s great love, affection, and admiration for Israel. Trump needs to clean the Tehranian House before he leaves and declares victory.
jvb
Fingers crossed that after the cease-fire expires, the bombing will continue.
Is the US and the world, better off today than when the operation began? Certainly. The only ones who would answer in the negative are those who regard anything better than a Trump failure as a tragedy.
I do not think this question can be answered immediately. And everything depends on how *better off* is measured. And what if ‘the world’ disagrees as well as to what ‘better off’ means?
To see how it all turned out (it is certainly not over) it will take some time. It is very likely that this, in combination with Minnesota (the stuff that the public pays most attention to) will contribute to loss in the midterms. What is your present assessment for that? How will you view *things* if there is a complete defeat then?
The only ones who would answer in the negative are those who regard anything better than a Trump failure as a tragedy.
I think this is flatly false. To ‘argue’ at all, and to make sense, requires a non-partisan position. From that position a level headed analysis might be made.
“Jaundiced eye and assuming the worst case scenario. That’s not analysis. The National Review has been and ever is a “NeverTrump” publication.”
The NR is not the only conservative magazine that has doubts, RedState has doubts, and John Daniel Davidson from the Federalist is following suit by making a number of claims:
A quote from John Daniel Davidson:
What does seem clear amid the fog of war, however, is that Trump’s maximalist, annihilationist rhetoric — talk of destroying Iranian “civilization,” “never to be brought back again,” taking out “the entire country,” bombing it “into the stone age,” targeting critical civilian infrastructure like power plants — has already gravely damaged the United States.
Why? Because America should only wage just wars, and waging a just war means being subject to certain restraints. Just war precludes immoral means — like the mass killing of civilians — to achieve victory. Even threatening such means, as Trump has done, damages the moral conscience of a people as much as it degrades the moral standing of a nation. Simply put, threatening to do something intrinsically immoral, even if you don’t actually do it, is wrong.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/08/trumps-hyperbolic-annihilationist-rhetoric-comes-with-a-moral-cost/
It unclear at this point why Trump is going to the negotiation table. There is a 10-point proposal from Iran which Trump called “a workable basis on which to negotiate”. According to Fox News this is the proposal:
The publicly available plan demands that the U.S. end all primary and secondary sanctions against Tehran, as well as that Iran receive full control over the Strait of Hormuz. The plan also demands an end to U.S. attacks on Iran and its allies, a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East, the release of frozen Iranian assets and a United Nations resolution stating that the agreement will be binding. The U.S. would also have to compensate Iran for damage incurred during the war and accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium, according to the plan.
Is this piece of garbage a good enough proposal to accept a ceasefire and start negotiating on? I am afraid that Trump is snatching defeat here from the jaws of victory. This is turning all the tactical victories of the last five weeks into a strategic defeat at the negotiating table. This is going to be as worse as the Versailles Treaty in 1919 which did not bring a lasting peace but turned out to be one of the factors that helped bring about World War II twenty years later, as Germany was able to rearm and the rest of Europe had turned pacifist and the USA had turned isolationist. The USA is turning isolationist and pacifist at this very moment.
Iran will claim to be the winner like King Hezekiah against the Assyrians on Sanherib (which is ridiculous), but they still have a number of cards:
Calling the war a victory solely based on kinetics and tactical victories alone is a perfect illustration of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and the “Do something” fallacy.
Europe NATO’s allies were smart to stay out of this mess. They have seen Trump climb done before, on Greenland.
And I prefer not to dismiss substantial analysis from National Review solely by claiming TDS, because that would be another sort of derangement.
Quoting this at all is discrediting on the topic: “Annihilation of a civilization violates just war doctrine.” It also makes no sense. If the war is just when a nation begins it—and this was—-the war doesn’t become “unjust” based on what ends it. Presumably dropping the two atom bombs on Japan also violated the “just war doctrine.” In any event, threatening to wipe out an enemy when the leader speaking is regarded as capable of doing it sufficiently to make calling his bluff not worth the risk does NOT violate any “doctrine,” or law. Such critics are leaping back and forth between abstractions and reality to suit their agendas at the time.
You are way, way, way out of date with regard to National Review. It sounds like you haven’t looked at it in years. I believe it was Never Trump circa 2015. I read it regularly, which should tell you something. Many of their writers have independent views but they certainly have been generally supportive. Cees’s comment is meaningful. Come on.
I take issue with the notion he has lost political support. Any loss of support is a result of progressive politicians and the media working hand in glove with the Iranian regime to undermine Trump. The only way they could get on board is if their party chose to do what Trump did. Reasonable people see negotiating tactics not literal messaging. If the rest are idiots I cannot help that but decisions should never be determined to placate your detractors or idiots.
