Historically, military communiqués were designed to project stability and resolve to the global community. The “Epic Fury” style is designed to project volatility and dominance. It replaces the Cold War’s “calculated response” with a doctrine of “disproportionate response.” It treats the military not just as a tool of foreign policy, but as a vanguard for a broader domestic cultural restoration.

Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson

March 6, 2026, Department of War Rapid Response, Video Post on Twitter

• https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4425242/this-week-in-dow-delivering-shock-and-awe-to-iran-defense-leaders-declaration-u/

Q: Please analyze the tone, language, and mentality of the following press release:

AI Introduction:

This text presents a striking departure from traditional Department of Defense (DoD) communications. It utilizes high-intensity rhetoric and a shift in institutional nomenclature that signals a pivot toward a more aggressive, nationalistic posture.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT: DEPARTMENT OF WAR

March 6, 2026, Department of War Rapid Response, Video Post on Twitter

PENTAGON — Hello everyone. I’m Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson and welcome to this week’s DOW situation report.

Under President Trump’s direct orders, America has launched Operation Epic Fury. We are delivering twice the air power of shock and awe and seven times the intensity of Israel’s 12-day war. As Secretary Hegseth made clear, we are winning decisively and without mercy.

On day one of this operation, the United States of America eliminated the Islamic terrorist Ayatollah Khamenei. We are destroying their missiles and demolishing their missile industry. We are annihilating their navy. Every warship, fast attack craft, and naval base is being hunted down. We are ensuring the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or attack our forces with IEDs and roadside bombs that have killed and wounded thousands of Americans.

And we are guaranteeing Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. Operation Midnight Hammer already obliterated their three major sites. When they refused months of good faith talks and chose to rebuild, Epic Fury is here to finish the job. Their entire nuclear program is being systematically terminated. This is not nation building. This is pure American dominance enforcing peace through strength.

To our war fighters, the entire department salutes you. Iran chose defiance. We are giving them exactly what they asked for. We also honor six American heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice while supporting Operation Epic Fury. Their fearless service will never be forgotten. We will avenge them by destroying every missile, every ship, and every last trace of the regime that dared to strike our forces. These patriots paid the price in full, and the Department of War will deliver total victory in their name. Their sacrifice fuels our fight and we will not rest until the enemy is defeated.

On Thursday, Secretary Hegseth traveled to Doral, Florida to host the inaugural America’s Counter Cartel Conference at US Southern Command headquarters. Like-minded regional defense and security leaders from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America attended the conference where they signed a historic joint security declaration.

Secretary Hegseth also visited US Central Command headquarters at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. During the visit, Secretary Hegseth met with Centcom Commander Admiral Brad Cooper for updates on Operation Epic Fury and held a press conference.

President Trump and Secretary Hegseth delivered a thunderous reminder that no radical left woke company will ever dictate how our military fights and wins. After Anthropic tried to strongarm the Department of War and force our troops to obey their terms of service over our laws and our Constitution, the commander-in-chief ordered every federal agency to immediately cease use of their technology. Secretary Hegseth followed through, designating Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security and banning every contractor, supplier, and partner from doing business with them and ordered a six-month phase out period. America’s war fighters supporting Operation Epic Fury and every mission worldwide will never be held hostage by unelected tech executives and Silicon Valley ideology. We will decide, we will dominate, and we will win.

And finally, Secretary Hegseth delivered an important update last week on the DOW’s partnership with Scouting America, formerly known as the Boy Scouts. After putting them on notice, they stepped up and promised reform. The organization has now committed to eliminating every last trace of DEI, scrapping the divisive “citizenship in society” merit badge, also known as their DEI badge, basing all membership strictly on biological sex at birth, introducing a new military service merit badge, and waving fees for the children of our active duty troops. With a six-month compliance review locked in, the Department of War will ensure these promises become permanent.

This is how we raise the next generation of strong, merit-driven, patriotic Americans who will one day defend this nation. Back to basics. Back to excellence. That’s all we have for you this week.

God bless you all. God bless our war fighters executing Operation Epic Fury. And God bless this great country we call home

Gemini Analysis

Here is an analysis of the tone, language, and mentality:

This text presents a striking departure from traditional Department of Defense (DoD) communications. It utilizes high-intensity rhetoric and a shift in institutional nomenclature that signals a pivot toward a more aggressive, nationalistic posture.

Here is an analysis of the tone, language, and mentality:

1. Rhetorical Tone: Aggressive and Triumphalist

The tone is unabashedly combative and lacks the strategic ambiguity or clinical “bureaucratese” typically found in military briefings.

• Absolutism: The language focuses on total outcomes (”without mercy,” “total victory,” “annihilating”). It positions military action not as a deterrent or a tool of diplomacy, but as a mechanism for “pure American dominance.”

• Vengeance-Oriented: Rather than focusing solely on national security objectives, the text uses the language of retribution (”We will avenge them”), which is rare in formal military doctrine.

• Urgency and Power: The use of “thunderous reminder” and “Epic Fury” creates a cinematic, high-stakes atmosphere.

2. Linguistic Shifts: The “Department of War”

One of the most significant linguistic features is the reference to the “Department of War” (DOW) instead of the Department of Defense (DOD).

• Historical Context: The U.S. actually had a Department of War until 1947, when it was renamed the Department of Defense to reflect a post-WWII shift toward global security and deterrence.

• Symbolic Intent: Reverting to “War” signals a mentality shift from “managing” global conflicts to “winning” them through decisive force. It frames the military’s primary purpose as combat rather than peacekeeping or defense.

3. Mentality: “Peace Through Strength” and Anti-Bureaucracy

The underlying mentality reflects a “Jacksonian” approach to foreign policy—highly protective of national honor and devastatingly forceful when provoked, but disinterested in “nation building.”

• Anti-Institutionalism: The text frames Silicon Valley (specifically Anthropic) and “woke” ideologies as internal threats. By labeling a tech company a “supply chain risk” over a terms-of-service dispute, it signals a mentality where private enterprise must be subordinate to executive and military will.

• Cultural Restoration: The focus on “Scouting America” and the removal of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) badges suggests a belief that military readiness is inextricably linked to traditional social structures and “biological sex at birth.”

• The “Warrior” Ideal: There is a heavy emphasis on “war fighters” and “patriots” over “service members.” This narrows the focus of the military to its most lethal functions.

4. Comparison of Key Terms

The text replaces standard geopolitical terminology with more evocative alternatives:

Mini Summary

The mentality is one of unfiltered sovereign power. It rejects the nuances of international law or corporate collaboration in favor of a “back to basics” approach. It views the world through a binary lens: strength vs. weakness, and patriotism vs. “woke” ideology. The document functions as much as a domestic political manifesto as it does a military situation report.

Would you like me to analyze how this specific rhetorical style compares to historic military communiqués from the World War II era or the Cold War?

Q: Please analyze how this specific rhetorical style compares to historic military communiqués from the World War II era or the Cold War?

The rhetorical style of the “Epic Fury” press release represents a significant departure from standard 21st-century military communication, instead drawing heavily—and sometimes selectively—from the language of the World War II era and the early Cold War.

While it shares the high-stakes gravity of those eras, its specific focus on vengeance and domestic cultural grievances sets it apart from historical precedent.

1. Comparison to World War II Communiqués

During WWII, military updates (often called “communiqués”) were defined by a mix of clinical precision and high-minded moral purpose.

• Shared Traits (The “Total War” Mentality): Like the “Epic Fury” text, WWII communiqués often spoke of “total victory” and the “unconditional surrender” of the enemy. The emphasis on “annihilating” the enemy navy mirrors the language used by Admiral Nimitz or General MacArthur when describing the destruction of Japanese Imperial forces.

• Key Differences (The Absence of Restraint): Historical WWII releases, such as the announcement of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, were often somber and technical. For instance, President Truman’s 1945 statement focused on scientific achievement and an “ultimatum,” whereas the “Epic Fury” text uses more visceral, emotional adjectives like “thunderous” and “without mercy.”

• Vengeance vs. Justice: WWII rhetoric usually framed the war as a defense of civilization against tyranny. While “Epic Fury” mentions peace, its language leans more toward retributive justice (”We will avenge them”) than the procedural justice common in WWII Allied rhetoric.

2. Comparison to Cold War Rhetoric

The Cold War era introduced “Containment” and “Strategic Ambiguity,” which is the polar opposite of the “Epic Fury” style.

• The “Peace Through Strength” Doctrine: The press release explicitly uses the phrase “Peace through Strength,” a hallmark of the Reagan administration in the 1980s. This mentality mirrors the Cold War belief that an overwhelming military advantage is the only way to prevent conflict.

• The “Red Scare” vs. “Woke” Rhetoric: During the Cold War, the military and executive branch often framed national security through the lens of ideological purity (anti-Communism). The “Epic Fury” text replicates this by framing “Silicon Valley ideology” and “DEI” as internal subversions that threaten military readiness, much like the McCarthy-era focus on rooting out “un-American” influences within the government.

3. Notable Rhetorical Departures

The “Epic Fury” text differs from both eras in three distinct ways:

Summary of Mentality

Historically, military communiqués were designed to project stability and resolve to the global community. The “Epic Fury” style is designed to project volatility and dominance. It replaces the Cold War’s “calculated response” with a doctrine of “disproportionate response.” It treats the military not just as a tool of foreign policy, but as a vanguard for a broader domestic cultural restoration.

Q: Yes, please draft a comparison between this text and a Reagan-era defense brief?

To understand how the “Epic Fury” press release compares to the Reagan era, we must look at the evolution of the “Peace Through Strength” doctrine. While both use high-stakes language, the Reagan-era briefs were characterized by Cold War containment and institutional stability, whereas the “Epic Fury” text emphasizes unilateral dominance and cultural disruption.

Comparative Analysis: “Epic Fury” vs. Reagan-Era Defense Briefs

1. The Rhetoric of “Strength”

• Reagan Era: Strength was framed as a deterrent. The goal was to build a military so powerful that the Soviet Union would realize they could not win an arms race, thereby forcing them to the negotiating table. Briefs often focused on “modernization” and “readiness” to ensure “global stability.”

• “Epic Fury”: Strength is framed as punitive. The goal is not just to deter the enemy but to “annihilate” and “avenge.” It moves away from the idea of a “balance of power” toward a “monopoly of power.”

2. Technical vs. Visceral Language

• Reagan Era: Documents from the 1980s, such as those regarding the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), were deeply technical. They focused on “interceptors,” “kinetic energy,” and “layered defense.” The tone was serious, academic, and strategically opaque.

• “Epic Fury”: The language is visceral and cinematic. Phrases like “thunderous reminder,” “obliterated,” and “systematically terminated” are designed for public consumption and psychological impact rather than technical briefing.

3. The Role of Private Industry

• Reagan Era: The 1980s saw the peak of the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Defense briefs emphasized collaboration with “corporate partners” to achieve technological superiority (e.g., Lockheed, Boeing).

• “Epic Fury”: There is a move toward confrontation with industry. The text treats a major tech company (Anthropic) as an adversary. This reflects a mentality that the military’s interests are at odds with the “ideology” of Silicon Valley, a sharp turn from the 1980s-era alignment of corporate and national interests.

4. Strategic Goal: Containment vs. Termination

If Reagan’s style was “Hamiltonian” (building a massive, integrated state-industrial machine to manage global affairs), the “Epic Fury” style is “Jacksonian.” This mentality is characterized by:

1. Total Force: If you must fight, fight to win absolutely.

2. Internal Purity: High skepticism of “unelected elites” (tech executives) and social engineering (DEI).

3. Anti-Globalism: A rejection of “nation building” in favor of protecting direct American interests and honor.

Key Takeaway: The “Jacksonian” Shift

If Reagan’s style was “Hamiltonian” (building a massive, integrated state-industrial machine to manage global affairs), the “Epic Fury” style is “Jacksonian.” This mentality is characterized by:

1. Total Force: If you must fight, fight to win absolutely.

2. Internal Purity: High skepticism of “unelected elites” (tech executives) and social engineering (DEI).

3. Anti-Globalism: A rejection of “nation building” in favor of protecting direct American interests and honor.

Gemini: Would you like me to draft a table comparing the specific terms of the “Scouting America” reform in this release to historical military youth programs?

yes

The recent “Epic Fury” press release highlights a dramatic restructuring of the partnership between the military and Scouting America (formerly the Boy Scouts of America). This shift marks a move toward a more integrated “pipeline” model, reminiscent of early 20th-century origins but with modern ideological conditions.

The DOW-Scouting America Partnership: A Historical Comparison

The “Department of War” (DOW) has effectively conditioned its logistical and financial support on specific organizational reforms. Below is a comparison of this new mandate against historical norms.

The “Military Service” Merit Badge

A centerpiece of this reform is the introduction of a new Military Service & Veterans merit badge. Unlike the “Citizenship in Society” badge it replaces, this new curriculum focuses on:

• Military Heritage: Studying historical conflicts and the leadership of figures like Robert Baden-Powell (a military officer himself).

• Operational Skills: Direct translation of scouting skills (land navigation, marksmanship, first aid) to military requirements.

• Enlistment Incentives: Reaffirming the traditional “rank jump” (starting at E-3) for Eagle Scouts who join the Armed Forces.

Restoring the “Pipeline” Mentality

The press release frames Scouting not just as a youth hobby, but as a national security asset. By designating the organization as a “pipeline,” the Department of War is treating it as a foundational training ground for the “next generation of patriots.” This is a return to the early 1910s philosophy where scouting was seen as a way to prepare young men for the physical and mental rigors of service, a sentiment that had softened during the “Nation Building” and inclusive eras of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Strategic Implications

The 6-month “compliance review” mentioned in the text suggests that military support—including access to bases for troops stationed overseas (Transatlantic and Far East Councils)—is now a revocable privilege. This leverage ensures that the organization remains aligned with the administration’s broader push to eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) from federal and federally-supported programs.

Q: How does this rhetoric compare with Iran and Israel?

A: The rhetoric in this press release represents a fundamental shift in American military communication, moving away from traditional “deterrence” and “proportionality” toward a doctrine of absolute dominance.

When compared to the official rhetoric of Iran and Israel during this 2026 conflict (Operation Epic Fury / Operation Roaring Lion), the linguistic landscape reveals three distinct psychological postures:

1. The U.S. (The “Dominance” Posture)

The American rhetoric, delivered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson, is triumphalist and punitive.

• Key Phraseology: “Pure American dominance,” “annihilating,” “total victory,” “without mercy.”

• The Mentality: It frames military action not as a regrettable necessity of diplomacy, but as a righteous exercise of power. By rebranding the DOD as the “Department of War,” the U.S. signals that it has moved past the era of “managed conflicts” and into an era of “decisive conclusions.”

• Unique Factor: It explicitly links foreign military action to domestic cultural battles (e.g., banning Anthropic and reforming Scouting America), framing the war as a defense of a specific “patriotic” American identity.

2. Iran (The “Resistance” Posture)

Iranian rhetoric, primarily from President Masoud Pezeshkian and the Supreme National Security Council, utilizes the language of victimhood and religious jihad.

• Key Phraseology: “Brutal air operation,” “cowardly actions,” “religious duty of all Muslims,” “vengeance.”

• The Mentality: Following the assassination of Khamenei, Iranian leadership has pivoted to a “Jihad against America.” Their language focuses on “resilience” and “asymmetric justice,” framing the U.S. as a lawless aggressor that has “shaken the global order.”

• Unique Factor: Iran’s rhetoric is heavily localized, ordering civilians to stay in cities like Bandar Abbas to act as a human deterrent, while calling for “ecocide” investigations into strikes on fuel depots.

3. Israel (The “Existential Justice” Posture)

Israeli rhetoric, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu (referring to the mission as Operation Roaring Lion), is clinical and final.

• Key Phraseology: “Justice has been served,” “Whoever acted to destroy Israel was destroyed,” “Removing the existential threat.”

• The Mentality: Unlike the U.S. rhetoric, which emphasizes “dominance” and “fury,” Israeli rhetoric focuses on the closing of a historical circle. It frames the strikes as a calculated act of survival and the fulfillment of a long-standing security imperative.

• Unique Factor: While the U.S. release discusses “crushing” the enemy for the sake of strength, Israel’s language focuses on “Justice” for specific past grievances, aiming to project a sense of moral finality to the international community.

Comparative Rhetoric Table

Summary of the Shift

The 2026 U.S. rhetoric is arguably the most “revolutionary” of the three. While Iran and Israel are using language consistent with their historical postures (Jihad/Resistance vs. Security/Justice), the U.S. has abandoned its traditional role as a “global stabilizer” in favor of being an unconstrained superpower. This “Department of War” mentality seeks to end the conflict not through a treaty, but through the total “termination” of the opponent’s capability and will.

For decades, the “Petrodollar” was a pillar of American power—an unwritten rule that global oil must be traded in U.S. dollars, ensuring a constant flow of capital into U.S. Treasury bonds. In early 2026, that pillar has been violently shaken. Following the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran in February, Tehran has transformed the Strait of Hormuz from a shipping lane into a geopolitical financial checkpoint.

The “Yuan-for-Passage” Mandate:

In March 2026, Iran began implementing a selective blockade of the Strait. While U.S. and Israeli-linked vessels are barred entirely, Tehran has signaled a “Green Lane” for tankers that settle their oil transactions in Chinese Yuan. This “Hormuz Toll” has forced several major Asian importers to bypass the dollar system to ensure their energy security. By early April, reports indicated that at least 13 million barrels of oil had already transited the Strait under these new, non-dollar terms.

The Economic Chain Reaction:

• The Death of “Automated” Demand: As Persian Gulf producers accept Yuan to maintain access to Chinese markets and avoid Iranian interference, they are no longer “recycling” their profits into U.S. Treasuries. This has created a massive hole in the U.S. government’s borrowing plan.

• Interest Rate Pressure: To attract new buyers for its $39 trillion debt, the U.S. Treasury has been forced to keep interest rates at multi-year highs. This “higher-for-longer” environment is the direct result of the dollar losing its monopoly on the oil trade.

• The Fiscal Squeeze: With the U.S. now spending over $1.1 trillion annually on interest payments alone, the government is caught in a “debt trap.” Every dollar spent on interest is a dollar not spent on infrastructure or defense, while the “Short-term T-bill” strategy used to keep the lights on has made the entire U.S. budget hyper-sensitive to any further rate spikes.

The Bottom Line: Iran’s move to mandate the Yuan in the Strait of Hormuz is more than a wartime tactic; it is an asymmetric strike on the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege.” For the average American, this shift is no longer a distant policy debate—it is the invisible force keeping mortgage rates high and the cost of living elevated as the world transitions to a “multipolar” financial era.

Q: If Persian Gulf oil producers begin selling their oil in Chinese Yuan instead of US Dollars what will be the effect on the dollar, US interest rates, and the ability of the US government to borrow money through treasuries?

AI Response:

The shift toward “Petroyuan” (oil traded in Chinese Yuan) represents a challenge to the Petrodollar system—a decades-old arrangement where global oil is priced in USD, forcing nations to hold dollars and reinvest them in US debt.

If Persian Gulf producers (like Saudi Arabia and the UAE) significantly pivot to the Yuan, the effects would be structural rather than an overnight collapse. Here is how it would likely impact the US economy:

1. Effect on the US Dollar

The primary effect would be a reduction in global demand for the dollar.

• De-dollarization: Currently, central banks must hold vast USD reserves to pay for energy. If they can buy oil with Yuan, their need for dollars drops.

