This editorial seems like a spot-on analysis of all of Israel's recent wars, but doesn't even seem to make sense internally now that it's clear Iran has no intention to sue for peace early. Is it really clear that the Israeli *army* has overwhelming superiority over Iran in Iranian territory?
Did you accomplish any of your stated goals? No. Do you regret the harm you did? No. Would knowing literally anything have helped? No.
😍😍😍 Such entrepreneur
The founder view: violate the US Constitution to kill millions of people
Huh, that's a new one for me. Drives me crazy how it's always the GOP coming up with these tricks. Sure, they have a structural advantage for some of them but the Dem posture on everything is "gotta get 60 Senators first, suggesting otherwise is green lanternism"
The Long Brandon
What was the obvious thing that Iran could have done to resolve this before the decapitation strikes? What's the obvious thing the US can do now?
You know how small children and psychopaths don't truly think other people are real? More than anyone outside of an absolute hereditary monarchy, could anyone be surer of that than Trump? He can truly do anything and the consequences are only ever felt by others.
Why won't these civilian sailors from other countries martyr themselves to keep American gas prices low before the midterms??
www.mediamatters.org/us-iran-rela...
Things keep on escalating so quickly it feels like (regular army) ground troops are coming and maybe even conscription.
Imagine thinking that your little nests of herbs and fruit leather insects and pickled kelp or whatever are worth ruining people's lives and literally beating up a generation of restaurant workers for.
www.nytimes.com/2026/03/07/d...
Don't think it's beyond the imagination to say that if apartheid had held on in South Africa past the end of the Cold War there would be a strong likelihood it still exists.
It's true that it was very deaf to the ongoing vibe shift, but it's also a very Trump/Biden era statement in not trying to claim any degree of impartiality. e.g. I don't think Secretary Rice would have said this.
Rubio (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I believe the latter but you can debate it) seems to have completely blown up the discursive barriers around this. Here is an article in Bloomberg that one could only have imagined seeing in a place like Zeteo before this week.
Amazing that the moderate half-loaf position he found is supporting the most politically toxic aspect of the war. Oh, you're only in it to support the foreign aggressor in whatever they decide to do? That should put your constituents' minds at ease!
Perhaps but I think
- many of them don't realize how some of these rules are specifically for *their* safety, and
- got here haphazardly through years of justifications of Israeli lawlessness
bsky.app/profile/bill...
PSOE asks the brave question "what if we do the popular thing and oppose the world historic unpopular president of the United States and his world historic unpopular war"
It seems like two years of blindly defending Israel on their escalating lawlessness against weak adversaries has made these people incapable of thinking straight. Decapitation strikes of other sovereign nations are good, actually, as long as you have "clear objectives".
Here's e.g. Jacky Rosen (D-NV). "I shed no tears over the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and so many other leaders of the brutal Iranian regime. The world is better off without them." Do these fools have no idea what rules of war they are opting into?
x.com/SenJackyRose...
Genuine question: back in the heyday of the 20th century CIA assassination regime, would liberal congresspeople just blandly commend the death of whatever head of state they targeted?
Using primaries to predict general is generally pretty silly but: vastly exceeding the party's presidential vote count in a midterm primary is nuts.
Trump will retaliate because he will treat it as a narcissistic injury, but that will be outweighed by the security risk of continuing as a sovereign shield for US and Israeli aggression.
I'm going to try a prediction: this war will lead to US troops formally expelled from at least one country.
That guy is Teflon, *after* the FBI raided his house: Pelosi and Clyburn campaigned in person for him, the state GOP redistricted to help him, and Trump pardoned him. Very very odd.
a thing historians will marvel about when they study this era is the extent to which the "war is a thing that happens to poorer, browner people" class went about systematically dismantling every aspect of the global political order that confined the costs of war to poorer and browner people
And so ended the political career of one Dan Goldman. He will be missed by his fellow centimillionaire heirs like the publisher of the New York Times.
Because, and this is key, a ceasefire in US/Israel terms is that you cease, we fire.
Honestly I think the leadup to the Iraq war was worse than all this because the buy-in was so all-encompassing. I keep asking myself how anyone could fall for it again but the thing is, they mostly haven't
We live in a world in which its entirely possible that Iran negotiations failed because people involved bet the under.
I've had an inkling of this since the toppling of the Islamic Courts in Somalia back in the late Dubya admin, but it's now very clear to me that US intervention policy has shifted decisively away from regime change to regime collapse. Leave No State Behind.
If Labour were a psy-op to make the Democrats look good by comparison, what would they be doing differently?