What evidence do I have you may ask. Where was the outrage when Obama bombed more nations than Trump and his “quagmire” lasted 7 months even after Libya gave up it nuclear program. Who was it that said “we came-we saw-he died? Democrat politicians have forgotten that Hillary, Obama and Biden all talked as if they were ready to take out the regime yet such talk was just that – tough talk without any inclination to follow through.
This shift in rhetoric and consequence has changed the Middle East dynamic who play the American politicians like a fiddle by making promises they have no intention of fulfilling.
Ro Kanna is a narcissistic publicity seeker who will say whatever he feels he needs to to be the most anti-Trump politician so he can keep his 175k per year job because he has limited ability to do anything else.
The “deal” is a place of departure for negotiations and NOT some final deal so to believe that they will keep their nuclear materials is premature. The 10 points were drafted by IRGC and not specifically agreed to. It is unlikely we will agree to virtually any of them.
If it turns out that this is another stall tactic it will become apparent within 14 days. Progressives demand diplomacy and claim military action is illegal yet when Trump stop aggression to talk about these ridiculous demands they immediately assume we have agreed to surrender to the Regime.
What The IRGC puts out for propaganda purposes is a joke but what is more of a joke is that so many here believe we acquiesced to their demands.
I don’t think this is right.
“Podcaster Dave Rubin wrote on X: “Trump has been running the same negotiation playbook forever. Pressure, escalation, chaos… then leverage a deal. We’ve watched it happen again and again. This wasn’t complicated. It was basic pattern recognition.” Yup! What does this tell you about people who refuse to see that pattern? Go ahead: come up with a kind description. I can’t think of any.”
I don’t think you can simultaneously say that this is a good bargaining tactic and also say that people shouldn’t take it seriously. The plan was for people to take it seriously. Honestly… I can’t tell whether this is performative, or whether you’re like a dog that finally caught a car and doesn’t know what to do with it. What did you think was going to happen?
Because that’s not the only pattern. Trump doesn’t *just* have a pattern of saying bombastic, stupid threats for leverage and then not following through (although he does do that a lot), he also has a pattern of following through a very small portion of the time. He chickened out on tariffs until they were applied, he blustered for years on Venezuela until he arrested Maduro, he rattled sabers at Iran until he turned a large and functional part of the regime into meat paste. People used to say that he should be taken seriously, but not literally, and up until his second administration, I think that was right. After this last year, I think he needs to be taken seriously and literally, because the impact of his follow through is huge, and the incidence rate of that isn’t zero.
Hell, all this is also consistent with how he handled the negotiation and implementation of new tariffs at the very beginning of his administration. I saw the pattern then, but evidently I’m in the vast minority.
–Dwayne
Oops, that wasn’t really intended to be a reply to Humble Talent. Sorry about that.
–Dwayne
HT
What was the outcome of the tariff threat. My understanding, given that I follow the economic issues, was that billions in new foreign investment occurred. Tariffs come and go but investment sticks around for awhile. To say he chickened out fails to understand that he was using them to alter corporate behavior as well as securing domestic production of strategic goods. Did he makes us totally self sufficient – No. Nonetheless, he changed the trajectory of capital export.
Imagine the success he could achieve if the electorate was more concerned about ensuring the long term security of the US instead of griping about affordability as the sip their 7$ Starbucks coffee while they wait their turn at the tattoo parlor
“My understanding, given that I follow the economic issues, was that billions in new foreign investment occurred.”
I mean…. very technically, sure… But billions of dollars in new corporate investment happen every year. What you don’t know is whether those investments were legitimately new, previously unplanned spending attributable to the tariffs or if what happened here was that Trump took credit for any corporate investment announced after the tariffs even though they’d been planned for years. I’m going to be honest and say that while some of the former is possible, it’s mostly going to be the latter, and I think your reading on this is naïve… Feasibility exercises can take years to produce, they don’t get done over a weekend.
“Nonetheless, he changed the trajectory of capital export.”
I don’t think that’s true. Even assuming that you’re right, and all those billions were new investment dollars… In an economy of 30 trillion dollars, “billions” are rounding errors. Literally 0.003% each. Meanwhile, America still has a trade deficit with every single trade partner they did last year, and the year before that. Some of those trade deficits are larger now than they were then. Worse is that a lot of the things America tariffed are impossible to product in America… My go-to examples are coffee and potash.
The tariffs a legitimately stupid policy wrapped up in the flag and patriotism, and the only thing it accomplished was taxing Americans (not foreigners) the billions of dollars that the administration collected before being forced to refund them all after the tariffs were shot down by SCOTUS 6-3.
If you want to say that there was some kind of sea-change in investment, I think you need to quantify that: What changed, how much did it change, and why are those changes specifically attributable to the tariffs.