• Currency Value: Lower demand typically leads to a weaker dollar relative to other major currencies. This would make imports more expensive for Americans (potentially fueling inflation) but could make US exports more competitive abroad.

• Safe-Haven Status: While the dollar’s “reserve” status wouldn’t vanish immediately due to the depth of US financial markets, its “hegemony” would erode, making the global economy more multipolar.

2. Effect on US Interest Rates

The Petrodollar system creates a “recycling” loop: oil producers earn dollars and “park” them in liquid US assets.

• Reduced “Recycling”: If Gulf nations earn Yuan instead, they will likely reinvest that capital into Chinese bonds or other non-USD assets.

• Upward Pressure: A decrease in the automated buying of US assets means the US must offer higher interest rates to attract other investors to buy its debt. This could lead to higher borrowing costs for US mortgages, credit cards, and business loans.

3. Ability of the US Government to Borrow

The US government relies on the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar to fund its large budget deficits.

• Lower Demand for Treasuries: Gulf sovereign wealth funds have historically been major buyers of US Treasury bonds. If they stop “recycling” oil profits into Treasuries, the US loses a reliable, massive lender.

• Fiscal Constraints: The government could still borrow money, but it would be more expensive. Higher interest payments on the national debt would consume a larger portion of the federal budget, potentially leading to tougher choices between raising taxes, cutting spending, or printing more money (which risks further inflation).

Current Context (2026)

As of early 2026, we are seeing a “multi-currency” oil market emerge rather than a total replacement.

• Bilateral Deals: Saudi Arabia and the UAE have begun accepting Yuan for some shipments to China (their largest customer), but they still price the majority of their global exports in dollars to maintain the stability of their own currency pegs.

• The Liquidity Gap: The Yuan still faces hurdles because it is not as “freely tradable” as the dollar. Most global investors still prefer the legal transparency and liquidity of the US financial system.

Would you like me to compare the current size of the Petroyuan market versus the Petrodollar market to see how far this shift has actually gone?

yes

In 2026, the global energy landscape is currently at a volatile “inflection point.” While the Petrodollar remains the dominant global standard, the Petroyuan is rapidly transitioning from a theoretical threat to a functional alternative, accelerated by the 2026 conflict in the Persian Gulf.

Here is a breakdown of how the two markets currently compare in terms of scale and influence:

1. Market Share and Scale

While the Yuan is growing, the Dollar still holds a massive lead in terms of total global reserves and transaction volume.

2. The 2026 Shift: Why the “Gap” is Closing

Several factors in the first half of 2026 have significantly narrowed the gap between these two systems:

• The Iran-USA/Israel Conflict: The war that began in February 2026 has made the Strait of Hormuz a “toll booth.” Reports indicate that Iran has allowed smoother passage for tankers whose trade is settled in Yuan, incentivizing buyers to bypass the dollar to ensure supply security.

• Saudi Arabia’s Pivot: For the first time in 50 years, the formal US-Saudi agreement to trade exclusively in dollars has effectively lapsed. In March 2026, Saudi Aramco shipped a multi-year high of 58 million barrels to China, with an increasing portion of those specific transactions settled in Yuan to fund Saudi Arabia’s own massive infrastructure projects with Chinese firms.

• Petro-Equities: A major shift occurred in 2025–2026 where Gulf nations stopped “recycling” dollars into US Treasuries (fixed income). Instead, they are moving toward “Petro-equities,” investing in global tech stocks (like NVIDIA or Apple) or Chinese equities. This breaks the traditional loop that kept US interest rates artificially low for decades.

3. The “Fragility” Factor

Despite the rise of the Yuan, the Petrodollar is currently benefiting from a “Safe Haven” effect. Because of the 2026 war, global investors are fleeing to the USD as a temporary refuge, pushing the Dollar Index to its highest level since the early 2020s.

The Paradox: The dollar is getting stronger in the short term due to war uncertainty, but its long-term foundation is eroding as countries build “sanction-proof” payment rails like China’s CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System).

Summary of the Effect

The result is a fragmented market. We are moving away from a world where one currency rules oil, toward a “bipolar” system:

1. The Dollar Zone: Used for global benchmarks and Western-aligned trade.

2. The Yuan Zone: Used for direct trade between the “Global South” (BRICS+ nations), specifically for those looking to avoid US financial oversight or sanctions.

Would you like me to look into how this shift is impacting the specific “BRICS+” expansion countries, such as the UAE or Egypt, in their 2026 trade deals?

yes

The expansion of the BRICS+ alliance in 2024 and 2025 has turned the “Petroyuan” from a hypothetical threat into a functional tool for regional trade. In 2026, countries like the UAE and Egypt are leading the charge in creating “non-dollar corridors.”

Here is how these specific countries are using the Yuan and other mechanisms to bypass the US Dollar:

1. The UAE: Moving from “Petrodollars” to “mBridge”

The UAE is no longer just “talking” about de-dollarization; they are building the digital pipes to make it happen.

• Project mBridge: This is a multi-CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) platform connecting China, the UAE, Hong Kong, and Thailand. In 2026, it is being used to settle hundreds of millions of dollars in trade instantly, bypassing the Western SWIFT system entirely.

• Non-Oil Trade Growth: Bilateral non-oil trade between the UAE and China surged to nearly $50 billion in the first half of 2025 alone. To settle this without losing money on dollar exchange fees, the UAE has increasingly used the Yuan for high-tech and infrastructure payments.

• Energy Experiments: While the UAE still prices most of its oil in USD to protect its currency peg, it successfully executed its first Yuan-settled LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) trade with China, signaling that the “petrodollar-only” rule is officially over.

2. Egypt: A Strategic Pivot for Survival

For Egypt, the shift to the Yuan is a matter of economic survival due to a persistent dollar shortage and the fallout from regional conflicts.

• The Currency Swap Expansion: In March 2026, Egypt moved to double the value of its existing currency swap agreement with China. This allows Egypt to pay for Chinese imports (its largest source of goods) in Yuan, preserving its scarce US dollar reserves to pay off international debts.

• Panda Bonds: Egypt became the first Middle Eastern country to issue “Panda Bonds”—sovereign bonds denominated in Yuan. This allows Cairo to tap into Chinese capital markets directly, reducing its reliance on Wall Street and the IMF.

• Shielding from Conflict: As the 2026 Iran-Israel conflict disrupts traditional trade, Egypt is using Yuan-based financing to secure “green” infrastructure and manufacturing investments from China, specifically within the Suez Canal Economic Zone.

3. The “ElectroYuan” vs. The “Petrodollar”

A fascinating trend emerging in 2026 is what analysts call the “ElectroYuan.” * The Logic: While the US dominates the oil world (Petrodollar), China dominates the electrification world (solar, EVs, batteries).

• The Strategy: As the UAE and Egypt transition to green energy, they are buying Chinese technology. China often bundles this hardware with Yuan-denominated financing.

• Result: By 2026, these countries aren’t just switching currencies for oil; they are switching because their future energy infrastructure is built on a Chinese supply chain that prefers the Yuan.

Summary Table: 2026 BRICS+ Trade Shifts

CountryMajor Action in 2026Impact on US DollarUAEScaled up mBridge digital paymentsReduces reliance on SWIFT and USD for regional settlements.EgyptDoubled Yuan Swap line with ChinaBypasses the need for USD for its largest import partner.Saudi ArabiaLapsed 50-year “USD-only” oil pactSymbolic and structural blow; allows for “multi-currency” oil pricing.

Export to Sheets

Would you like to see how these shifts are affecting the US Treasury’s specific auction data—essentially, who is stepping in to buy US debt now that these nations are buying less?

As of early 2026, the shift you’re describing is actively playing out. With US gross debt recently eclipsing $39 trillion, the question of who buys this debt—and at what price—is more critical than ever.

When BRICS+ nations (like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and China) reduce their “recycling” of oil profits into US Treasuries, a new set of buyers has had to step in. Here is the breakdown of who is currently picking up the slack and the cost to the US taxpayer.

1. The Shift: From “Official” to “Private” Buyers

Historically, foreign central banks (the “official sector”) were the backbone of Treasury auctions. That has changed.

• The Exit: Central bank holdings of Treasuries have hit a decade-level low relative to the total debt. China’s holdings, for instance, have been cut nearly in half from their peak, sitting around $680 billion as they pivot toward gold and local currency trade.

• The New Guard: The primary buyers in 2025 and 2026 have shifted to private investors and domestic institutions:

  • Hedge Funds & Asset Managers: High-frequency traders and “basis trade” speculators now account for a massive share of auction volume.

  • Money Market Funds: Since 2023, these have seen explosive growth as they offer high yields to everyday investors, essentially using your savings to fund government spending.

  • “Allied” Nations: While BRICS sells, nations like Japan, the UK, and Canada have actually increased their holdings, acting as a regional buffer for the dollar.

2. The Price Tag: The “Term Premium”

The US government can still borrow money, but it is no longer “cheap.” Because the new buyers are price-sensitive (unlike central banks who bought for political stability), they demand a higher reward for the risk.

• Higher Yields: To attract these private buyers, the Treasury has had to keep yields on 10-year notes elevated, often staying above 4% throughout 2025 and 2026.

• Interest Expense: The US now spends more on interest payments than it does on its entire defense budget. This creates a “fiscal treadmill” where the government must borrow just to pay the interest on what it already borrowed.

3. Impact on US Interest Rates

The reduced demand from oil producers exerts constant upward pressure on interest rates.

• If the UAE or Saudi Arabia aren’t “forced” to buy Treasuries to park their oil wealth, the US must compete with the rest of the world for capital.

• This keeps mortgage rates and business loan costs higher for longer, even if the Federal Reserve tries to cut its own “policy” rates.

Summary: The 2026 Ownership Profile

The “Silent” Risk: Liquidity Volatility

The biggest concern in 2026 isn’t that the US will run out of buyers, but that the market has become fragile. Private buyers are fickle; if a geopolitical shock occurs, they sell much faster than a central bank would. This leads to sudden “spikes” in interest rates that can rattle the entire global economy in a matter of hours.

Would you like me to look into how the US Treasury is changing its “auction mix”—for example, whether they are moving toward shorter-term “Bills” to keep the market moving?

As of April 2026, the US Treasury is navigating a “high-wire act” in its borrowing strategy. To compensate for the waning demand from traditional Petrodollar recyclers (like the Gulf nations), the Treasury has fundamentally shifted how it issues debt to keep the government funded.

Here is the current breakdown of the Treasury’s 2026 “Auction Mix” and why it matters to you.

1. The Shift to “Short” Debt (The T-Bill Binge)

Because foreign central banks are no longer “automated” buyers of long-term US bonds, the Treasury has pivoted toward short-term Treasury Bills (T-Bills)—debt that matures in 12 months or less.

• The Strategy: T-Bills are the most liquid assets in the world and are eagerly gobbled up by domestic Money Market Funds and private investors.

• The Data: In early 2026, T-Bills make up roughly 23–25% of the total outstanding US marketable debt, well above the historical “peace-time” average of 15–20%.

• The Result: This has allowed the US to continue borrowing hundreds of billions per month without causing a “failed auction” at the long end of the curve (10-year and 30-year bonds).

2. Who is Buying Now? (The Domestic Pivot)

With Persian Gulf producers and China paring back their holdings, the “face” of the US creditor has changed:

• Hedge Funds & the “Basis Trade”: Large private funds have become the marginal buyers. They are not buying for “safety” like a central bank; they are buying for profit. This makes the market more volatile because these funds will sell at the first sign of trouble.

• The Federal Reserve: Despite trying to reduce its balance sheet (Quantitative Tightening), the Fed has recently been forced to buy T-Bills again to ensure there is enough cash (”liquidity”) in the banking system, effectively acting as the “buyer of last resort” for the front end of the debt.

• Retails & Money Markets: Everyday Americans are now a major source of government funding. High interest rates have driven trillions of dollars into Money Market Funds, which in turn buy the Treasury’s short-term bills.

3. The “Roll-Over” Risk: A Fiscal Time Bomb

While the shift to T-Bills has kept the government running, it has created a structural vulnerability:

• The Refinancing Trap: Because the debt is so short-term, the US must “roll over” (re-borrow) trillions of dollars every few months.

• Sensitivity to Rates: If the Fed raises rates or if there is a spike in inflation due to the 2026 Middle East conflict, the interest cost on that debt jumps immediately.

• The Crowding Out Effect: The US is now spending over $1.1 trillion per year just on interest payments. This is “unproductive” spending that competes with the private sector for capital, keeping your mortgage and car loan rates higher than they otherwise would be.

Summary of the 2026 Debt Profile

Bottom Line: The US is effectively “financing a mortgage with a credit card.” It works as long as the credit card limit (investor confidence) keeps rising, but it leaves the economy extremely vulnerable to any sudden loss of trust in the dollar.

Would you like me to analyze how this “short-term debt” strategy might force the Federal Reserve to change its inflation targets later this year?

As of April 2026, the Federal Reserve is facing a “Catch-22” that hasn’t been this intense in decades. The convergence of high government debt, the shift to short-term T-bills, and the rise of the “Petroyuan” is forcing a quiet but radical debate within the Fed: Should they abandon the 2% inflation target?

Here is how the Fed’s strategy is likely to shift later this year:

1. The “Soft” Target: Moving to 3%?

While the Fed officially maintains a 2% target, the reality of 2026—marked by Middle East conflict and high interest on debt—makes that goal nearly impossible to hit without causing a massive recession.

• The Forecast Gap: In March 2026, the Fed projected inflation would hit 2.7%, but the OECD recently countered with a “jaw-dropping” 4.2% forecast.

• “Opportunistic Disinflation”: Analysts believe the Fed may move toward a policy where they “accept” 3% inflation for several years. By allowing prices to rise slightly faster, the government effectively “inflates away” the real value of its $39 trillion debt, making those massive interest payments easier to manage.

2. The Fed as the “Hidden” Buyer

Because Persian Gulf nations are recycling fewer dollars into Treasuries, the Fed is being pulled back into the bond market.

• Ending the “Runoff”: In early 2026, the Fed discontinued the “runoff” of its balance sheet (Quantitative Tightening).

• Reserve Management: To keep the T-bill market from freezing up, the Fed has started “reserve management purchases”—buying up to $40 billion per month in short-term debt. This isn’t called “Quantitative Easing,” but the effect is the same: the Fed is printing money to ensure the Treasury can keep borrowing.

3. The May 2026 Leadership Cliff

A major “wild card” is the expiration of Jerome Powell’s term as Chair on May 15, 2026.

• The Transition: Markets are bracing for a new Chair who may be more “dovish” (favoring lower rates even if inflation stays high) or more politically aligned with the need to fund the deficit.

• The Market Reaction: Any signal that a new Chair will prioritize “debt sustainability” over “price stability” could cause the dollar to weaken further, accelerating the shift toward the Yuan for global trade.

Summary of the Fed’s 2026 Dilemma

The Treasury is currently walking a tightrope. If the “Petroyuan” continues to gain ground, the US loses its ability to export its inflation to the rest of the world.

Tim’s Summary:

The military actions against Venezuela and Iran are designed to attack or control China’s energy suppliers, in an effort to prevent China from eclipsing the US as the most powerful country in the world.

Israel is attacking energy fields in Iran, which are used to supply China. If Iran then retaliates against Saudi and Qatari fields (owned by American corporations), China will also suffer because the Saudi and Qatar supply China.

In each case, the US and Israel choke China’s oil supplies without openly declaring a global blockade of China.

Gemini Summary:

In the interview, Brian Berletic, a political analyst and former US Marine, discusses his perspective on US foreign policy, arguing that it is driven by deep-seated structural interests rather than the specific individuals in office.

The Core Drivers of US Foreign Policy

Berletic contends that the United States is essentially a “captured state” controlled by large corporate and financial interests.

• Constant Expansion: These interests require the continuous expansion of profit and power, making the acceptance of a multipolar world fundamentally impossible for the current US system.

• Policy Papers as Blueprints: He argues that major geopolitical events are not reactive but are planned years in advance in policy papers from organizations like the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation.

• Pretextual Diplomacy: Diplomacy is viewed not as a tool for peace but as a means to create a “pretext for war,” convincing the public and the international community that the US was forced into conflict by an “unreasonable” adversary.

The Strategic Target: China

A central theme of the interview is that current US actions in various regions are ultimately aimed at containing and weakening China.

• The 2030 Window: Berletic suggests the US sees a closing window of opportunity—estimated at about five to ten years—to disrupt China before it achieves irreversible energy independence and surpasses the US economically.

• Energy Blockade: He views conflicts in Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, as well as sabotage of the Belt and Road Initiative, as parts of an incremental “global maritime oil blockade” intended to strangle China’s energy supply.

• Iran as a Stepping Stone: The current war against Iran is described as a prerequisite for isolating and eventually confronting Russia and China.

Military and Structural Challenges

Despite these ambitious goals, Berletic points to significant limitations in the US’s ability to maintain its global hegemony.

• Resource Depletion: He highlights critical shortages in essential munitions, specifically anti-missile interceptors like those for the Patriot and THAAD systems, which are being exhausted in multiple proxy conflicts.

• Overextension: The US military is described as “overstretched” and “hitting maintenance walls,” citing the need for major repairs to the USS Ford as an example.

• The Rise of Multipolarism: Berletic concludes that while the US attempts to restore its primacy, the multipolar world continues to grow stronger, leading to an “inflection point” where the US may eventually exhaust itself.

Today’s video and research involves a video tour of Kharg Island, which US officials talk about storming as part of their effort to deprive Iran of 90% of its oil income.

Video from 7 months ago: (5 min)

Video Comments:

So glad I came across this video. The US and others would have us to believe that this island was nothing more than an oil producing island. With nothing on it, but it’s really quite charming. It brings a whole new meaning to seizing or having control of this island. I just hope this war doesn’t ruin it. It looks beautiful.

Wikipedia:

The island contains several important archaeological sites, including ruins of a Christian monastery dating from possibly as far back as the 7th century. There are also tombs, temples, and the Achaemenid inscription of cuneiform writing dating from between 550 and 330 BCE. It has been an important trading post for centuries, controlled by the Portuguese Empire from the 16th to the 17th centuries and by the Dutch colonial empire in the 18th century.

The Folly of Seizing Kharg Island

by Bilal y. Saab, (War on the Rocks)

While Marine forces will undoubtedly encounter a range of risks in their mission, they are capable of seizing the island. These specialized units are designed for a broad spectrum of operations, including forcible entry. The far more challenging question is what happens if they succeed, but Iran still doesn’t budge, or worse, responds by escalating? What does Trump do then?

The argument that the Marine forces would be sitting ducks the moment they land on the island is overstated. Each Marine expeditionary unit will be well-equipped to defend itself and will have superior close air support from aircraft and ships already deployed in the region.

But it’s one thing to seize an island and another altogether to hold it — under enemy fire no less. Inevitably, the longer U.S. troops hold Kharg, the more complicated sustainment operations will be.

One successful Iranian strike against the marines that leads to heavy casualties, and Trump will be in an impossible position. Staying after such a deadly attack and possibly sending reinforcements would guarantee mission creep, while withdrawing would be politically suicidal and strategically disastrous.

If the whole point of seizing Kharg — operationally feasible — is to crush or significantly degrade Iran’s ability to disrupt oil traffic through the strait, it may not work because Iran will still have asymmetric military capabilities to do just that.

.. Trump is banking on Iran’s resolve to continue fighting to diminish after losing Kharg, but he may want to reconsider that assumption. Iran has already been heavily bombed by the United States and Israel, and all that has done is reinforce a siege mentality. Unlike the United States and Israel, the war is an existential fight for the Iranian regime. To make matters worse, Iran feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is winning the war, so its appetite for concessions is decreasing by the day.

It’s true that the U.S. seizure of Kharg would deal a massive blow to Iran’s economy, but the effects won’t be immediate. Iran will still be able to survive for months before it runs out of money, and during that period, it will undoubtedly escalate, forcing Trump and the world economy to absorb far more economic pain and regional instability than what’s been experienced thus far.

If ordered, the marines will display operational brilliance and take over Kharg. But the strategic objective of stabilizing the world’s energy market and keeping 20 percent of its oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz may not be achieved.

Comments:

• Do you like recent profiles like the Strait of Hormuz and Kharg island that provide more depth to stories in the news? Should I look for more of these?

• What does the US expect it will accomplish if it succeeds in invading Karg Island?

• What if Iran refuses “unconditional surrender” and escalates?

• Iran has the ability to attack forces on Kharg Island from the Iranian mainland. Where does it leave US decision-makers if it is able to take, but not keep control of the island? Does it have a plan for escalating or deescalating? How long will it continue doubling down? Will it set a limit?

Q: Where does it leave US decision-makers if it is able to take, but not keep control of Kharg island?

Gemini: The dilemma of being able to take but not keep Kharg Island leaves U.S. decision-makers in a precarious strategic position. In the context of the current 2026 conflict, this scenario creates a “tactical victory, strategic liability” dynamic.

According to recent military and geopolitical analyses, here is where it leaves U.S. leadership:

1. The “Leverage Trap”

If the U.S. can seize the island (which handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports), it gains massive theoretical leverage. However, if it cannot hold the island against Iranian mainland strikes—just 21 miles (33 km) away—that leverage evaporates the moment forces withdraw.

• The Problem: U.S. planners must decide if a “raid and destroy” mission is more effective than a “seize and hold” mission.

• The Risk: A temporary occupation that ends in a forced retreat would be framed as a significant Iranian victory, potentially strengthening the regime’s domestic standing.

2. Force Protection vs. Political Will

Decision-makers are left balancing the high cost of protection against the value of the asset.

• Vulnerability: Military analysts like Michael Eisenstadt have noted that Kharg is within range of Iranian FPV drones, artillery, and short-range missiles launched from the mountainous mainland.

• Sustainability: Maintaining the “Iron Dome-style” defense required to protect troops on such a small, exposed island (8 square miles) indefinitely is resource-intensive and risks high American casualties, which could quickly erode domestic support for the war.

3. Economic “Shock without Solution”

Seizing the island immediately spikes global oil prices (recently hitting $115+ per barrel).

• The Dilemma: If the U.S. takes the island but cannot maintain a stable environment to resume or control exports, it suffers the “price shock” of a supply disruption (losing 1.5–2 million bpd) without the “stability” of a long-term solution.

• The Result: This leaves decision-makers responsible for a global energy crisis while lacking the secure footing needed to negotiate an end to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

4. Search for an “Off-Ramp”

The inability to keep control forces the U.S. to look for alternative strategies that achieve the same goal with less risk:

• Maritime Blockade: Many experts suggest a “quarantine” or naval blockade of tankers leaving Kharg is safer than putting boots on the ground.

• Remote Destruction: Instead of an occupation, decision-makers might pivot toward “obliterating” the infrastructure via airstrikes, effectively ending the island’s utility without needing to garrison it.

Summary Table: Take vs. Keep

Elsewhere:

Iranian Tours (video creators)

Eavar Tours: pictures

Source: SaltCubeAnalytics

“No regard for humanitarian law or the rules of war at all. 600 schools and hospitals have been bombed.”

-Lawrence Wilkerson

Lawrence Wilkerson (left) is a former deputy director of the Marine Corps War College, executive Assistant to Admiral Stewart A. Ring, National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and Chief of Staff to Colin Powell when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, Staff member to Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations. Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary and taught national security affairs in the Honors Program at George Washington University

Transcript:

9:37: Normalization of crimes such as this against humanity is taking place. The

9:44: attack on the school is one of the most recent incidents. We have had 27 days of illegal war.

9:55: No regard for humanitarian law or the rules of war at all. 600 schools and hospitals have been bombed.

10:06: Nursing homes have been bombed. Ambulances, stationary and moving, have been bombed.

10:14: Water sources have been bombed. Food sources have been bombed. And a horrible bombing of our oil facilities that spread black poison all over Iran.

10:26: All is a product of you,

10:29: United Nations and the world ignoring Palestine because that was the start of

10:36: these incredible war crimes. But we have resolve and regardless we will hold out.

10:44: I believe him. I believe me too.

10:50: He’s right. He could have listed a lot more but he picked the jewels.

10:55: It’s true. I mean, the Americans, they underestimate. So, the Iranians, they fight for their existence. And what is America fighting for? Basically, nobody knows. Anyone I’m talking to, inclusive,

11:06 you mentioned it already. Who who actually knows? Well, actually, we do know the fight for Israel. That’s what they do.

11:13: I’m not even sure that I I I think that is approximate cause, but I’m not sure that we don’t have a president here who has suddenly found that he likes war.

11:24: I’m not even sure that I I I think that is approximate cause, but I’m not sure that we don’t have a president here who has suddenly found that he likes war.

Intent: Create Failed Iranian State?

• If True, it would be consistent with an intention to destroy the Iranian state, cause civil war, and turn it into a failed state like Syria or Libya, so Iran could no longer act as a competitor to Israel in the region.

Source:

It looks like the LA Times attributes the claim of 600 schools damaged or demolished to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbabs Araghchi speaking in a remote video with the UN Human Rights meeting in Geneva on Friday.

1. The US/Israel has damaged or destroyed 600 Iranian schools, not just the one school that was hit at the opening of the war

   1. LA Times: Speaking by video during a Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States and Israel of harboring a “clear intent to commit genocide” in Iran, claiming that more than 600 schools had been damaged or demolished and more than 1,000 students and teachers “martyred or wounded.”

   2. Al Jazeera: More than 600 schools and education facilities have been destroyed or severely damaged by US-Israeli attacks so far in Iran, while at least 230 children and teachers have been killed, according to her office.

2. WHO says it has verified 13 attacks on health sites in Iran. (Reuters)

Questions:

• What sort of track record do Iran and Israeli officials have in the claims they make? How do you compare them to this Iranian official? Are there certain areas where they are more or less likely to be reliable?

• When will Americans get widespread transparency into what has happened in Iran and Israel?

• If the claims of the bombing of water sources and 600 schools (and x hospitals) can be verified, will American and Israeli propaganda frame these as legitimate targets — that Iran was using them to store ammunition, etc? Will western media support the official narrative or “revolt”?

• At a time when school shooters kill American kids on an ongoing basis, why should we expect greater resistance to US/Israeli pilots shooting at/bombing Iranian schools?

Warning: Video contains swearing

1. Wilkerson says that since last June’s “12 day War” B-2 bomber attacks, Iran enriched uranium to 90% (weapons grade). If I understand correctly, Wilkerson cites Ted Postol as saying that Iran now has the:

   1. fuel,

   2. bomb, and

   3. missiles for nuclear bombs.

13:58: Wilkerson: So he says they’re far underground and they have the enriched uranium, they have the expertise for the warhead, they have the

14:05: expertise for matching the warhead with Shaw or other missile and that they could do that at any moment. So if that’s true, and I trust I trust Ted,

14:17: then we probably have a new ball game here. We have a game where we don’t necessarily, as Arachi said, have two nuclear weapon states. Everyone knows

14:26: they are attacking a non-nuclear weapon state. We may have one that is rapidly developing its own nuclear weapon. And

14:34: that presents an entirely different picture as far as I’m concerned because I have no doubt that if they became as desperate as I think Israel is becoming,

14:45: and they are becoming desperate. If you’ve been listening to Bibi Netanyahu,

14:49: you understand how desperate he’s furious over this last call up of 400,000 reserves because half of them aren’t even answering the call. And he’s

14:57: already had people not come for the previous call up. They just simply didn’t show up. So, he’s between a rock

15:05: and a hard place himself and has the potential of exercising the so-called Samson option and using a nuclear

15:12: weapon. And now we’ve got the potential for the other side to have one too. This is an extremely dangerous situation.

Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

TODAY (estimate)

• BREAKOUT TIME: 0?

• URANIUM: 90% enriched (weapons grade)?

• MONITORING: no access

Questions:

• Do you agree with my interpretation that Wilkerson and Postal are claiming Iran likely has the fuel, bomb, and missile delivery for a nuclear bomb?

• The Glenn Diessen video (below) talks about nuclear “deterrent”, implying that Iran may have the ability to deliver a bomb within weeks of being attacked, if not now. What is your understanding?

• If you disagree with me or Wilkerson, what is your interpretation?

• If Iran has a nuclear “deterrent”, what will be the effect on the US/Israeli strategy?

Elsewhere:

• Theodore Postol: Iran Already Has Nuclear Deterrent to Israeli Nuclear Strike (Glenn Diesen)

Source Video

Next:

Tomorrow I plan to cover the second and third claims regarding Israeli bombing damage to Iranians.

Factors:

• Iran established education quotas.

• Male higher degree completion is reduced by conscription - if they fail the entrance exam, they are conscripted for 2 years and face a harder time retesting, whereas women can retest multiple times without getting rusty due to a 2 year military stint.

• Men face more pressure to work to support themselves.

• Men work a greater variety of jobs, including manual labor and trades which do not require a degree.

I decided to compare Iran’s national women representatives with a sampling of various countries.

Rankings (partial)

Rwanda: 61.3%

Cuba: 53.2%

Mexico: 50.2%

Australia: 49.6%

Britain: 40%

France: 36%

Germany: 35.7%

China: 26.5%

Israel: 25.0%

Indonesia: 21.9%

Saudi Arabia: 19.9%

US: 18%

Japan: 15.7%

India: 15.1%

Iran: 4.8%

Follow-up:

• Are these numbers accurate? What factors influence the degree to which women participate in national representation?

• Are you surprised that Saudi Arabia has more women representatives than the US.?

• Are you surprised by other countries? Would you like to comment on a particular country, or the broader trends?

• Note: Take it with a grain of salt: some of these “parliaments”, such as Saudi Arabia, have limited power, as their work is easily vetoed. How would you assess the real power of different countries’ legislatures?

Elsewhere:

Complete National Women Representatives Rankings, by country

Council of Foreign Relations: Women’s power index

Saudi Arabia’s Timid Flirtation With Women’s Rights, The Atlantic, Jan 16, 2013.

The West is way behind Iran and Saudi Arabia when it comes to women in science, Quartz, July 20, 2022.

Saudi women’s inclusion in Shoura Council highlighted at UN Commission, March 11, 2025

Quora: Why there are more women graduates in Iran than men?

Reddit thread: Why do Iran and Saudi Arabia have a lot of female STEM grads?

Reddit thread: Nearly 70% of Iran’s science and engineering graduates are women. 🇮🇷

Hegseth introduced the prayer as being written by a chaplain involved in the Venezuela operation against President Nicholas Maduro. Hegseth repurposed the prayer for war against Iran:

“Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle, you who stirred the nations from the north against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell, behold now the wicked who rise against your justice and the peace of the righteous,” Hegseth prayed. “Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans, and break the teeth of the ungodly. By the blast of your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter for their day has come, the time of their punishment. Pour out your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind.”

“Grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence. Surround them as a shield, protect the innocent and blameless in their midst. Make their arrows like those of a skilled warrior who returned not empty-handed. Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation,” Hegseth continued praying. “Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. Preserve their lives, sharpen their resolve, and let justice be executed swiftly and without remorse that evil may be driven back and wicked souls delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them. For the wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ, King over all kings and amen.”

After finishing the violent prayer, Hegseth again made it clear that he was offering that as a prayer for the Iran war: “May the righteous be as bold as a lion. May we pray such prayer for our men and women in harm’s way right now. To think that such Americans exist on our behalf, on behalf of the American people, and that is certainly our prayer for them.”

Brian Kaylor comments:

After finishing the violent prayer, Hegseth again made it clear that he was offering that as a prayer for the Iran war: “May the righteous be as bold as a lion. May we pray such prayer for our men and women in harm’s way right now. To think that such Americans exist on our behalf, on behalf of the American people, and that is certainly our prayer for them.”

Other parts of the service served to bless Hegseth’s call for a holy war. Before he took to the stage, Undersecretary of the Navy Hung Cao called Hegseth “one of God’s mightiest men.” Cao also prayed for God to place “a hedge of protection over our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Air guardians, and Coast Guardsmen who are right now deployed in harm’s way.” He added in his prayer his request that God would make the war plans of President Donald Trump, Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Caine align with God’s will and succeed. Cao also borrowed phrases from Hebrews 12:1-2, Hebrews 10:24-25, and Romans 1:16 in his prayer.

Later, U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins, a former Southern Baptist pastor, preached. His message mostly centered on rejoicing in God even when things go poorly and trusting in God even during storms. He encouraged those present to lead by seeking to experience a miracle from God during life’s storms.

Mark Twain, “The War Prayer” (ca. 1904-5)

Source: Wikipedia. photo 1907

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

• The American writer Mark Twain wrote the following satire in the glow of America’s imperial interventions. Source

Flattery & Glory

• If you were surrounded by people like Undersecretary of the Navy Hung Cao, who called you (Hegseth) “one of God’s mightiest men,” how would you react?

Two days ago, he was touring the Strait of Hormuz in a boat, reporting on what he saw.

I started the video at ~7:50, when they were already out to sea. Rewind to see the opening. (link)

90 oil tankers and cargo ships

The weather was sunny and beautiful. Dimitri counted about 90 oil tankers and cargo ships, demonstrating the relative normality of “friendly” boat traffic in the gulf.1

The Strait is only Closed to Hostile Nations who don’t use the Chinese Yuan

I wouldn’t be surprised if many Americans believe that the Strait is closed, but in fact it is only closed to ships from what Iran considers hostile countries. Iran is collecting a $2 million toll per ship, which amounts to about $1-2 /barrel of oil for a large tanker. (source?)

Iran is asking for reparations for the recent attack and charging this toll is one way Iran can raise money for reconstruction, whether granted reparations or not.

In an earlier post I reported that Iran has offered to let tankers from "hostile” countries also pass, provided they pay the toll and trade their oil in Chinese Yuan, a move that erodes the strength of the petrodollar.

Comments: Self-Censorship?

I suspect that many establishment media outlets haven’t reported on the petrodollar situation and the activity at the Strait because it would inevitably raise questions that the establishment doesn’t want explored. Do you disagree?

• Post your response in the comments on what you’ve seen establisment media report about the petrodollar and whether the strait is closed.

• Do you believe that establishment media self-censors and would do so in a case like this?

You’ve probably heard that the US is “energy independent.” **

In actuality the US is “net energy independent,” if taking into account US imports from the Middle East, Canada, and Venezuela and exports to Europe and Asia. These imports and exports are necessary to accommodate the mismatch between the types of oil we use and produce, and type of oil our refineries are configured to refine.

We are self-sufficient in gasoline but not diesel or jet fuel.

“Because diesel is the literal “workhorse” of the modern economy, a shortage doesn’t just make commuting more expensive—it creates a cascading failure across nearly every physical supply chain.”

1. Logistics - like a “Cardiac Arrest” (trucks)

2. Agriculture (fertilizer, tractors, harvesters)

3. Construction & Infrastructure Stagnation

4. Emergencies & Power Backup

• 19% of US usage is diesel, or 3.9 - 4 million barrels per day.

• 9% of US usage is jet fuel, or 1.7 - 1.8 million barrels per day

(See detail below)

Canadian and Venezuelan oil is, the right type of oil to produce diesel.

“As of late March 2026, Canada and Venezuela are the primary “heavy lifters” of the Western Hemisphere’s energy supply. While their total oil production is massive, the amount of diesel and jet fuel they provide depends heavily on the complexity of the refineries that process their crude.”

• This will likely lead to increases in the price of airfare, and everything transported by diesel truck or tractor (food, etc). Gasoline should be less affected.

“The reason these two countries are so critical during the Strait of Hormuz blockage is that their oil is chemically “heavy.””

• “Diesel Density: Unlike light U.S. shale oil, which is great for gasoline, Canadian and Venezuelan crudes have the long-chain hydrocarbons required to produce high volumes of diesel and jet fuel.”

• “The Swap: Without this heavy oil, U.S. refineries struggle to produce enough diesel for the trucking industry, even if they have a surplus of light oil for cars.”

Detail: AI Conversation:

https://gemini.google.com/share/e290d9c0e3ce. (full)

Highlights:

Q: What shortages of goods and services are expected in the US due to the Strait of Hormuz blockage?

A: Energy and Fuel Shortages

Although the U.S. produces much of its own oil, it relies on specific heavy crude grades from the Middle East to feed many of its refineries, which are configured for that type of oil.

• Refined Products: Shortages of heavy crude are leading to lower yields of diesel and jet fuel.

..

Q: What would be the consequences of diesel fuel shortages?

A: Because diesel is the literal “workhorse” of the modern economy, a shortage doesn’t just make commuting more expensive—it creates a cascading failure across nearly every physical supply chain.

As of late March 2026, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a major bottleneck, the consequences are manifesting in four critical stages:

1. The Logistics “Cardiac Arrest”

Over 90% of U.S. freight moves by truck, and almost all of those trucks run on diesel.

• Reduced Delivery Frequency: Retailers are shifting from “just-in-time” to “when-possible” delivery. You’ll notice more out-of-stock signs for non-essential items as carriers prioritize high-margin or essential goods.

• Fuel Rationing: In some regions, truck stops have reportedly limited fills to 40–50 gallons (far below the 200+ gallon capacity of a long-haul rig), forcing drivers to stop more frequently and extending 2-day trips into 4-day treks.

• The “Surcharge” Spiral: Shipping companies are passing 20–30% fuel surcharges to wholesalers, who pass them to retailers, who pass them to you.

2. Agricultural Disruption (The “Silent” Crisis)

Diesel is the primary fuel for tractors, harvesters, and the trucks that move grain to silos.

• Planting Delays: We are currently in the spring planting window. Shortages of “off-road” diesel (the dyed, untaxed fuel used by farmers) can lead to missed planting windows, which permanently reduces the year’s total crop yield.

• Livestock Costs: The cost of transporting animal feed has skyrocketed. This usually leads to a “culling” phase where farmers sell off livestock early because they can’t afford to feed them, leading to a temporary dip in meat prices followed by a massive, long-term spike.

3. Construction and Infrastructure Stagnation

Unlike passenger cars, heavy machinery (excavators, cranes, bulldozers) cannot easily be electrified.

• Project Halts: Major infrastructure projects—roads, bridges, and housing—are seeing “delay surcharges” or total work stoppages as contractors wait for fuel deliveries.

• Escalation Clauses: Many construction contracts are being triggered, allowing builders to raise prices mid-project to cover the 40%+ increase in diesel costs seen since early 2026.

4. Emergency Services and Power Backup

This is the most critical “safety” consequence.

• Backup Generators: Hospitals, data centers, and water treatment plants rely on massive diesel generators for backup power. A prolonged shortage risks the reliability of these “last line of defense” systems.

• Emergency Response: While many police cruisers run on gasoline, fire trucks and ambulances are almost exclusively diesel-powered. Some municipalities are already moving to “priority refueling” status to ensure emergency fleets remain operational.

Oil Quality Varies by density and sulfur content

It might seem counterintuitive for the world’s largest oil producer to also be a major importer, but the U.S. oil industry operates like a specialized kitchen. Just because you grow a lot of wheat (light oil) doesn’t mean you can stop buying milk and eggs (heavy oil) if you want to bake a variety of cakes.

As of early 2026, this “mismatch” is the primary reason why a blockage in the Strait of Hormuz still hurts the U.S. economy despite our record domestic production.

1. The Refinery Mismatch (Quality Matters)

Oil isn’t a single uniform liquid; it varies by density (API gravity) and sulfur content (”sweet” vs. “sour”).

• What the U.S. Produces: The vast majority of U.S. shale oil is Light, Sweet Crude. It’s easy to refine into gasoline and jet fuel but lacks the “heavier” molecules needed for high-quality diesel and asphalt.

• What U.S. Refineries Need: Decades ago, U.S. refineries (especially on the Gulf Coast) invested billions to process Heavy, Sour Crude from places like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Mexico, and Canada. These complex machines—called “crackers” and “cokers”—actually run less efficiently if you feed them only light U.S. oil.

2. The Product Yield (Diesel vs. Gasoline)

Refining is about “yield”—the percentage of different fuels you get from one barrel.

• Heavy oil (imported) is better for making diesel, heating oil, and marine fuel.

• Light oil (domestic) is excellent for making gasoline and naphtha (used in plastics).

  By importing heavy crude and exporting our surplus light crude, U.S. refiners can “balance the slate” to maximize the production of the specific fuels the market demands at that moment.

3. Geography and Logistics

It is often cheaper to move oil across an ocean than across the United States.

• The Pipeline Problem: Because of the way U.S. pipeline infrastructure is built, it’s sometimes more economical for a refinery in the Northeast (PADD 1) to import oil from overseas than to pay for rail or tanker transport of North Dakota shale oil across the country.

• The Jones Act: A century-old law requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be carried on U.S.-built and crewed ships. Since there are very few U.S.-made oil tankers, it is often significantly cheaper to hire a foreign tanker to bring oil from the Middle East to California than to bring it from Texas to California.

4. Why We Export

Since U.S. refineries can only “eat” so much light oil before they hit their technical limits, the U.S. exports the extra.

• Global Demand: Refineries in Europe and Asia that aren’t as complex as ours prefer light oil because they don’t have the expensive equipment to handle the “dirty” heavy stuff.

• The 2026 Shift: With the 2026 construction of new “shale-specific” refineries (like the recently announced project in Brownsville, Texas), the U.S. is slowly trying to close this gap, but re-tooling the entire national refining system takes decades.

Summary of the “Oil Swap”

Q: How much oil does Venezuela produce and how much could it produce in 6 months if there were a large investment in increasing capacity?

As of late March 2026, Venezuela’s oil production is experiencing a fragile but notable uptick due to shifting geopolitical dynamics and the global energy crisis caused by the Strait of Hormuz blockage.

Current Production (March 2026)

According to recent reports from PDVSA and OPEC, Venezuela is currently producing approximately 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd).

• This is a significant increase from the 800,000–900,000 bpd range seen at the start of the year.

• The recovery has been driven by a temporary easing of logistical constraints, improved access to “diluents” (thinning agents needed to move heavy sludge-like crude through pipelines), and a rush by Western firms to secure alternative heavy crude sources.

Q: How much diesel and jet fuel does the US use, as compared with gasoline and other oil uses?

To understand the impact of the current energy crisis, it’s helpful to look at the U.S. as a massive engine with a very specific fuel diet. While the U.S. consumes about 20.6 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) in 2026, that “barrel” is split into several distinct products.

The following data reflects current 2026 consumption estimates and the relative “weight” each fuel has in the U.S. economy.

1. The Consumption Breakdown (2026 Estimates)

Gasoline remains the undisputed king of U.S. oil use, but diesel and jet fuel are the sectors most vulnerable to the current Strait of Hormuz disruption due to their reliance on heavier imported crudes.

2. Gasoline: The Declining Giant

While gasoline accounts for nearly half of every barrel, its dominance is slowly eroding.

• Efficiency Gains: Better engine standards and the continued rise of EVs have caused gasoline demand to “plateau.”

• Current Status: In March 2026, demand is steady but sensitive to the $3.30+ per gallon average retail prices caused by the global risk premium.

3. Diesel: The Economic Workhorse

Diesel is the fuel most affected by the Hormuz blockage because U.S. refineries often need heavy, sour crude (the kind typically blocked in the Gulf) to produce high yields of high-quality diesel.

• Economic Link: Diesel demand is almost perfectly correlated with GDP. If trucks aren’t moving, the economy isn’t growing.

• Current Crisis: Because diesel inventories were already at multi-year lows entering 2026, the shortage of heavy crude imports has pushed retail diesel prices toward $4.12 per gallon, significantly higher than gasoline.

4. Jet Fuel: The “Full Recovery” Sector

Jet fuel has seen the most aggressive growth in the last two years as international travel finally surpassed 2019 levels.

• Sensitivity: Aviation is highly sensitive to “crack spreads” (the difference between the price of crude oil and the refined product).

• Supply Tightness: Refineries can often choose to produce either more diesel or more jet fuel from the same part of the barrel. With the current diesel shortage, jet fuel production is being “squeezed,” leading to higher ticket prices and potential flight consolidations this summer.

5. Other Oil Uses (The “Hidden” 30%)

A huge portion of U.S. oil consumption isn’t “burned” in an engine at all.

• Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids (HGLs): This includes propane and ethane. Much of this goes into the petrochemical boom to create plastics, resins, and synthetic fibers.

• Residual Fuel Oil: Used for massive container ships and some power generation.

Key Comparison: Why Diesel and Jet Fuel Matter More Right Now

While gasoline makes up more of the volume, the U.S. is essentially self-sufficient in the “light” crude needed for gasoline. We are not self-sufficient in the “heavy” crude needed for diesel and jet fuel. This is why the Hormuz blockage feels like a “diesel crisis” more than a “gasoline crisis” at the local level.

From fxstreet.com:

“Deutsche Bank’s Mallika Sachdeva argues that the Iran conflict could test the foundations of the petrodollar regime and, by extension, the Dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. The bank highlights how shifts in Middle East oil trade, sanctions, and alternative payment systems may gradually erode Dollar dominance in global trade and savings.”

Iran conflict and petrodollar pressures

“The long-term legacy of the Iran conflict for the dollar could be the way it tests the foundations of the petrodollar regime. If fault lines are further exposed, there could be significant downstream effects to the dollar’s use in global trade and savings, and the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.”

“The foundations of the petrodollar regime have been under pressure even before this conflict. Most Middle East oil is now sold to Asia not the US; sanctioned oil from Russia and Iran has already been trading off dollar rails; Saudi Arabia has been localizing defence, and experimenting with forms of non-dollar payment infrastructure such as Project mBridge.””

fxstreet.com (full article)

Project mBridge: (Wikipedia)

“mBridge (a.k.a. Multiple CBDC Bridge) is a multiple central bank digital currency platform developed to support real-time, peer-to-peer, cross-border payments and foreign exchange transactions using CBDCs. Based on a blockchain called the mBridge Ledger, the platform is designed to ensure compliance with jurisdiction-specific policy and legal requirements, regulations, and governance needs.^[1]

Currently five entities are jointly developing mBridge. They include the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Bank of Thailand, the Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates, the Digital Currency Research Institute of the People’s Bank of China, and the BIS Innovation Hub Hong Kong Centre.^[1] The Saudi Central Bank joined in June 2024.^[2]”

.. “In September 2021, the Bank for International Settlements, in collaboration with Thailand, Hong Kong, China, and the UAE, published a report regarding the second phase of the mBridge project, aiming to establish a system involving multiple CBDCs to enable faster, more cost-effective, and efficient methods for conducting cross-border transfers and foreign exchange operations.^[4]”

Elsewhere:

• Trita Parsi: With high oil prices and higher oil sales, and a $2 million toll to pass the strait, Iran faces de-facto sanctions relief. Iran is asking for reparations from the US and Israel and has little financial incentive to compromise.

^Earlier:

• This post an update on an earlier post: Why Trump Can’t “Chicken Out” in Iran

End of the Petrodollar?

Potential for Petrodollar Change

Thus far, Iran has not been stopping all traffic through the Straight of Hormuz — they have let allies like China and India transit the straight and they have offered to let all others transport oil if they agree to trade it in Chinese Yuan rather than US dollars.

Even if the Iranians do not insist on ending the Petrodollar policy in the Gulf immediately upon US withdrawal, what would stop Iran from enforcing a PetroYuan or PetroBRICS standard in the future?

Petrodollar History

After the US went off the gold standard in 1971, Henry Kissinger and US Treasury Secretary William Simon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that Saudi Arabia would agree to sell oil only in US dollars. The deal was especially useful to the US because the US dollar was no longer backed by gold and the agreement generated demand for dollars because every nation has demand for oil. Iranian assertion of control over the strait could reverse that Petrodollar policy — or at least Iran is floating that possibility.

Consequences of a PetroYuan, BRICS, etc

If fewer people use the US dollar for oil, there will be fewer people seeking to buy US treasury bonds to collect interest on their dollar savings. Buying treasury bonds is another way of saying “lend the US government money,” and when fewer people want to lend the US dollars, interest rates go up for US government borrowing.

Currently, the US government has to pay $1 trillion/year in interest on its debt. The US is facing even larger deficits and I’ve heard that the government finances are not solvent if it has to pay in the 5 percent or more range. Am I wrong about this?

What would change my mind?

The threat to the Petrodollar I outlined does not apply if the US can withdraw (TACO) and still maintain its military bases and influence in the Gulf, and thus the Petrodollar. However, from what I’ve heard, the Gulf Countries no longer feel like American bases function as protection when Gulf countries are caught in the crossfire between Israel/US and Iran.

Another point for falsification would be if Gulf Countries prefer to do business in the US dollar and Iran does not have the interest and ability to overridee this.

A final possibility is that China does not actually want the PetroYuan and is merely improvising. But if the US were to claim victory and withdraw, it would have to believe that China/BRICS are not a threat in the Gulf.

Media coverage?

I noticed that American media has not been reporting on this Chinese Yuan angle of the conflict and I haven’t seen any American outlets other than DemocracyNow cover the Petrodollar angle, but you can easily find the yuan and Petrodollar story in Asian media.

What do you think? Is this a significant development? Do you think BRICS and China are serious about wanting Gulf oil priced in Yuan? What sort of timing would you expect as this develops further?

Iran Petrodollar News:

1. The End of the Petrodollar? How Iran War Is Reshaping the Global Economy: Author Laleh Khalili, Democracy Now (US), March 19, 2026.

2. Iran’s Hormuz yuan play a direct hit on the petrodollar, Asia Times (Hong Kong), March 20, 2026.

Benefits to Iran

• Avoid US Sanctions

• “Strategic Reciprocity with China” - which assisted Iran while Iran has been sanctioned

• Symbolic - challenge Petrodollar order

Note: “The dollar is not about to be dethroned overnight, nor is the yuan ready to assume the full burdens of a global reserve currency.”

3. India, Pakistan, China, and now Japan? Full list of countries whose ships are allowed to pass through Strait of Hormuz, Mint (India), March 21, 2026.

4. Pakistan tanker crosses Hormuz after oil payment made in Chinese yuan: Mushahid, AAJ TV (Pakistan), March 22, 2026.

Previously:

Is the Actual Goal for Iran Staticide?

• The reason why you’re not told the goals for Iran may be that they are too Evil to say —dismembering the Iranian state and creating civil war, fighting over scarce water, and ethnic division, so that Israel becomes the undisputed hegemon in the middle east and can bomb any part of the states formerly part of Iran without contest (similar to Syria).

Stated Goal: “Regime Change”

The US and Israel may have differing goals. I suspect that the US interests in Iran might be satisfied by replacing the leadership with a government more favorable to the US and Israel.

Actual Goal: “Staticide”: Killing the State of Iran

.. but I’ve heard Israel may have a more sinister strategy that involves not just the overthrowing of the Iranian leadership and replacing them with a puppet government, but rather creating a “failed Iranian state” organized by ethnic division:

• the engineering of civil war in Iran, leading to

• the destruction of the Iranian state and

• the fragmenting of the country into multiple countries defined by ethnic group.2

Israeli: Dominance over Middle East

The purpose of this strategy is to eliminate Iran as a potential competitor with Israel for dominance over the middle east region.3 Additionally, there are those in the US and Israel that welcome an Apocalyptic War and see an opportunity to expel Palestinians from their homeland.4

Professor Jiang Xueqin5 had laid out this scenario a year ago and I look forward to watching all his videos on this topic.

One of the main themes of Episode 9 is that Iran will respond by attacking Gulf Countries that host US bases and kick the US out of the Gulf, forcing the foreign labor force to flee. Because 60%-90% of the water in the Gulf is provided by desalination plants and 70-80% of the food is imported via the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has leverage to expel the US presence from the Gulf.

This has major significance, because these oil producers are the lynchpin of the Petrodollar, which maintains demand for the US currency, as well as demand for US debt.

Create Ethnic Enclaves

The Kurds have not had a state of their own and the US has previously used statehood as a carrot to give them leverage with the Kurds to fight for US interests. Each time, the US has betrayed the Kurds.6 The hope is that the US can again use these experienced Kurdish fighters against Iran, with the hope that this will prompt other Iranian ethnic groups to fight for their independence.

Like the Gulf States, Iran suffers from a shortage of water. The Israeli/US strategy is to exploit this scarcity to get the different ethnic groups to fight each other over water and independence. The water shortage is perpetual, leading potentially to a refugee crisis and perpetual fighting.

Divide and Rule

I wrote an article on “Divide and Rule” that captures one of the strategies that is being applied to Iran, and which I believe is under appreciated in its application in the US, ranging from US racial division, exploiting identity differences, and Professional Managerial Class gatekeeping.7

Elsewhere:

• Can Israel & the U.S. Sustain Iran’s Military Power? (w/ Alastair Crooke) on “The Chris Hedges Report”

• Chas Freeman: Iran’s Strategy in the US-Israel War | Why Pezeshkian Halted Strikes on Gulf States (Greater Israel Supremacy vs “Ali’s Rope-a-dope”)

• Lawrence Wilkerson says the US does not know what it is getting into and that Netanyahu risks global war because he wants chaos so he can run freely from Turkey to eastern Africa.

Comment:

• The war is going so poorly Trump will have to start releasing Epstein files just to distract from it.

• Trump is killing schoolgirls to hide the abuse of schoolgirls

FOOTNOTES:

Interview Goals:

• Promote empathy for people in different circumstances

• Foster cross-partisan and cross-generational conversation about values & identity

• Promote discussion of the actions that we might be prioritized to help achieve our values and alleviate our fears

• Promote intra-family assessment and intergenerational discussion

• Promote assessment of local, state, and national issues

• Foster reconsideration of divisions by surfacing awareness of “Divide and Rule” and other manipulatory tactics

• Promote consideration of the American identity, power structure, and inspirers?

• Prompt consideration of ideologies, and their definitions

• Promote contemplation of history, empathy for our historical predecessors, and what political courage looks like

• Experiment with new media: Substack & CiteIt

  • Link questions across videos of Interviews using AI?

  • Foster discussion using Shared documents and

  • Foster Community conversations to promote empathy & civility

Part 1: Icebreaker Questions

1. Which of the following possessions would you least want to be without, ranked from most willing to give up to least?

   1. Car

   2. Computer

   3. Phone

   4. Television

2. If you aren’t single, how did you meet your spouse/significant other?

3. Do you know what your name would have been if you were born the opposite gender?

   • Did you have an alternate name picked out for your children?

   • How far ahead did you have names picked out for your children?

   • Was it hard for you and your spouse to decide/agree on a name?

4. What would be the disadvantages of being a billionaire?

5. What are the advantages of being “plain looking.”

6. Did you ever feel as though it would have been advantageous to have been born the oldest or youngest child in your family, or been born the opposite sex?

7. If you have 1 month to travel anywhere in the world with any number of friends/family where would you go and what would you do?

8. Would you rather ..

• Be famous or talented (and what type of talent?)

• Be really good looking or really smart

• Be good at:

  • speaking, or

  • writing, or

  • video/music creation

• be empathic or exceptionally rational?

• be physically “ripped”/have great physical health or have free time?

• Be tall or charismatic or empathetic?

• Be great at cooking or great at home maintenance?

• Be great at negotiation or great at self-discipline?

• Communicate “truth” over politeness

• Be universally liked or deeply understood by a few?

• Be respected but feared, or loved but underestimated?

• Know the truth about everything, or believe comforting lies?

• Be known for your integrity or for your accomplishments?

• Take a stand and lose friends, or stay silent and keep peace?

• Have the power to change minds or the power to heal hearts?

• Be good at rapping, or good at singing?

• Be an African American man in the US if you were 50% wealthier, 30% smarter, and 5 inches taller?

• Your “brother” was:

  • gay or

  • trans or

  • blind?

• Experience complete equality but no freedom, or complete freedom but deep inequality?

• Be remembered for your compassion or for your courage in an unjust system?

9. If you had to move somewhere else, where would you go?

10. If you were to be born in any country in the world, but you didn’t know your race, disability, talent, or parents (income, etc), what country would you prefer to randomly be born into? (John Rawls, Veil of Ignorance)

11. What careers did you consider when you were young? If you went to college, did you consider any other colleges and other majors?

12. What career would you (have) pursue(d) if money was no object?

13. Have you pulled any great pranks?

This concludes Part 1.

In Part 2, we’ll cover “National Identity and American Ideals” ..

—------------------------ END FIRST INTERVIEW —------------------------

Part 2) NATIONAL IDENTITY AND AMERICAN IDEALS:

14. What does it mean to be “American”?

15. Do you remember where you were on September 11? What do you think Osama bin Laden was attempting to do with the 9/11 attacks? Did he succeed?

16. If you could go back and advise President Bush after 9/11, what would you say?

17) If you had 5 minutes to talk with the current President, what would you say?

18) If you had 5 minutes to talk with your state representative, what would you say?

19) What are the 3 most important needs in your community?”

20) What should be done to increase public trust in our institutions?

21) If you had 3 wishes, with which you could create or change any part of the:

• constitution,

• amendments, or

• laws,

what 3 laws/amendments would you change?

22) There’s an old saying, what’s more American than baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet? How would you revise this to describe America today?

• Note: Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet were each transformed in the U.S. into social practices, mass-consumed goods, or industrial icons that fit American narratives (community pastime, casual food, home comfort, mass-market automobile).

23) What are the most distinctively American parts of the national anthem lyrics? If the national anthem were rewritten, could it be made more “American”?

24) Ronald Reagan said that a foreigner can’t become a Frenchman, but immigrants can become Americans. What does it mean to become an American?

25) What does the “American Dream” mean today?

26) What would make you feel safe? Where do you feel least safe?

27) What do you think of AI? Do you use it? How?

28) Who is the most interesting person you’ve ever met?

29) Who would you like to have dinner with if you could meet anyone in history?

30) Who are the uniters and the encouragers?

31) How was Mr Rogers able to both encourage, unite, and challenge?

32) If you could provide everyone in the world with paid-for pre-k to college education or paid-for healthcare, which would you choose?

33) What is your experience with the American Healthcare System?

34) What is your experience with the American Education System?”

35) Should there be some sort of national service for young people? (In exchange for college/vocational/home down payment funding?)

36) If you are spiritual, what makes you believe and what makes you believe what you do?

This concludes Part 2.

In Part 3, we’ll cover “Power, Systems, and Governance” ..

Part 3) POWER, SYSTEMS, AND GOVERNANCE:

“How power actually works — and who it serves.”

37) If a small number of countries had a monopoly on tea and coffee, and raised the price to $15/cup, would the US declare war? What if they also controlled chocolate?

38) The British practiced “Divide & Conquer“ in India (and Africa) by encouraging conflict between Hindus and Muslims. The division along religious lines prevented Indians from uniting to throw off the British, making it easier for the British to rule them with a smaller number of British soldiers. In what ways is divide and conquer used in America?

39) What would Americans do if they understood that a “Divide & Conquer” strategy was being used to weaken opposition to oligarchy, while a scapegoating mechanism was being used to divert them against convenient targets?

40) What would the world look like if the United States rethought the desirability of trying to be the dominant world power (hegemon) and engineered a graceful transition to collective security?

41) If critics are correct and the US is trying to go to war to gain influence over Venezuelan and Iranian oil to protect the Petrodollar and bail out indebted American finances, would you favor or oppose regime changes in Venezuela and Iran?

42) Are you in favor of Pete Hegseth changing the Department of “Defense” to the Department of “War?” What do you think the outcome of this will be?

43) Should the US reduce the size of the military, cutting some of 700+ military bases? Why/why not?

44) Is the US a free country? Why or Why not? How could the people become more free?

45) If American polarization were to be addressed, rather than exacerbated, how would the solution change your outlook for the future?

46) What do you think will be the consequences of current levels of US deficits?

47) Would you approve of the US giving up the ‘global reserve currency’ if it would help reshore manufacturing and reduce economic distortions? What if it increased the wealth of the general population and decreased the wealth of the top 10%? Do you see manufacturing returning to America? If so, why/why not?

48) What does “drain the swamp” mean to you?

49) What would you think of term limits/age limits for Congress and the Senate, as well as restrictions on representatives having a second career as lobbyists?

50) Would you vote for a “socialist” like Bernie Sanders or Zohran Mamdani if they would take the money out of politics and drain the swamp?

51) Is “precarity“ (for example: living paycheck to paycheck) seen by the oligarchy as a feature, not a bug, because it reduces the independence and ability of Americans to oppose oligarchy?

52) Have you noticed that our Western institutions seem to disproportionately promote greed, selfishness, narcissism, and sociopathy?

53) When was the best decade and lifestage to be alive?

54) Have you ever noticed that everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge? Knoll’s law of media accuracy | Gell-Mann Amnesia Efffect | Betteridge’s law of headlines) Why?

This concludes Part 3.

In Part 4, we’ll cover “War, Terror, and Moral Definitions” ..

Part 4) WAR, TERROR, AND MORAL DEFINITIONS:

“What counts as justified violence — and who gets to decide?”

55) What does the “military industrial complex” or (MICIMATT) mean to you?

56) What does socialism mean to you?

57) What does fascism mean to you?

58) What does authoritarianism mean to you?

59) What does free speech mean to you?

60) What does genocide mean to you?

61) If you were to put various groups and their actions on a spectrum from “legitimate war” to “terrorism/ethnic cleansing/genocide,” how would you rate various past actions like?

• Trail of Tears, etc

• Bombing of Dresden, Tokyo

• 9/11

• October 7

• Gaza Power Targets

• List your own

62) If things got bad, how would you know it had gone too far?

This concludes Part 4.

Next, we’ll continue with Part 5: Historical Perspective and Moral Courage .

Part 5) HISTORICIAL PERSPECTIVE AND MORAL COURAGE:

Who would I be under pressure?

62) Many Historical figures were not appreciated by “normal” people of their time. Are there historical figures you admire? What would you think of them if you were alive at the time?

63) Was Rosa Parks a “troublemaker?” Why did she hold the bus up? Couldn’t she have just gone to the back of the bus and not held everyone else up? Would you have supported her if you were a white person on the bus or a resident of Montgomery, Alabama ?

64) Who are the troublemakers getting into “good trouble” today?

65) Would you participate in the underground railroad at the time of slavery?

66) If a victim like one in the story of the good Samaritan was sitting at the edge of the street/path, would you notice?

67) Would you hide an “Anne Frank” or a trans person if they were in need of shelter?

68) Propose additional questions for others.

• Was one of your parents more kind than the other?

• Do you try hard to be a kind parent?

69) Propose questions you would like the political/religious “other side” to answer?

• Are you a conscientious objector to war or anything else?

This concludes Part 5 of openpolitics.com’s first Questions series.

To see and listen to more content, go to openpolitics.com.

—------------------------ End Interview —---------------------------

Additional Questions

Do you have a suggestion for what this questionnaire/interview process should be named?

Do you have suggestions for people who might be interested in being interviewed?

• Latest Printable Version: Google Doc: Interview Questions

Ray inspired the MICIMATT video (below) and relatively recently discovered that that my video he embedded on his site was broken, as were all my videos, forcing me to setup a new YouTube Channel and redo all my old links. He asked me to writeup the following account so that he could post it to Twitter.

• View New YouTube Channel

What they stole:

In the fall of 2024, my Google account was taken over in a phishing attack that I fell for. This resulted in me losing access to my:

• Gmail,

• Google Voice account, and

• many of my third-party accounts which used my gmail address to login.

• It also resulted in my Google Docs and YouTube videos being taken offline when my stolen account was later disabled due to inactivity.

How it Happened

A series of “con men/intelligence scammers” called me around 5 pm, pretending to be from “Google Trust and Safety”, telling me that someone filed a notice of death for which they wanted to verify that I was actually dead before closing my Gmail account.

I fell for their scheme and gave them private information I shouldn’t have because I thought that the 6 digit 30-second confirmation codes they wanted “to confirm my identity” were only good within the same time window as other password information.

I didn’t realize that Google has a “Recover My Account” tool that acts like a wizard to recover an account can also be used by attackers to steal one. I was able to reverse the transfer of my account once, but they were eventually able to succeed in taking my account, using about 4 different callers over about 24-hours.

Reason I was Targeted: “Anti-Semitism”

The strange thing is that the last caller, who portrayed himself as a manager at Google “Trust and Safety”, explained to me that there were 3 reasons why my account was targeted -- the third reason of which he termed “anti-semitism”. I thought that the “anti-semitism” explanation was strange because while I had heard of anti-semites like the KKK using violence and intimidation against Jews, I never heard of anti-semites filing fraudulent death certificates (and besides, I’m not Jewish).

It was only later that I began to suspect that I was being labelled as an “anti-semite.” I suspect I may have been targeted by pro-Israeli intelligence/scammers because I published articles debunking some of the Israeli Oct 7 Atrocity propaganda, the most notable was a Change.org petition I created calling on the New York Times to retract a story that has been widely debunked in the independent press.

Responses

Separately, 50 Journalism professors have called for an independent review of the Times’s article. My petition called on the Times to:

1. answer a series of questions or

2. retract the article.

After I posted the petition, I got a number of phone calls from someone who saw the petition and said he was thankful I posted it. This man said he was Muslim named Ibrahim from Toronto, but he may have been part of an intel process for all I know.

Israel WMR: Weaponized Mass Rape

The Times has not responded to critics, other than to say they stand by their article, and neither have the Israel surrogates that appear on the mainstreams shows. I suspect the Times knows that their article is indefensible and the results of an external review would be devastating — worse than Iraq WMD. [prove me wrong!1]

I regard the New York Times’ “Screams without Words” article as the equivalent of the Times’ articles on Iraq WMD, only this time it will take longer for Israel’s WMR (Weaponized Mass Rape) story to be unmasked for being the leading (and fraudulent) justification for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Fallout of the Phishing Attack

The fallout for the phishing attack is that I had to:

1. get a new email account and

2. try to recover every account that used my original gmail account as a login, as well as

3. a new phone number, and

4. a new bank account number.

The attackers tried to steal $500 from my bank account, but I acted quickly enough to get the charge reversed.

One thing I did differently this time is I setup a Yubikey hardware device as the 2-factor device for some of the more important accounts. It is easier to get a backup Yubikey than a backup cell phone. More importantly, I learned to not talk to unsolicited callers, but to ask for a reference code I can use when I call the phone number listed on the company’s website.

Using Blackmail to achieve Impunity

The other aspect of the phishing attack is that it enabled the attacker to gain full access to all my emails and contacts, dating back over a decade. The attacker may only have been motivated by money, but this type of attack could also serve an intelligence function for an ideologically minded attacker, looking to analyze your contacts and identify people you care about that they could blackmail you about. I’ve heard Richard Goldstone retracted his UN report under blackmail pressure (about his daughter?), which fits a pattern of blackmail against many of those in a position to hold Israel accountable in some way. (see above video)

The Jewish “Karen” strategy

Another way impunity is pursued is by adopting a Jewish “Karen” strategy2 which is based on the recent online Karen archetype and weaponizes claims of anti-semitism against anyone who criticizes the state of Israel.

The first casualty when war comes is truth. - Hiram Johnson

U.S. leaders have repeatedly leaned on disputed or false claims to gain support for military action. As tensions with Iran accelerate after the June 2025 Israel-Iran 12-Day War, a pattern is resurfacing that should be familiar. If we don’t scrutinize the latest claims used to justify further war with Iran—especially concerning the distinction between nuclear “Breakout” and “Weaponization”—we risk further entrenching ourselves in the destructive cycle of the Military Industrial Complex,2 much like the 1993 movie Groundhog Day in which Bill Murray found himself repeating the same day, over and over again until he matured into a better man3 (or in our case a better country4).

Phony WMD Claims:

Politicians have repeatedly employed false or misleading claims to sell unfounded5 and unsuccessful6 wars, and yet the public keeps accepting these phony justifications. Few would dispute that the country has declined. One can debate when our nation’s decline started, but the decision to accept the phony WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) claims in Iraq after September 11, 2001, set the US on a downward trajectory that we haven’t been able to shake. In the next few month, it is likely that repetition of this June’s Iran WMD claims will likely be asserted, as US & Israeli hawks seek to accomplish the real goal of the 12-Day War — overthrowing the Iranian government.7 This intervention now is being timed to take place before the midterms, ideally in the next few months (before the end of ~December).8 Americans must scrutinize these hawks’ claims closely. War with Iran is likely to be initiated by an Israeli attack on Iran, that seeks to draw in the US, at a cost that could amount to many times that of Iraq.9 That Iraq war was advertised as a war that could pay for iteself, and the hope is that this war with Iran would be accompanied expeditiously, but the price tag is likely to be something everyone in the US knows we can not afford.

History of Selling Wars with Lies

Depending on how you weigh the evidence, politicians have misled or lied the US into conflicts/wars up to 10 times since 1900. Given that past history of phony wars, and the fact that Iran had already been named to General Wesley Clark’s 2007 list of 7 countries that the US wanted to overthrow, the explanation for why we are targeting Iran is suspect.

Here is a list of past US Wars/conflicts that relied on manipulation or lies for their justification since 1900:

Rapid case capsule: claims vs. later evidence

1. World War I (1915) — Claim: Germany sank a civilian passenger ship. Later evidence: RMS Lusitania carried 137 tons of munitions, violating the ship’s “civilian status”; propaganda hid this fact from British and American people. [sources]

2. Vietnam—Gulf of Tonkin (1964) — Claim: Unprovoked repeat attacks on U.S. ships. Later evidence: US Defense department deliberately skewed evidence of the “second attack.” [sources]

3. Dominican Republic (1965) — Claim: Imminent communist takeover. Later evidence: Threat was overstated to justify intervention. [sources]

4. Grenada (1983) — Claim: Urgent threat to U.S. medical students. Later evidence: Danger was exaggerated; strategic aims dominated. [sources]

5. Panama (1989) — Claim: Narrow, multifold justifications (drug trafficking, democracy, self-defense). Later evidence: Pretexts were layered to enable regime change. [sources]

6. Gulf War (1990–91) — Claim: Iraqi forces pulled “babies from incubators.” Later evidence: 15-year old girl, Nayirah’s testimony was PR-coached and false; cited in close votes authorizing force. [sources]

7. Iraq (2003) — Claim: Active WMD and links to 9/11. Later evidence: No stockpiles; Allegation of transfer of WMD to Syria couldn’t be substantial.10 9/11 linkage unsubstantiated. Enormous costs followed. [sources]

8. Syria (2013–2018)

   • Claim: Assad was responsibility for gassing his own civilians, including Douma Later evidence: OPCW findings were contested by whistleblower inspectors; Rather than address the substance of the whistleblowers’ claims, official denials say dissenting voices should no longer be considered now that the dissenters are former officials

   • Timber Sycamore: CIA covert program to supply arms and training for coup

   • Significant provinces are now run/influenced by former Al Qaeda in Syria leader Ahmed al-Sharaa

9. Israel (Oct 7, 2023) — Claim: (WMR) Weaponized Mass Rape, Beaded babies, babies in oven. Later evidence: mass rape, babies in oven, and behead babies arguments have been debunked 11 but Israel periodically revives rape charges, as Pollster Frank Luntz has determined that (false) rape charges are the most effective justification for Israel's actions in Gaza.

10. Iran: 12-day War “Operation Midnight Hammer” (June 2025) — claim: Iran is 15 days from having a bomb. Later evidence: This is the Israeli assessment. The US intelligence assessment was it would be 5 months - 1 year, if Iran decided to change its policy and pursue a weapon. This doesn’t include time to miniaturize bomb and engineer it to fit on a missile in a way to survive boost and reentry.12

11. Iran (upcoming) “Iraq WMD,” the sequel, on steroids

    Possible rationale: The pretext is that the 12-Day war didn't finish the job on WMD. The Actual Goal is regime change and using divide and conquer to weaken Iran, like was done to Syria.

More Detail: US Wars justified by Lies: Historical Review (1900 - 2025)13

If you think back to the fateful decision in 2003 to attack Iraq based on phony claims of WMD (weapons of mass destruction), how many Americans would choose to invade Iraq again? We can’t get fooled again!

1991 Gulf War Lies

While many remember the 2003 scandal of Iraq’s missing WMDs, fewer recall that the prior Gulf War justification in 1991 was also built on a lie —- the dramatic testimony (not under oath) from a girl named ‘Nayirah’, —later revealed to be the Kuwaiti ambassador’s 15-year-old daughter. Nayirah’s testimony was highly orchestrated — professionally coached by a U.S. public relations firm named Hill & Knowlton — and she falsely testified to the US Congress and American public that Iraqi troops had removed babies from incubators and left the babies to die.1415

Nayirah’s false testimony was likely crucial to the narrow passage of the original Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq in 1991 (passed in the Senate 52–47; and the House 250–183), as the margin of the vote was small and Nayirah’s (false) testimony was cited by six senators in their speeches16 as a justification for their vote.17

Upcoming War with Iran?

In this past summer’s 12-day war, Israel attacked Iranian systems and used multiple assassinations18 in a failed attempt to engineer a regime change,19 the goal was not just eliminating WMD, it was to overthrow the Iranian government,20 which is why Israel hacked State TV and replaced its feed with a video calling for Iranians to go out into the streets and overthrow the government.21

Experts like former Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, Lawrence Wilkerson — former Chief of Staff to Colin Power, and former British diplomat and intelligence official Alastair Crooke.** now say that another attempt on Iran is likely, but conditional on American support.22 That means that to the extent that the US government’s actions depend on popular support, we the people have influence.

If President Trump does not refuse to join Benjamin Netanyahu in another coup attempt, Israel will likely attack again, but with risks of devastating missile exchanges that could devastate Israel, blockade the Strait of Hormuz, leading to the possibility of $5-7/gallon gasoline,23 and a non-zero risk of nuclear escalation in which a defeated Israel creates a nuclear Armageddon by firing off all their nuclear missiles in an operation called The Samson Option. **

Overthrowing 7 Countries in 5 Years

Over the past 20 years, if you had supplemented your legacy news intake with diverse independent media, you might have heard that in 2007 former four-star General Wesley Clarke alerted multiple audiences24 that he had been told that the US intended to overthrow 7 countries in 5 years, with Iraq being the first, and Iran listed as the last.25 [Actual Results]

7 Countries in 5 years: intervention:

1. Iraq (March 2003, regime change)

2. Syria (Aug 18, 2011) (Timber Sycamore 2013-2017)

3. Lebanon (Cedar Revolution 2005)

4. Libya (Feb - Oct 2011)

5. Somalia (Ethiopian intervention Dec 2006 - Jan 2007)

6. Sudan (April 2019 Sudanese military coup)

7. Iran (2025 anti-nuclear strike & regime change attempt)

Full Image ranked by actual order, by Tim Langeman. Credit: MapChart

From Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria:

It turned out that this 5 year goal of 7 countries was too optimistic — Iraq wasn’t a “slam dunk” — and the US wasn’t able to overthrow the Syrian government the first try (in 2011).26 More recently, the US attempted regime change in Syria using the CIA to covertly support allies of terrorists in Syria, leading to significant parts of Syria now being led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former leader of al Qaeda in Syria.

Isn’t it ironic that in 2003 the US went to war purportedly against al Qaeda in Afghanistan,27 after having supported al Qaeda’s predecessor, the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union? Our action in Iraq then led to the creation of ISIS in Iraq, and now we are back in support of a former al Qaeda leader, this time in Syria28.

Before I get into the forward-looking Iran claims, I’d like to bring you up to speed on what the US publicly knew about the state of the Iranian nuclear program within the last year — that is prior to Israel's 12-day war with Iran. (Starting on June 13 of 2025).

Iran Background: The 12-Day War

• Chris Hedges said: “The attacks on Iran, as with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, was based on a lie. The news often failed to differentiate between what Israel said and what the American Intelligence believed.” 29

  • Neither U.S. intelligence nor the U.N. concurred with Netanyahu and Trump’s claim that Iran was weaponizing its enriched uranium.

• The government used manipulative statements that are technically true, but would require the addition of the unbolded (“hidden”) message to fully inform the reader:

  • Claim: “The United States has Intelligence that says Iran could have a bomb in 15 days.”

  • Translation: “The United States has (Israeli) Intelligence (of which the American Intelligence Community doesn’t agree with Israel) that says Iran could have a bomb in 15 days.”30 31

    • Can you see how manipulative the PR is by not saying the added clarifying italic text?

William Burns, CIA Chief, Dec 2024

So let’s see the contrast with what the American intelligence clearly said in the 6 months leading up to the attack.

The Times of Israel reported that former CIA chief William Burns said:32

The US spy agency “doesn’t see any evidence that Iran’s Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei has made a decision to move to weaponize”

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, March 25 2025

The Director of National Intelligence also testified on March 25 that: (@11:19)

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. (bold emphasis by Tim)

Notice the term “IC” refers to “Intelligence Community.” This was the judgement of whole of the US Intelligence Community. Tulsi Gabbard, as the Director of National Intelligence was the vehicle for communicating this institutional assessment.33

Will Iranian Grand Leader Change his Fatwa?

Iran had a religious prohibition against nuclear weapons that would have to be reversed before the Iranian nuclear program could be weaponized.

What is: Nuclear “Breakout” vs “Weaponization”

Before we go too much further, it is important to differentiate between the term “Breakout”, which means accumulating enough highly enriched uranium to fuel one bomb, and “Weaponization,” which means that the country has the engineering ability to turn that fuel into a deliverable weapon.34

Nuclear “Breakout”

Before the June 13, 2025 strike, the Arms Control Association estimated that Iran would take 1-2 weeks for “Breakout” (that is the existence of sufficient fuel)

Nuclear “Weaponization”

But, Iran would still need to turn that uranium into a bomb. Before June of 2025, estimates for “weaponization” were between 5 months - 1+ year. (not 15 days, as Israel reported as the total for both processes)

It is not clear how much the June 2025 Israeli and US strikes have setback the Iranian program. If Israel is motivated to attack Iran again, it is in Israel’s interest to portray the June attacks as having had very little effect, as this would make the Breakout and Weaponization time seem more imminent.

It is also important to distinguish between a crude bomb which can’t be delivered by a missile, and a miniaturized bomb that can survive boost and reentry on a medium range missile, as well as the development of an very long-range ICBM missile that could reach the US. The time involved in these steps are detailed in my video.

Not just Bombing Nuclear Sites, but Regime Change Goal

Judging from the news coverage you get of the 12-Day War this June, one would think that the main point of the war was to destroy the nuclear enrichment occurring at the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities,35 about which President Trump triumphantly claimed everything was “obliterated.”36

In Israel, the leading military think thank, the ISNN, reported that Israel also had the goal to create “regime change” in Iran. Their paper outlined 4 possible paths to do regime change and said that Israel would continue to attempt to change Iran’s government as long as Iran had a nuclear program. Unsaid is whether this prohibition includes those levels of enrichment that Iran is legally allowed to do,37 such as medical programs for cancer radiation.

The INNS paper reports how regime change attempts would have continued in June, had there not been a ceasefire:

it is clear that some of Israel’s actions, especially during the second week of the war, were intended to undermine the regime’s foundations and encourage the Iranian public to take to the streets and resume their popular protest movement. Moreover, these actions presumably would have continued and perhaps even intensified had the war not ended in a ceasefire after 12 days

Israeli (2), Kuwaiti, and French sources reported that the satellite feed for Iranian state-run television was disrupted on ~ June 19 and replaced by an alternate video calling for street protests against the Iranian government. On State TV the satellite feed was replaced with video showing women cutting their hair, a symbolic Iranian practice performed in times of protest or mourning.

Video: Iranian State TV was hacked to call for regime change street protests.

Opportunity to Attack Iran, “the sequel”

Having failed in their attempt at regime change this past June, and Israeli hawks see a window of “opportunity” between now and December, with the midterms** as the deadline for another bite of the apple against Iran, during which Israel would like to pull the US into the fray, overthrowing the Iranian government.

Groundhog Day

This sounds a lot like regime change efforts in 2003 against Iraq. In the 1993 movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray finds himself re-living the same day over and over again,38 with each morning providing him with endless second chances. Key to this saga is that there are no consequences for anything Murray did the day before — everyday begins “afresh.”

The prospect we face with Iran is similar to Groundhog Day in that our politics is the repetition of 10 prior phony war justifications, but it differs in a key way. If we and Israel use another phony WMD pretext to justify a regime change war of choice, the consequences could be catastrophic —many times worse than Iraq. According to Lawrence Wilkerson, the fight to overthrow the Iranian government could last 10 years. This phony war could amplify America’s decline, and Donald J. Trump could go down as a tragically failed President** whose “Make America Great Again” slogan was obliterated by his failure to reign in the hawks he previously denounced during his 2016 Presidential campaign.

Getting out of ‘the loop’: Character Development

It is said that Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog Day spent decades stuck in “the loop” because he was afraid to undertake the character development needed to change.39 It was only after a period of destructive behavior40 that Murray hit rock bottom and he resolved to use his superpowers for self-improvement, rather than self-aggrandizement.

President Trump has been the first President in a long time to talk about prioritizing development of the American people and our industries.41 Are he and our political system ready to change our bankrupt, corrupt, deceitful way of operating, or will we instead choose to roll the dice on “Iraqn WMD, the sequel,” risking a million dead42 and amassing huge debts, in hopes of changing the Middle East.

Outro

https://youtu.be/Hl7FKfl3O2Y

https://youtu.be/iiw0ILaXJf0

Going into Iran could be 3 times worse than Iraq, based on population, geography, etc.

If you’ve stepped in a puddle before, avoid it the next time.

Let’s drink to world peace.

FOOTNOTES:

[Note: individual video clips are listed below this summary]

Summary

On August 6, 2025, in Charlie Kirk’s last appearance on the Megyn Kelley Show before his assassination, Megan Kelly and Charlie Kirk chose to align themselves with Tucker Carlson, striking a posture of defiance against Pro-Israeli pressure, saying that they would not be cowed by phony charges of Anti-Semitism, hostile reactions, and being treated like the “enemy” of Israel. They claimed the right as Americans to question and critique an ally without being labeled “disloyal”.1 They also agreed that Israel had “made itself the villain of the world,” and had lost both Democrats and now many Republicans. When you consider Charlie’s influence over Israel’s last sizable remaining pocket of political, economic, and military support, is it unreasonable to suggest that this video could count as evidence of a possible motive for Charlie Kirk’s assassination?

End the War in Gaza: “Wrap it up”?

Megyn Kelly quoted President Trump’s prior comments that it is time for Israel to “wrap it up” [meaning wrap up the war in Gaza],2 something Israel likely does not want to do before they, at minimum, completely expel Palestinians from Gaza.

They argued that Israeli PR has been abysmal, and it shouldn’t fall on them to do the heavy lifting that a Karoline Leavitt-type official3 should be performing every day?4

> Debate: Is Israel an Ally? Should we cut all Foreign Aid?

Charlie Kirk also claimed the right to moderate debates in which both participants aren’t Pro-Israel, such as a recent debate that involved David Smith, a Jewish critic of Israel, and Josh Hammer a Pro-Israel American.5. It is important to note, in this debate both participants debated

• whether Israel is an ally of the US, (very threatening to Israel)

• whether the US should force AIPAC to register as a foreign agent, and neither said they were fans of AIPAC, all which posed major threats to Pro-Israeli interests in avoiding exposing young Republicans to critical perspectives.

• whether the US should wind down not just war funding, but all aid to Israel and the crowd of young Republicans cheered this, something I imagine many Israel-supporters would have found very threatening.

Video: Both debaters were opposed to AIPAC and US foreign aid to Israel

ChatGTP Key takeaways

• Free-speech vs. “antisemitism” charge: Both argue you should be able to speculate about Epstein’s alleged ties (incl. Mossad) and criticize Israeli policy without being labeled antisemitic. (I assume this argument was threatening to both US and Israeli officials)

• “America first” framing: They stress their identity as Americans who can question allies; criticism ≠ disloyalty. (This goes against the current hasbara strategy of demanding unquestioning obedience, lest critics be called an “Anti-Semite.”)

• Israel “losing support” narrative: They say Israel has “made itself the villain” by letting the war drag on, eroding support among U.S. friends and parties; citing poll drops in support from late-2023 to mid-2024 (largest decline among Democrats and under-35s). (I’m sure this does not make Israel-supporters happy)

• “Time to wrap it up”: Echoing Trump, they argue Israel has lost moral high ground and should end the campaign soon to preserve standing. (This is a direct threat to the Israeli hope that they can expel the Gazans and possibly also those living in the West Bank)

• Backlash hardens their stance: Personal attacks (“you’re doing Hamas’ bidding”) make them double down rather than retreat; they reject purity tests from pro-Israel allies. (Perhaps these “so-called allies” need a harsher stick to intimidate everyone)

• Media/PR critique: They say Israeli government PR is “abysmal”—no daily briefings, poor rapid-rebuttal; this cedes the “propaganda war” to Hamas and leaves media figures to “do the heavy lifting.” (Maybe the policy is wrong, not the PR?)

• Debate gatekeeping claim: They complain that pro-Israel stakeholders resist real debate formats and punish platforms that host critical voices (e.g., Dave Smith, Tucker Carlson). (The way the Dave Smith debate, which Charlie moderated, worked out was likely perceived as a disaster by Israel supporters. Can Israel policy actually be exposed to debate or must Israel shut debate down with cries of “Anti-Semitism”)6

• Credibility line in the sand: Kelly asserts she won’t sacrifice editorial independence or host demanded “debates” on her show; support for Israel’s right to self-defense remains, but not unconditional alignment. (Will “bigger sticks” be needed to preserve hasbara)7

Notable lines (paraphrased)

• “We can speculate about Epstein—criticizing Israel isn’t antisemitic.”8

• “Israel’s let this go on so long it’s losing friends and moral standing—time to wrap it up.”

• “The more you attack our character, the more we double down.”

• “Israeli PR is failing; why aren’t there daily briefings and rapid fact checks?”

Megan told she can’t speculate whether Epstein was Mossad or criticize Israel without being called “Anti-Semitic” — I reject that!

Megyn: I speculated about this at the turning point event whether the possibility of Jeffrey Epstein possibly being a Mossad agent or asset or affiliated with that's been turned around on me too to you must be anti-semitic What the hell? That's such The same people who say you can criticize Israel, that's fine. We won't call you anti-semitic if you criticize Israel now turn around immediately and say you're anti-Semitic for even raising that. I completely reject that and I raised this to as a push back against my friends on that particular strain of the aisle to watch it because you don't want to alienate people who are openly your friends by going nuts in your crackdowns on mild push back on anything related to Israel. Now you take it.

Charlie: I'm so I'm I'm so glad you brought this up and I would second that, Megan

We’re Americans and we speculate and criticize if we want.

Megyn: Well, has it gone on too long? Like, is it time to wrap it up? And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset or it might have been nobody. But we're allowed to speculate about that.

Charlie: But are we?

Megyn: It's like there's some you can't go there when it comes to Israel.

Charlie: Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first. Period. End of story

It’s Israel’s fault they make themselves the villain of the world and lost friends.

Megyn: And then Piers released at a as a separate clip my followup to that comment. Okay. And and here's that nuance.

Charlie: It’s not allowed any nuance. It’s only tribalism

Israel, whether it realizes it or not has made itself the villain of the world in in letting this thing go go on so long. They have lost support amongst their dearest friends. And even the entire Democrat party here in the United States has turned against them and they're losing Republicans by the day here in America which is their most important ally. So whether the fight continues to be just or not is almost irrelevant. As Trump said when he was running this time last year, not yet elected, time to wrap it up. And that's how I feel, too. And that's how I feel, too. And I've given Israel a long birth. I fully understand as an American who was attacked on 9/11, my country was that, you know, when you attack the United States and you kill thousands of our citizens, and Israel was in this position on 107, it's fine to respond. And it doesn't have to be proportionate. Whoever said it has to be proportionate. But what Israel is doing now is losing its standing with the rest of the world. It's starting to lose, too. Even with its closest friends, its moral reputation, its moral um high ground, and as Trump said a year ago, time to wrap it up.

Charlie: Well said.

It’s Time to Wrap the War Up. If you attack my character, I’ll double down. You can’t scold me into silence.

Megyn: But what Israel is doing now is losing its standing with the rest of the world. It's starting to lose, too. Even with its closest friends, its moral reputation, its moral um high ground, and as Trump said a year ago, time to wrap it up. The more you attack my moral character the more I'm going to double down. on some part of the population, you can scold them into silence, right?

Israel is losing the propaganda war. I’m sick of being lectured

You know, many Jewish uh advocates saying, "Let me come on your show and we'll debate." There's nothing to debate. I'm on Israel's side. Just stop me observing totally agree that you're losing the propaganda war and that this has gone on for about two years now. And look, I mean, I pulled the stats. Support for Israel's military action in Gaza by party ID. Uh GOP in June of 2024, 76%, now 71, so they lost 5%. Dems in October of 2023, 36%, now it's at 8. Independence, October of 2023, it was 47%. Now it's 25%. you go under 35, you have almost zero support across the United States, your closest ally. I I see what's happening and it's my job to comment honestly on it. But I am sick of being lectured on like you you have to see it exactly as we see it and support everything or you're you're against us.

Charlie: So So this is so important, Megan.

Charlie: You and I, Megan, and Tucker are in the same category. We will double down if you attack us

Charlie: So this is so important, Megan. And again, I don't want not every you cannot say everyone in the pro-Israel and I don't say it acts that way, but I I got texts about you, Megan, saying, "Why is Megan like doing the bidding of Hamas?" I was like, "What are you talking about? Megan's the best." Like, "What? She's amazing." And I said, "Why are you texting me about Megan?" And I at that po And so this is what they don't understand. You and I, Megan, and Tucker is in the same category and they've tried to go after Tucker. Yeah. is that the and and the more you attack our moral character, the actually the more we're going to double down into direction because screw you. I don't do it that way. Okay? Right? Like when tell me I'm wrong. Cool. Tell me if I got my facts wrong. By the way, on the Epstein thing, Naftali Bennett says he was an Epstein agent. We have to be pursuers of truth. They've denied it. Fine. Let's keep digging. Okay. Fine. But the the the the thing that I don't think I think is being lost is like on some part of the population, you can scold them into silence, right? But if I have any deviation of a purity test, any deviation whatsoever, such as hosting a focus group, right, Megan, with a bunch of our students that went viral, having Dave Smith or Tucker at my event, it is all of a sudden, oh, Charlie is a uh he's he's no longer with us and all that. Say, wait a second. What do you mean? What does with us mean exactly?

Right. I'm an American. Okay. Like I I I represent this country and I I don't even understand that paradigm. But Megan, I think you would agree with this. I want to make sure we fast like really zero in on this personality types like you, myself, and Tucker. The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question, which is not isolated, right, Megan? It would be one thing if it was one text or two text. It is dozens of texts. Yes. Then we start to say, "Hold the boat here." And and to be fair, some of my really good Jewish friends are like, "That's not all of us. It's all But these are leaders, too, though, right? These are these are stakeholders, right? And so, look, I I'm I'm afraid because, again, I want civilization to win. I want the West to win. I don't want the Islamofascist barbarians to storm the gates of Jerusalem. I want the holy sites protected. I believe in the Holy Land.

The Pro-Israeli reaction is “hostile” and Megan and Charlie are treated like enemies

Charlie: when the hostile reaction is that now Megan and Charlie are enemies, right? Boy, I'll tell you like you're you're you're you're you're going to you're not going to

I won’t sacrifice my credibility for Israel

Megyn: My point is simply I have my honest opinions which is why I had credibility for the two years I've been defending them. Right? And I still have that credibility and I don't need lectures from my friends who are more pro-Israel than I am or who are just American Jewish people who are concerned about what's happening. I don't need lectures on my coverage. Okay? I'll call it like I see it. and you have no right to come on this show and demand a debate with me because I've said something you disagree with. It's my show and I'll decide the coverage we do here. In any event, okay, I I'm lad I got that off my

Charlie: I just want to repeat for in closing, you and I are on the same page. We want to see civilization win.

Israeli PR has been abysmal. Why does the heavy-lifting of PR fall to us?

Megyn: And I still have that credibility and I don't need lectures from my friends who are more pro-Israel than I am or who are just American Jewish people who are concerned about what's happening. I don't need lectures on my coverage. Okay? I'll call it like I see it. and you have no right to come on this show and demand a debate with me because I've said something you disagree with. It's my show and I'll decide the coverage we do here. In any event, okay,

Charlie: you and I are on the same page. We want to see civilization win. And by the way, can I just say, why does the Israeli government not have a Caroline Levit? Why don't they do daily press conferences? Why are they not going to the sticks every single day and explaining, "No, this is actually what happened with the church thing. It was accidental. This one was fake. This one was real. Why are they not doing daily briefings about Gaza, about troop movements? Like, why is it that we have to constantly be the ones that kind of sort through all this? Messaging is abysmal. The PR is awful. And I I say this with a great degree of sadness, right? not bitterness a little bit because when you're trying to win an information war or propaganda war, you should be like, "Wow, Charlie Kirk and Megan Kelly are the ones that we should really like want to keep going." Some in the space have been wonderful. Rabbi Pesaki, I can name the list. Sigy Flicker, they've been wonderful. But a fair amount, and Megan, you would agree, have decided to resort into nastiness and almost as if they don't want us anymore. M and it's um it's it's it's certainly suicidal. Yeah, it's very short thinking. I mean, I I remain an advocate of of I a defender of Israel's right to defend itself in this. They are the victims. They are the ones who were attacked and the United States would be doing the same thing. And I stand by what I said about proportionality, too. Some of that's a war crime. It gets enforced around Israel only. Around Israel only. The double standard is ridiculous. They get held to a standard that no other country gets held to. Correct. And of course, and the propaganda war is real. I mean, every day, Time magazine just got caught in this ridiculous propaganda on its cover. Uh, and they use these so-called Palestinian journalists, which by the way is a red flag, that term in and of itself. You're going to be spoon fed propaganda. Not to mention what happened in the New York Times with that one child who was allegedly starving, but they were forced into admitting, oh, he had other problems that they chose not to hide. It happens every day. They Hamas is amazing at the propaganda which is part of Israel's problem but for better or for worse the Hamas is winning the propaganda war and you're right in part probably because they don't have a Caroline Levit because they don't fight like disinformation with actual uh representatives who will come out and set the record straight every day. People like you and I have been doing the lion share of making sure people understand what's true. So I I have very little tolerance for the lectures. Hardest place to do it. I'm with yougan. I'm with you. All right, we're going to take a break, come back with Charlie in 2 seconds. Don't go away.

Pro-Israel supporters refuse to allow Anti-Israel side to be represented at a Debate

Charlie: Like I'm an American citizen. Yes, I want Israel to win. Yes, I'm a Christian. But like the some of the me and you saw you've seen how I've been treated, Megan. By some, not all, by some. No, it's very irritating. It's been so unfair. They were coming after you after a turning point for among other things that you had Dave Smith there. Dave Smith is allowed to criticize Israel. You had both sides. The Israeli side was not though. No, you're not allowed to. It's even worse than that. Again, I just want to repeat for the fifth time. I love Israel. I want Israel to win. But my moral character is now being put into question, Megan. Not my decisions, not like, hey, are you doing this? Is it smart or is it dumb?

Israel is losing its World Standing, Moral Reputation. As Trump said: It’s time to Wrap it up

Megyn: But what Israel is doing now is losing its standing with the rest of the world. It's starting to lose, too. Even with its closest friends, its moral reputation, its moral um high ground, and as Trump said a year ago, time to wrap it up.

The more you attack my moral character the more I'm going to double down. on some part of the population, you can scold them into silence, right?

If you make us enemies, you will lose, deflate two of your strongest advocates

when the hostile reaction is that now Megan and Charlie are enemies, (right)? Boy, I'll tell you like you're you're you're you're you're going to you're not going to I won't say lose, but you will weaken and just basically deflate two of your strongest advocates if that continues.

The more you tell me not to criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it. Megan: You don’t own me.

Megyn: I laugh because it's like I've been bullied by the best of them. The best. And it it didn't work and it's not going to work with them. Then the more you try to tell me I can't criticize Israel, the more likely I am to do it.

Charlie: (I'm the same way)

Megyn: to focus on exactly what you're doing, right? Like what what are you doing that you're so defensive? You don't own me. I don't I don't take $1 of money from any Jewish affiliated group.

Footnotes

1) World War I — Lusitania

• What happened (May 7 1915). A German U-boat torpedoed the British liner RMS Lusitania, killing about 1,198 people, including 128 Americans. The disaster outraged U.S. opinion but the U.S. remained neutral. Encyclopedia Britannica

• The Germans knew the Lusitania was carrying weapons and put ads in the New York newspapers, warning passengers not to take the ship. After the sinking, few Americans were told that the Lusitania’s was carrying 4,200 cases of rifle/machine-gun cartridges plus 1,250 cases of 3-inch shrapnel shells (shell bodies) and the fuze cases shipped separately, These arms weighed approximately 137 tons, and took up approximately 4,600 ft³ of space.

• Comment: (Wei Wangsays) The sinking of Lusitania was absolutely legal, since it carried munitions for the British war effort in its hold. Hence, it should be regarded as a legitimate target. However, due to the British deceptions, it was not revealed to the public at the time. The torpedoes triggered the munitions explosions which subsequently doomed the ship. Otherwise, the ship would not have sunken, or could have stayed afloat a little longer, allowing all passengers and the crews to safely depart. Basically, it was a setup by the British to lure America into the War.

What Wilson told the country (April 2, 1917)

• Germany had announced it would “put aside all restraints of law or of humanity” and wage unrestricted U-boat war; neutral ships and lives were no longer safe. University of Richmond Blogs

• The U.S. must fight for freedom of the seas, the rights of neutral nations, and a peace based on “political liberty”—“The world must be made safe for democracy.

2) Vietnam (1964–73) — Gulf of Tonkin

A. Contemporaneous claim (trigger for escalation).

• President Johnson told Americans on Aug. 4, 1964 that U.S. ships were attacked and that “retaliatory” strikes were under way. Miller Center

• On Aug. 5 he told Congress the North Vietnamese “have deliberately and systematically attacked” U.S. vessels. Avalon Project

B. Later findings.

• NSA’s declassified histories show the alleged Aug. 4 “second attack” did not occur; intercepts were misread and contrary evidence disregarded. National Security ArchiveNSA

• The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, passed Aug. 7, 1964, became the legal basis for broad war powers. National Archives

Verdict: The core casus belli for major escalation (the “second attack”) was false.

3) Dominican Republic (1965) — “Prevent a Communist takeover” / “Protect lives”

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• Johnson announced Marines were landing “to protect American lives,” adding that the OAS would be involved. The American Presidency ProjectMiller Center

• Privately, he pressed an explicitly anti-Communist framing (“really got to be anti-communist”). National Security Archive

B. Later findings.

• Declassified tapes and scholarly reviews find the Communist threat was overstated in U.S. internal reporting and decision-making. National Security ArchiveSJSU ScholarWorksmavmatrix.uta.edu

Verdict: A real crisis existed, but the imminent “Communist takeover” rationale was significantly exaggerated.

4) Grenada (1983) — “Rescue U.S. students” / “Soviet-Cuban base”

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• President Reagan said the invasion aimed to rescue Americans “in danger” and thwart a Soviet-Cuban stronghold. Reagan LibraryThe American Presidency Project

B. Later findings.

• Critics (including contemporaneous press and later military/historical reviews) argued the danger to students was overstated and the scope of the operation went well beyond evacuation. The New YorkerCQ Press LibraryArmy University Press

Verdict: Key public-facing justifications were contested as overstated relative to the operation’s scale and aims.

5) Panama (1989) — “Protect Americans / defend democracy / drug war / treaties”

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• President George H. W. Bush listed four objectives (safeguard U.S. lives; defend democracy; combat drug trafficking; protect canal treaties). American Rhetoric

B. Later findings.

• The U.N. General Assembly deplored the invasion; a Security Council resolution condemning it was vetoed by the U.S., UK, and France—underscoring widespread international view of the legal pre-textual nature of the rationale. Los Angeles TimesUPISecurity Council Report

Verdict: The multi-point rationale was lawful to U.S. officials but widely judged pretextual/overbroad internationally.

6) Gulf War / Kuwait (1990–91) — “Incubator babies”

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• The most-covered atrocity story came from a 15-year-old (“Nayirah”) who testified Iraqis removed babies from incubators; the video was pushed to U.S. media. C-SPAN

B. Later findings.

• Human Rights Watch documented the public-relations role of Hill & Knowlton in promoting the allegation and noted the lack of credible evidence for “incubator killings.” Human Rights Watch+1

• Amnesty International, which had repeated the claim early on, later acknowledged it lacked reliable evidence for babies being killed by removal from incubators. GovInfotheasa.net

Verdict: A marquee atrocity claim used to rally support was fabricated/unsupported.

7) Iraq (2003–11) — WMD & Terror Links

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• Secretary Colin Powell at the U.N. (Feb. 5, 2003) asserted Iraq had mobile biolabs and other WMD-related activity; “These are facts.” State DepartmentNational Security ArchiveCNN Transcripts

• Dick Cheney claimed that Osama bin Laden had ties to Saddam Hussein.**

B. Later findings.

• The Iraq Survey Group (Duelfer Report, Sept. 2004) found no stockpiles and no reconstituted active programs at the time of invasion. GovInfoNational Security ArchiveCIA

Verdict: Central factual claims used to justify war (active WMD programs/stockpiles) were false.

8) Libya (2011) — “Avert imminent massacre in Benghazi”

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• President Obama: coalition action “succeeded in averting a massacre,” and the mission aimed to protect civilians under UNSCR 1973. (See also his March 19 announcement of “limited military action.”) whitehouse.gov+1Justice Department

B. Later findings.

• The UK Parliament’s cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee concluded the massacre claim was not supported by available evidence and that the threat was overstated. Parliament Publications+1

• Petraeus admitted that, before his testimony, he had been told that the attack had its origins in terrorism, not the video he had described in his testimony

Verdict: The central threat narrative was contested after the fact as overstated (though some analysts maintain intervention still prevented a potential mass killing).

9) Syria - Poison gas / OCPW

• Two experienced UN OPCW investigators say that they found that Syria did not use chlorine gas against civilians, but that their report was suppressed. They report that rather than chlorine, a nerve agent like sarin was used instead, which better corresponds with observations of foaming at the mouth.

• The UN OPCW objects to these two former inspectors claims being heard on procedural grounds. [Background]

10) Israel (Oct 7) — WMR: Weaponized Mass Rape

(more)

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• Beheaded Babies, Babies in Ovens, Baby ripped out of mother, Weaponized Mass Rape, Burned cars and Kibbutzes

B. Later findings.

• No evidence to support, Family of NYTimes featured victim Gal Abdush denies she was raped, Kibbitz spokesperson denies Shirrobi sisters were raped. Video surfaces contradicting Shirobbi sister rape claim, Released hostabes report that they were treated well

Verdict:

11) Iran (Operation Midnight Hammer) 2025 — WMD: Nuclear bomb

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• William Burns, Tulsi Gabbard, Israeli “Intelligence”

• Desire for regime change: 7 countries in 5 years.

  Netanyahu has been pushing this for decades.

  Now he’s under legal threat

B. Later findings.

Verdict:

12) Iran (possible future) — WMD: Nuclear bomb

A. Contemporaneous claim.

• Iran still has nuclear weapons.

• The previous attack wasn’t completely effective

Additional Notes:

What was the rationale for the US entry to World War I?

• Short version: Wilson asked Congress for war in April 1917 chiefly because Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare—attacking neutral shipping and killing Americans—which, he argued, violated international law and U.S. neutral rights. The Zimmermann Telegram (a German proposal to Mexico for an anti-U.S. alliance) sharpened the sense of direct threat. He framed the war as defending “the rights of all mankind” and making “the world…safe for democracy.” Office of the HistorianUniversity of Richmond BlogsNational Archives+1

What is the Sussex Pledge?

The Sussex Pledge was Germany’s formal promise to the United States on May 4, 1916—after a U-boat torpedoed the cross-Channel ferry SS Sussex—to curb submarine warfare against non-combatant shipping. In it, Germany agreed to follow traditional “visit and search” rules at sea, not attack passenger ships, and not sink merchant ships without warning and without first safeguarding passengers and crew. The U.S. accepted these assurances on May 8, 1916. Office of the Historian

Why it happened: The Sussex attack on March 24, 1916 (with dozens killed and several Americans wounded) triggered a U.S. ultimatum—Wilson warned he would sever relations unless Germany stopped attacking civilian shipping. The pledge was Berlin’s attempt to keep the U.S. neutral.

What it covered (in plain terms):

• No attacks on passenger ships.

• Merchant ships could be stopped and searched; only if contraband was found could they be destroyed—and only after placing passengers/crew in safety.

What happened next: Germany rescinded these limits and resumed unrestricted submarine warfare effective February 1, 1917, a key step that led Wilson to ask

What Wilson told the country (April 2, 1917)

• Germany had announced it would “put aside all restraints of law or of humanity” and wage unrestricted U-boat war; neutral ships and lives were no longer safe. University of Richmond Blogs

• The U.S. must fight for freedom of the seas, the rights of neutral nations, and a peace based on “political liberty”—“The world must be made safe for democracy.”

Britannica: The Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships

Q: How much did 4,200 cases of metallic cartridges, cases of shrapnel shells, fuses, etc weigh and how much space does it take up?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 3m 57s

Here’s a tight, numbers-first answer using what we can document and then a transparent “how we got it.”

Bottom line (declared munitions on Lusitania, 1 May 1915)

• Weight (gross, declared): ≈173 tons for the 4,200 cases of rifle/machine-gun cartridges plus 1,250 cases of 3-inch shrapnel shells (shell bodies) and the fuze cases shipped separately. WikipediaThe Library of CongressEncyclopedia Britannica

• Space (approx.): ~120–130 m³ (≈4,200–4,600 ft³) for those same items, using standard WWI packaging dimensions (see methods below).

What the manifest actually says

A U.S. Customs report printed in the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States specifies Lusitania’s contraband items on that voyage as: 4,200 cases of metallic cartridges (.303 Mk VII, 1,000 per case, packed in 20-round cartons), 1,250 cases of “shrapnel,” 18 cases of fuzes, and a few sample shell castings. It also notes “5 pounds of powder to a thousand cartridges.” (The shrapnel cases and the fuzes were shipped without explosives.) Office of the Historian

How the weight pencils out

• Documented total: Multiple summaries put the declared munitions at ≈173 tons. That figure covers all of the above (cartridges + shrapnel shells + fuzes). WikipediaThe Library of CongressEncyclopedia Britannica

• Cross-check by components (cartridges only, order-of-magnitude):

  • 4,200 cases × 1,000 rounds = 4.2 million rounds. Office of the Historian

  • A .303 Mk VII bullet is 174 grains ≈ 11.3 g; propellant averages ≈2.27 g per round (5 lb per 1,000, per U.S. Customs). Add case/primer mass and you get a loaded round of roughly 25–27 g. That implies ~105–113 metric tons for the cartridges themselves (before crates/dunnage). WikipediaOffice of the Historian

  • The 173-ton published total is therefore plausible once you add packaging plus the 1,250 crate-loads of shrapnel shells and the fuze cases. Wikipedia

Note on the shrapnel: the U.S. Customs memo says the 1,250 cases of shrapnel contained no fuzes and no explosives; the fuzes were cased separately. (Some later accounts dispute whether shells were “filled”; the Customs record is clear about no explosives in those consignments.) Office of the Historian

How the space pencils out (transparent assumptions)

To turn cases into cubic volume, we use period packaging dimensions from museums and manuals and keep a conservative margin for outer crates and void space.

Cartridges (4,200 cases)

• Each case held 50 × 20-round cartons (to make 1,000). An IWM catalog entry gives a 20-round carton as 130 × 81.5 × 29.5 mm → 0.0003126 m³ per carton → ~0.01563 m³ (0.552 ft³) of inner cartons per 1,000-round case. Imperial War Museums

• Add ~15–25% for wooden outer case and packing: ~0.63–0.69 ft³ per case. For 4,200 cases that’s ~2,665–2,900 ft³ = 75–82 m³.

Shrapnel shells (1,250 cases)

• The British Field Service Pocket Book (1914; amended 1916) lists a 13-pdr QF box of 4 rounds at approx. 9.7″ × 9.7″ × 25.2″ (about 1.37 ft³ per case). Using that as a proxy for the 3-inch shrapnel shell crates, 1,250 cases ≈ 1,715 ft³ ≈ 48.6 m³. (These figures are drawn from the Pocket Book data as quoted in a collector’s forum thread that reproduces the table.) Great War Forum

Fuzes (18 cases)

• The No. 80-series fuze is roughly 60 mm tall × 60 mm dia and weighs ~0.29–0.38 kg each. Even if the widely cited total count of ~3,240 fuzes is used, their combined volume is <1 m³ (before crate allowance) and their mass is ~1 t—negligible against totals. Imperial War MuseumsWikimedia CommonsWikipedia

Add them up:
Cartridges 75–82 m³ + Shrapnel ~48.6 m³ + Fuzes ~≤1–2 m³ = ≈120–130 m³ (≈4,200–4,600 ft³).

Sources at a glance

• U.S. Customs/State Dept. (FRUS, June 4, 1915): exact consignments; .303 Mk VII; 1,000 per case; “5 lb powder per 1,000”; 1,250 cases shrapnel; 18 cases fuzes; no explosives in those consignments. Office of the Historian

• Weight total (≈173 tons): widely cited summaries (Britannica; Library of Congress blog; Wikipedia WWI entry). Encyclopedia BritannicaThe Library of CongressWikipedia

• Cartridge/bullet particulars: .303 Mk VII bullet mass (174 gr ≈ 11.3 g). Wikipedia

• Carton dimensions: IWM object record for a .303 20-round box. Imperial War Museums

• Shrapnel crate dimensions: Field Service Pocket Book data (quoted with exact figures). Great War Forum

» What was the threat level in the Dominican Republic (1965), in which the US aimed to prevent a communist takeover?

Short answer: low to moderate, not imminent. U.S. intelligence judged that Communists were present but were not in control of the 1965 revolt and posed no immediate takeover threat—the risk was seen as potential rather than acute.

• A CIA-led Special National Intelligence Estimate (Jan. 17, 1964) concluded Dominican security forces could handle subversion and that “for the immediate future… the leftists pose no serious threat to seize control.” (Office of the Historian)

• During the crisis, McGeorge Bundy cabled from Santo Domingo (May 22, 1965) that “on all the evidence I do not believe Communists now control the [rebel] general staff,” adding a Dominican interlocutor thought “the Communist issue was laughable.” (Office of the Historian)

• Inside Washington, a May 6 task-force memo even urged officials to “thicken the case about the communists” for the press—indicating the public justification exceeded what intelligence could firmly show. (Office of the Historian)

• Publicly, President Johnson framed the intervention as necessary “to help prevent another Communist state in this hemisphere” (May 2, 1965), but this overstated the immediacy suggested by internal assessments. (loveman.sdsu.edu)

Bottom line: There were Communist elements in the rebellion, but contemporaneous U.S. assessments did not find an imminent Communist takeover; the administration elevated the perceived threat in its public rationale. (Office of the Historian, loveman.sdsu.edu)

Isn’t it ironic that in 2003 the US went to war in Afghanistan, purportedly against al-Qaeda, after having supported their Mujahideen** predecessors in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviet Union. In this on-again-off-again alliance with al-Qaeda and its mutations, we purported to want democracy in Iraq and Iran, but flip-flopped back to supporting terrorists in Syria.** (investigate leader bio )

I’ve summarized and highlighted it for reader convenience.

Tim’s Note:

While the white paper notes that Israel desired to change the government of Iran, it is deemed inadvisable to state so openly because this would delegitimate those Iranians trying to overthrow their government. Israel tried to stir up a popular uprising rising in the streets, but it didn’t work. The attacks backfired as it produced a “rally around the flag” effect.

Policy Paper, July 29, 2025

Introduction (original)

Israel did not make regime change a declared objective in its recent war with Iran; however, certain Israeli actions were clearly aimed at weakening the foundations of the Islamic Republic and encouraging the Iranian public to reignite their popular protest movement. As the dust settles, not only is there no evidence that Israel’s actions advanced this goal, but it seems that they may even have had the opposite effect (at least for the time being). Currently, several main scenarios could unfold in Iran’s domestic arena: the continuation of the political status quo until the expected leadership change following the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei; regime change through a popular uprising; or internal change within the regime through a takeover (formal or de facto) by military-security elite forces, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), of Iran’s leadership. Although regime change remains a possibility, and perhaps even a desirable outcome for Israel, given the Islamic Republic’s continued threats against Israel’s national security, it is ultimately an outcome beyond Israel’s control. If regime change does occur, it will stem from the will and agency of the Iranian people. (Emphasis with bold & italics added by Tim. Read more original)

However, it is clear that some of Israel’s actions, especially during the second week of the war, were intended to undermine the regime’s foundations and encourage the Iranian public to take to the streets and resume their popular protest movement. Moreover, these actions presumably would have continued and perhaps even intensified had the war not ended in a ceasefire after 12 days. It is safe to assume that the issue of regime change in Iran has not been laid to rest, and Israel may renew its efforts to weaken the regime in the event of renewed hostilities between the two countries. The situation would likely flare up if Iran were to take steps to reconstitute its capabilities, particularly in the nuclear field. In such a scenario, Israeli decision-makers may face the question of whether to act in a way that could harm the very survival of the Iranian regime and perhaps even lead to its downfall, for example, by targeting critical national infrastructure and additional regime symbols.

4 Strategies for Overthrowing the Regime

1. Decapitation of the ruling elite, involving a swift military operation aimed at eliminating senior regime officials, including Supreme Leader Khamenei, his inner circle, and senior political and military leaders. The elimination of several dozen top officials in the opening phase of an operation could destabilize the regime in Tehran and create conditions that may lead to political change.

2. A covert campaign to promote regime change, led by military, security, or political actors in Iran in cooperation with other power centers such as civil society organizations, labor unions, and ethnic and linguistic minorities, with external financial, organizational, logistical, and even military support to promote regime collapse.

3. Encouragement, organization, and support of opposition groups in exile, preparing such groups for a rapid return to Iran and a takeover of the regime’s power centers should a revolutionary movement emerge within the country.

4. Provision of assistance and support to ethnic and linguistic minorities, including encouraging separatist tendencies and internal fragmentation in Iran to undermine the regime and promote political change.

Iran’s Domestic Arena: Four Possible Scenarios

At this stage, the war does not appear to have caused any significant changes in Iran’s internal dynamics or in the deep-rooted nature of the Islamic Republic. However, the war may serve to accelerate existing processes of internal change. It is therefore incumbent upon us to examine the main possible scenarios in Iran’s domestic arena in the coming years, as a basis for discussing the potential for political transformation and for formulating policy recommendations for Israel. The four main scenarios of what may unfold domestically in Iran are:

Continuation of the political status quo until leadership transition. In the absence of regime change, the Islamic Republic is likely to maintain its current trajectory until the eventual death of its supreme leader and the transition of leadership in the future. The regime is expected to continue facing a series of major internal challenges. These include an intensifying crisis of legitimacy, growing economic strains, and additional problems such as government mismanagement, difficulties in decision-making on critical economic matters, systemic corruption, ecological issues, water and electricity shortages, and a demographic crisis due to an aging population. The continuation of these problems, both in the period leading up to and following Khamenei’s eventual death, could push the Islamic Republic into a gradual decline. This process could ultimately result in internal collapse, similar to the final years of the Soviet regime, when the ruling system formally remained in place but had ceased to function effectively.

Khamenei’s death, or the end of his tenure under other circumstances, may lead to the appointment of a conservative or hardline successor who continues his path. Alternatively, a more pragmatic or reformist figure, such as former president Hassan Rouhani or Khomeini’s grandson, Hassan Khomeini, could come to power. This could occur either as a deliberate attempt to preserve the Islamic Republic through reform and moderation or due to a shift in the new leader’s positions, similar to the evolution seen under Khrushchev or Gorbachev in the former Soviet Union.

Regime change through a popular uprising. Although this possibility cannot be ruled out and may depend on an unpredictable trigger, there is currently no indication of an immediate or significant threat to the regime’s stability. As previously discussed, the intensification of repression following the war may further reduce the likelihood of political change via a popular uprising. Regime change in Iran is only possible through a shift in the balance of power between those advocating for revolutionary change and those seeking to preserve the political status quo at all costs. This process could lead to the regime’s gradual erosion until it collapses, if the circles surrounding the regime lose faith in its vitality and its ability to use its repressive tools to maintain its long-term survival. Currently, the regime still enjoys significant support from its security and law enforcement apparatus, particularly the IRGC, the Basij, and law enforcement forces. However, the question of loyalty of these forces to the regime will become critical as its erosion accelerates. A turning point may occur if it becomes clear that parts of the security apparatus refuse to participate in acts of repression.

In addition, it should be noted that recent waves of protests in Iran have not relied on organized leadership or formal opposition structures but rather on a deep shift in the consciousness of the younger generation. This generation is defined by both a new personal and national identity that distances itself from both religious and state institutions and poses a continuous challenge to the very legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. These deep-rooted trends, relating to gender, authority, personal freedoms, and exposure to global influences, cannot be suppressed through traditional methods alone. In the future, they could form the foundation of a broad, cross-sectoral movement that is not necessarily based on an alternative ideology but rather on a new language of belonging and protest.

Power shift within the regime through military-security takeover. Such a change, led by the country’s military-security establishment, particularly the IRGC, could involve removing the supreme leader or appointing a weak figurehead intended to provide legitimacy while remaining fully controlled by the IRGC. This scenario is more likely to emerge if the regime perceives growing instability or following the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. From Israel’s perspective, this would not necessarily be a positive development. A regime dominated by the IRGC could become even more authoritarian, aggressive, and hardline than the current leadership.

Many members of the IRGC, especially veterans of the Iran–Iraq war who were not significantly exposed to Western education or influence, are identified with Iran’s conservative-hardliner camp. When it comes to foreign policy, they often adopt a hawkish, nationalist, and defiant approach toward the West, which could affect Iran’s policy on key foreign policy issues, including the nuclear program, regional ambitions, its stance toward the United States and its Arab allies, and Israel.

Conversely, it can be argued that the IRGC may be more committed to the pragmatic interests of their organization rather than to ideological and revolutionary ideals. Additionally, the IRGC, which is not a monolithic entity, may be more prone to internal power struggles and conflicts compared to the current regime, which generally enjoys a relatively high level of internal cohesion. A change within the regime may catalyze a series of events that would eventually lead to regime change, as occurred during the third wave of democratization in Latin America in the 1980s. In several cases, military-led regimes that replaced authoritarian governments were also eventually replaced, at least temporarily, by democratic rule. In addition, a military regime led by the IRGC might not enjoy the same legitimacy among the Shiite communities outside of Iran as does the current Supreme Leader Khamenei, potentially weakening the so-called “axis of resistance.”

“The Joe Biden Option” (Tim’s heading)

De facto leadership shift without formal regime change. Another possible scenario, which can be seen as a variation of scenario 1 or 3, involves the de facto rule of another actor who takes over the leadership of the state without officially changing the regime’s structure. In this scenario, the supreme leader ceases to function effectively due to physical decline, cognitive ailments, or a political decision. In an effort to preserve political stability, avoid a succession struggle, and prevent the appearance of weakness both internally and externally, de facto control passes to another actor (a senior IRGC commander, a senior politician, or some form of collective leadership) who manages the country behind the scenes. Outwardly, the appearance of political continuity and functioning institutions is maintained, but the center of gravity shifts to actors who are not elected and operate outside the constitutional framework. Strategic decisions are then made by other forces, without public accountability or institutional oversight. This scenario could pose a challenge in understanding the decision-making processes in Tehran, as the visible power structure would no longer reflect the actual centers of power.

Conclusion

Regime change in Iran is a possible solution, and perhaps the only sustainable way forward, given the series of threats posed by the Islamic regime to Israel, the region, and the international community. Overthrowing the Islamic regime is thus a worthy goal not only for the State of Israel, the region, and the West but also for the citizens of Iran themselves. However, regime change largely depends on factors outside of Israel’s control and on a catalyst whose prediction is elusive and may never materialize.

A change in the regime, or an internal shift such as the rise of more pragmatic elements or a takeover by the IRGC, would not necessarily alter Iran’s core strategic objectives. These include the pursuit of regional hegemony, support for non-state actors in the Arab Middle East, and the advancement of its nuclear goals that, in some cases, predate the 1979 Islamic Revolution. However, such a change could lower the priority of hostility toward Israel in Iran’s overall strategy, reduce the regime’s ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction, and make it more difficult for a new leadership to maintain the ideological-Shiite axis in the region that has been cultivated under Khamenei’s rule.

Regime change depends primarily on factors beyond Israel’s control, chiefly the Iranian people themselves. Relying on a popular uprising is not a sound policy direction, as the timing, likelihood, and trigger of such an uprising are impossible to assess. Israel’s impressive operational achievements in the 12-day war against Iran do not in themselves indicate its ability to promote political change in Iran. On the contrary, historical experience shows that regime change through foreign intervention brings highly questionable results at best. This can be demonstrated by the overall failure of regime change attempts by the United States and even Israel’s limited forays into the business of regime change during the First Lebanon War and its failed efforts to topple Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Given the uncertainty surrounding if and when such a change might occur, it cannot serve as a working assumption for strategic planning. Moreover, it is advisable to refrain from public declarations on the topic of regime change, as foreign interference may undermine the legitimacy of pro-change forces within Iran. Until such change materializes, measures can be taken to weaken the regime and curb its ability to pose a range of threats to Israel’s national security.

If Israel adopts a strategic decision to promote regime change in Iran, or at least to weaken the regime, it may consider various tools: military means, overt political pressure, soft power efforts, and covert operations. Each of these should be evaluated according to two main criteria: first, whether the action helps shift the balance of power between the regime and its domestic opponents in favor of the latter; and second, whether it advances Israel’s broader strategic objectives in its confrontation with Iran. Israel’s top priority should remain preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Therefore, a strategy aimed at achieving this goal (whether militarily or diplomatically) should be prioritized, even at the cost of delaying regime change. This dilemma may arise if distancing Iran from its nuclear aspirations can be achieved through a diplomatic channel. Although such an agreement would bring sanctions relief and potentially act as a lifeline for the regime by easing economic strain, this is a cost Israel should be willing to bear. The relief of sanctions while strengthening the regime in the short term may actually bring about its end in the long term. If economic sanctions sufficiently strengthen the middle class and expose the Iranian populace to the West, these changes may serve as an eventual catalyst for regime change.

It is also worth noting that the US approach, at least at present, reflects not only a willingness to leave the regime in place but also to significantly strengthen it, as long as Iran is willing to relinquish its nuclear capabilities. If Iran is willing to make major concessions, including giving up on enrichment, the United States is willing to provide major sanctions relief and even the possibility of American investment in Iran. Therefore, a fundamental disagreement could arise between Israel and the United States regarding the desired goal and strategy toward Iran, should Israel decide to actively pursue regime change in Tehran. As such, it is advisable for Israel to closely coordinate its strategy in this arena with the United States. Such coordination could also help Israel secure at least partial international legitimacy for advancing its preferred courses of action against the regime in Tehran.

Even if a diplomatic settlement is reached on the Iranian nuclear issue, it remains both appropriate and necessary to sustain international political and economic pressure on Iran. This can be achieved by rallying the international community around other areas of concern, including its missile program, regional aggression, support for international terrorism, influence operations on social media, and ongoing human rights violations.

The assassination of Khamenei, which was raised as a possibility during the war, would not necessarily result in regime change, although it might shake the ruling elite. Unlike Hezbollah or Hamas, the Islamic Republic is based on an institutionalized, structured political system with many mechanisms of continuity. The “Assembly of Experts,” composed of 88 clerics responsible for appointing the supreme leader, would likely have little difficulty selecting a successor, who could prove to be more extreme or more capable than Khamenei. Moreover, the death of the leader might, at least in the short term, strengthen internal cohesion and complicate efforts to destabilize the regime through popular protest. The IRGC could exploit the assassination to deepen their control over state institutions and establish a military-security regime that would be no more moderate than the existing one. Assassinating a senior cleric may also have inadvertent effects, such as elevating him into a martyr and thus glorifying the religious establishment. This could also create a symbolic narrative among global Shiite communities, portraying the conflict with Israel as part of a broader historical struggle, similar in meaning to the events of Karbala. Given Khamenei’s advanced age and growing reports about his declining health, the succession process is already underway. The possibility of his assassination, which was raised during the war, may have accelerated the vetting process of his potential successors.

Building a coalition that can pose a credible challenge to regime stability is a complex task. Such a coalition would need to be made up of broad and diverse swaths of Iranian society, including those focused on economic improvement, such as workers and pensioners, as well as students who have long been at the forefront of the fight for civil liberties. It is therefore advisable to avoid ties, when possible, with Iranian opposition groups (including some monarchist circles in the diaspora) who are perceived by large segments of the Iranian public as tainted and having betrayed Iran in its time of need. Although aligning with pro-Western and pro-Israel diaspora groups that push for revolutionary change may seem natural, such associations may, in fact, undermine the credibility of internal opposition and ultimately obstruct the desired outcome. It is possible to express support for the protest movement in Iran (if it resumes), and it is important to build capabilities that could be employed in the event of renewed mass mobilization. These could include tools for bypassing internet censorship, a strike fund financed from abroad to help citizens and workers sustain themselves during protests and strikes, and the development of capabilities to disrupt or undermine the regime’s repression mechanisms on a “day of reckoning.” At the same time, it is advisable to promote diplomatic, economic, perception-shaping, intelligence, and other measures, including assistance to various social sectors in Iran and to civil society institutions. These steps may help lay the groundwork for regime change in preparation for a mass protest movement.

Caution must be exercised regarding calls for the partitioning of Iran or the encouragement of separatist trends. The ethnic-linguistic issue in Iran has been a source of sensitivity for years, as nearly 50% of Iran’s population is comprised of ethnic-linguistic minorities, and it has occasionally fueled protest and even violent clashes in regions with minorities. However, most of these groups seek to preserve their cultural identities and to end discrimination, rather than to secede from Iran.

Unlike many Arab nation-states in the region, whose borders were drawn by Western powers following World War I, Iran has maintained a distinct political and cultural identity for centuries, despite profound ethnic and sectarian differences. The historical development of Iran’s ethnic minorities, their religious affiliations (Sunni and Shiite), and their varying degrees of integration into Iranian society significantly diminish the threat they pose to Iran’s national cohesion. The regime’s persistent fear of separatism has heightened public sensitivity to any perceived foreign attempts to promote ethnic fragmentation. Such efforts would likely backfire by uniting large segments of the Iranian public against Israel, which would be viewed as trying to fracture the country.

..

[2] This paper is based on the collaborative work of Dr. Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis, Dr. Thamar Eilam Gindin, Dr. Liora Hendelman-Baavur, Hannah Liberman-Alemu, Prof. Meir Litvak, Danny Citrinowicz, and Shahar Eilam.

Summary: (by: ChatGTP)

Israel’s 12-day war with Iran aimed primarily to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile programs—not to explicitly pursue regime change—but several Israeli moves tried to spark renewed popular protests. Those efforts did not weaken the regime; in the short term they likely backfired, triggering “rally-around-the-flag” nationalism, pausing domestic protests, and tightening repression. Regime change remains possible but is ultimately outside Israel’s control and depends on Iranian society, not foreign action.

What happened & immediate effects

• Intent vs. outcome: Israel’s declared goal was delaying Iran’s nuclear/missile progress. Some strikes (especially in week two) clearly sought to shake regime foundations if protests reignited; the ceasefire halted further escalation.

• Backfire examples: The strike on Evin Prison killed civilians and drew condemnation from regime critics (incl. Narges Mohammadi), undercutting any mobilizing effect. Attacks on Basij/ISF sites didn’t spark uprisings or meaningfully degrade repression capacity.

• Short-term dynamics: Nationalist “rally-around-the-flag” sentiment surged (more for the nation than the Islamic Republic), routine protests ebbed, and the state intensified arrests/executions under heightened paranoia. The opening Israeli strike exposed regime vulnerabilities, but cohesion rebounded for now.

Iran’s strategic bind

Rebuild nukes/missiles (risking arms race and diverting resources from a strained economy and failing infrastructure) vs. pursue negotiations/sanctions relief (which could stabilize the economy but challenge hardline priorities). Either path could reshape internal politics and revive public grievances later.

Four domestic scenarios to watch

1. Status quo to succession: System muddles through until Khamenei’s death; successor could be hardline or more pragmatic, with gradual institutional decay possible.

2. Popular uprising: Not imminent; would require cracks in IRGC/Basij loyalty and a tipping point in youth-led social shifts.

3. Military-security takeover (IRGC-led): More authoritarian/hawkish, not necessarily favorable to Israel; internal factionalism possible.

4. De facto leadership shift: Figurehead Supreme Leader while real power moves to IRGC/political collective, complicating external reads on decision-making.

Policy implications for Israel

• Prioritize the nuclear file (military or diplomatic) even if a deal temporarily strengthens the regime; sanctions relief might, over time, empower a middle class conducive to change.

• Avoid own-goals: Refrain from assassinating Khamenei, overt ties to widely disliked exile groups, and stoking separatism—all risk unifying the public behind the state.

• If aiming to “shape the field” for future protests: Invest in non-kinetic support—censorship-bypass tools, strike funds, and capabilities that blunt repression—while maintaining international political/economic pressure on missiles, proxies, influence ops, and human-rights abuses.

• Temper expectations: Foreign-driven regime change often fails; change, if it comes, will be Iranian-led. Keep U.S. coordination tight, anticipating potential divergence if Washington prioritizes a nuclear settlement over destabilization.

Bottom line: The war dealt the regime a shock but, so far, strengthened short-term cohesion and nationalism. Over the medium term, economic strain, succession uncertainty, and policy choices on nukes/proxies will determine whether today’s unity dissolves back into renewed dissent.

Leaked video shows Netanyahu bragged of having derailed the Oslo accords using political trickery

Themes: (2001 Video Leaked in 2021) | Transcript

• Goal of “Unbearable Pain”: “Hit them hard. Not just one hit, but many painful,, so that the price will be unbearable” — this is designed to make Palestinians more amenable to Israeli demands. See Dahiya doctrine (below)

• “Absurd” US Support of Israel: “80% of the Americans support us. It's absurd! We have such [great] support there!”

• Manipulative: “I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved. ...moved in the right direction. They [Americans] will not bother us.”

• Deceptive: Netanyahu bragged about deceiving Clinton, U.S about Oslo.

READ MORE:

2) Have you heard of Israel's "Dahiya" Military Doctrine? (2006)

The Doctrine originates in the 2006 Lebanon War, and can be traced back to 1938 British State-Terrorism Tactics

• Create “unbearable” civilian suffering by using disproportionate force to destroy civilian infrastructure.

• This “unbearable” civilian suffering, it is hoped, will pressure the population to turn against the militants and demand an end to the conflict.

In many cases civilians are evacuated before a bombing, but 972 magazine reports that during the Oct 7 attacks “some high-rises — which we assume to have been power targets -- were toppled without prior warning.”¹

READ MORE:

3) Gaza: An Untold Story (Jan 6,2024)

The humanity of Gazans not portrayed by the American media. (2006-2023),

Warning: This video contains depictions of violence. Viewer discretion is advised.

READ MORE:

4) How “Cry-bullies” demand a Shutdown of debate because they know they’ll lose a fair debate: (Jan 8, 2024)

How US & Israel use Accusations of "Terrorism" and "Anti-Semitism" to grant themselves "Impunity"

The original article which inspired research into the weaponization of Anti-Semitism.

READ FULL ARTICLE:

5) There should be a term to refer to the "weaponization of Antisemitism" So, I wrote a Song about it:

RITZ = Rhetorical Impunity (for) Toxic Zionism

Usage: `There you go again .. "Puttin' on the RITZ"`1 (March 2, 2024)

READ MORE:

6) “Mass Rape”: The New York Times published Israel’s Propaganda, creating a narrative of (WMR)

WMR = Weaponized "Mass Rape"

Both NYTimes WMR and Iraq WMD story served as poll-tested (phony) justifications for misguided wars of massive retaliation. Both WMD and WMR NYTimes authors disavowed accountability, refusing to accept an author’s responsibility to scrutinize their sources when buttressing the case for war. (Feb 27 -29, 2024)

50+ Journalism Professors called for an Independent Review

Sign Petition for NYTimes Retraction (Change.org)

READ MORE:

7) How Israel Censors American News Coverage.

(Israel is Ranked 97th in the world in Press Freedom) (Feb 17, 2024)

READ MORE:

8) POWERFUL PALESTINIAN SPEECH (Censored)

The Oxford Union (debate) censored this speech by Palestinian novelist Susan Abulhawa.

Debate: “The House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide”

Debate Won: 278-59 ( Oxford, England, Nov 28, 2024)

READ MORE:

9) Is Israel the Most Moral Army in the world?

Anthony Aguilar, an American Army Ranger, tells Tucker his experience with Gaza food distribution.

1. Why did Israeli soldiers question the Global “Humanitarian” Foundation staff “asking why are you feeding our enemies?” Is this the mentality of “the most moral army in the world? Are we supposed to believe the official propaganda that Isreal is not starving the population?

2. Why reduce the number of food stations from 400 to 4, located far from where the Gazans are living ?2

3. Why “communicate” through shooting at Gazans’ feet and overhead, using extreme ammunition, rather than setup signage or give directions via bullhorn?

4. Why does Israel not provide water? If Israel is able to provide water to the Israeli soldiers, can’t they also provide it to the Gazans?

5. Why does Israel assassinate journalists3 and kill American peace activists?.

10) Analyzing the Rhetoric of Israeli Spokespeople

Puttin’ on the RITZ: Extended Version

This song is based on AI-assisted research and a prior article I wrote about a larger phenomenon of bad actors¹ shielding their impunity with counter accusations.²

Notice the common rhetorical techniques:

• Gaslighting

• Cry-bullying

• Shutdown / deflect / distract

• Immunity/impunity

• Atrocity propaganda: weaponized mass rape (WMR)

• Moral high horse

• Personal attack / smear / ad hominem

• Censorship / kill journalists, academics, poets

Toxic Rhetoric of 14 Countries: | 40 Toxic Israeli Rhetoric Techniques

Breaking Down Israeli Propaganda

• Israel has a right to defend itself.

• Israel has a right to exist

• We knock on the roof to warn them to leave.

READ MORE:

I was targeted by Sophisticated Phishing Attackers that took over my Email Account

The senior attacker told me I was targeted, in part, because of “Anti-Semitism”4

Learn how you can improve your email security with hardware security keys.

Bonus: "Netanyahu on 5th Avenue" (Comic)

March 3, 2024

Credit: Andrew Zook

Permalink: