Business Sentiment
Sentiment Legend:
Negative < 44
Mixed 46-54
Positive > 56
Trump has vowed to continue bombing Iran despite the deaths of Ayatollah Khamenei as well as 3 US service members.
Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran — and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY) — who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis — said he “implored” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next.”
“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon,” he added, “but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home.”
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region.”
“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing. No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can't say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that “as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries' throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”
“Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war,” Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
“The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms,” Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue “uninterrupted” even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats — and even some members of leadership — who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that “the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions.”
“This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
“Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president,” she said. “But let's be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it.”
In the last weeks, we have witnessed an authoritarian assault on communities in Minnesota and across the nation.
The need for truthful, grassroots reporting is urgent at this cataclysmic historical moment. Yet, Trump-aligned billionaires and other allies have taken over many legacy media outlets — the culmination of a decades-long campaign to place control of the narrative into the hands of the political right.
We refuse to let Trump's blatant propaganda machine go unchecked. Untethered to corporate ownership or advertisers, Truthout remains fearless in our reporting and our determination to use journalism as a tool for justice.
But we need your help just to fund our basic expenses. Over 80 percent of Truthout's funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors.
Truthout's fundraiser ended last night, and we fell just short of our goal. But your support still matters immensely. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger one-time gift, Truthout only works with your help.
Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep.
Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.
As we rise to confront Trump's fascism, Truthout appeals for your support. Any contribution you can make is a tangible act of resistance. Please start a monthly donation today.
Tankers at the Khor Fakkan Container Terminal along the Strait of Hormuz in June, 2025.GIUSEPPE CACACE/AFP/Getty Images
Brent crude jumped 10 per cent to about US$80 a barrel over the counter on Sunday, oil traders said, while analysts predicted that prices could climb as high as US$100 after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran plunged the Middle East into a new war.
The global oil benchmark has rallied this year and reached US$73 a barrel on Friday for its highest since July, buoyed by growing concern over the potential attacks that arrived a day later. Futures trading is closed over the weekend.
“While the military attacks are themselves supportive for oil prices, the key factor here is the closing of the Strait of Hormuz,” said Ajay Parmar, director of energy and refining at ICIS.
Most tanker owners, oil majors and trading houses have suspended crude oil, fuel and liquefied natural gas shipments via the Strait of Hormuz, trade sources said, after Tehran warned ships against moving through the waterway. More than 20 per cent of global oil is moved through the Strait of Hormuz.
Opinion: An Iran oil shock darkens prospects for all the money in the world
“We expect prices to open (after the weekend) much closer to US$100 a barrel and perhaps exceed that level if we see a prolonged outage of the Strait,” Parmar said.
Middle East leaders have warned Washington that a war on Iran could lead to oil prices jumping to more than US$100 a barrel, said RBC analyst Helima Croft. Rabobank analysts slightly less bullish, seeing prices holding above US$90 a barrel in the near term.
The OPEC+ group of oil producers agreed on Sunday to raise output by 206,000 barrels per day (bpd) from April, a modest increase representing less than 0.2 per cent of global demand.
While some alternate infrastructure could be used to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, the net impact from its closure would be a loss of 8 million to 10 million bpd of crude oil supply even after diverting some flows through Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline and Abu Dhabi's pipeline, said Rystad energy economist Jorge Leon.
Rystad expects prices to rise by US$20 to about US$92 a barrel when trade opens.
The Iran crisis also prompted Asian governments and refiners to assess oil stockpiles and alternative shipping routes and supplies. Kpler analysts said in a webinar on Sunday that India might turn to Russian oil to make up for potential Middle East supply loss.
Report an editorial error
Report a technical issue
Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.
© Copyright 2026 The Globe and Mail Inc. All rights reserved.
Andrew Saunders, President and CEO
Antics of RFK Jr, Kristi Noem and others prompt derision – could their erratic behaviour prove president's undoing?
Heads bowed, linked by arms across their backs, they gathered in a solemn prayer circle. “The quiet moments are often the most important,” Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, reflected later on social media. Then Team Trump entered the chamber to cheers and applause for Tuesday's State of the Union address.
Democrats gathered on Capitol Hill, however, regarded the people appointed by Donald Trump to his cabinet and other senior positions rather differently. In the past two weeks alone, they saw a health secretary who boasted about snorting cocaine off toilet seats; a homeland security secretary who allegedly fired a pilot for leaving her blanket on a plane; and an FBI director who chugged beer with Olympic hockey players in Italy at taxpayers' expense.
In all of US history, there has never been government leadership quite like it. Although these individuals swear undying fealty to the president, their colourful and erratic antics may prove his political undoing. Yet there is no hint that the man who became famous for saying “You're fired!” on reality TV has any intention of casting them aside.
Tara Setmayer, founder of the Seneca Project, a women-led political organisation, said: “If you elect a clown, he brings the circus. This is the cabinet that we currently have. It is the most corrupt, incompetent, and embarrassing cabinet in the history of the United States and unfortunately it's the American people who are paying for it, literally and figuratively.”
She asked: “When you look at Donald Trump's cabinet, and how they have performed, you have to ask yourself, how are any of these people making America great again?”
Team selections are an early test of an incoming president's judgment and do not always go smoothly. Albert Fall, interior secretary under Warren Harding, accepted bribes from oil tycoons in the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal, becoming the first presidential cabinet member convicted of a felony.
John Mitchell, who was attorney general under Richard Nixon and took charge of his re-election campaign, was later convicted for his role in the Watergate cover-up and served prison time. Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary under George W Bush, became a hugely divisive figure due to intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and his mishandling of the post-invasion insurgency.
Trump's first term had more than its fair share of hiccups. Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, recused himself from the Russia investigation and lost his job. Energy secretary Rick Perry quit over his role in Trump's efforts to push Ukraine officials to investigate the son of a political rival. But others, such as Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, Wilbur Ross, Elaine Chao and Gina Haspel, were relatively conventional picks.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said: “There were actually some good people in Trump's first cabinet, which probably saved us, saved the country. But this time I don't recall a cabinet in my lifetime with this many problematic characters who are just awful and who normally would never have been selected and if somehow they'd slipped through would have been fired by now.
“Trump keeps them around because, in a way, they may look him better. They're so awful and we're more used to him that somehow he's more acceptable. You have to use this kind of twisted psychology in analysing Trump.”
As on so many other fronts, Trump 2.0 is a different proposition. Critics say many members of his team lack relevant experience and their job performance is judged on loyalty to the president above all else. The past year has witnessed a series of blunders, missteps and downright bizarre antics that prompt some to draw comparisons with a clown car.
Pam Bondi, the attorney general, recently earned mockery for her performance at a congressional hearing. Questioned about Trump's name appearing in the Jeffrey Epstein files, she called him “the greatest president in American history” and told members to talk about the booming stock market instead. Jen Psaki, a former White House press secretary, said on her MS Now show: “The whole thing is giving a grown-up version of Regina George from Mean Girls.”
Last year Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, used Signal to provide the exact timings of warplane launches and when bombs would drop on Houthi rebels in Yemen – before US personnel were airborne. His use of the app came to light when a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine, was inadvertently added to a Signal text chain by then national security adviser Mike Waltz.
In an interview last year, Howard Lutnick, US commerce secretary, said after being disturbed by a tour of Epstein's home in 2005, he “decided I will never be in the room with that disgusting person again” – yet the Epstein files revealed that Lutnick visited Epstein's private island for lunch in 2012. Meanwhile the Politico website reported that even Trump is frustrated “about how much Lutnick's family has been profiting off their association with the president's brand”.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, is facing an inspector general investigation into allegations that she had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a security detail subordinate, drank alcohol on the job and used department funds for personal travel; her lawyer denies the claims. Meanwhile her husband, Shawn DeRemer, was barred from the department's headquarters after at least two female staff members alleged that he had sexually assaulted them.
Robert Kennedy Jr became health secretary despite a history of vaccine scepticism and spreading false information. Earlier this month a viral 90-second video showed him and musician Kid Rock working out, enjoying a sauna and drinking milk. Meanwhile, in a podcast interview, Kennedy insisted that he is not afraid of germs, explaining: “I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats.”
Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, is one of the cabinet's most controversial figures because of deadly anti-immigration crackdowns in Minneapolis and elsewhere. It was recently reported that a US Coast Guard pilot was allegedly fired after one of Noem's personal blankets was left behind on a government plane during a trip – only to be reinstated because no one else was available to fly the return leg.
In January, Gabbard was photographed lurking during an FBI raid on an election warehouse in Fulton county, Georgia. The director of national intelligence typically oversees foreign intelligence rather than domestic law enforcement. Gabbard's presence was further criticised when reports emerged that she facilitated a direct phone call between Trump and rank-and-file FBI agents.
Kash Patel, the director of the FBI, has been a lightning rod since taking over the FBI, frequently blurring the lines between his official duties and his personal interests. Last weekend he was spotted celebrating raucously in the locker room with the US men's hockey team after their gold medal win at the Milan Winter Olympics.
Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, commented: “Every moment I think that Kash Patel cannot embarrass himself or the United States any more, he seems to do it. He is the most unqualified loser to ever hold the office of FBI director. He is an absolute disgrace on every level and it's shameful that the good men and women who are still left at the FBI have to serve under him.”
Democrats raised questions about Patel's travel on a taxpayer-funded plane. More than 160 Democrats backed a House of Representatives resolution to impeach Noem after the fatal shooting in Minneapolis of two US citizens who protested against mass deportations. Democrats are also pursuing a subpoena against Lutnick over his Epstein lies. But there is little sign of any members of Team Trump losing their jobs.
Setmayer said: “The reason we're not seeing really any accountability for the transgressions of virtually the entire cabinet is because if they hold one of them accountable then that means you have to hold Donald Trump accountable. It flows from the head here. These cabinet officials know that there is no bottom, for the most part, because who's going to actually hold them accountable other than the American people?”
Whereas Trump's first term was marked by personnel turbulence, his second has been remarkably stable. Even Waltz, culpable for “Signalgate”, was merely transferred to the role of US ambassador to the UN. The president seems more reluctant than ever to admit a mistake or hand the media a sacrifice; he knows that new appointees could face a sticky confirmation process in the Senate; and he appears comfortable to bask in extravagant displays of sycophancy at cabinet meetings.
Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist, said: “This is the most unserious, unqualified, uncommitted cabinet we've seen in many of our lifetimes. They seem committed to an audition for an audience of one – that's the president – and they seem committed to one agenda, and that's the Maga extreme agenda.
“The Republicans, particularly this president, often refer to running government like a business, but in the business world most of, if not all, of the candidates who were serving in this cabinet would not even qualify for an interview, better yet not qualify to actually serve in the roles that they are serving in.”
Seawright added: “It goes to show you the double standard and hypocrisy from the Republican party. In no way, shape or form would this be tolerated by any Democratic administration.
“If we came close to any of this, they would have been calling for impeachment, calling for resignation and acting as if the world was on fire, but instead the legislative branch refuses to do its oversight job on the executive branch and so there is no accountability and no punishment for being extreme, being crazy, or also hurting the lives of the American people.”
James Talarico and Jasmine Crockett adopt contrasting strategies as party hopes to tap into Trump backlash in reliably red state
At a packed town hall meeting last month in Laredo for James Talarico, the 36-year-old Democrat vying for a US Senate seat in Texas, Cristina Rodriguez took the microphone. Rodriguez, a 16-year Marine Corps veteran, said she had never cast a ballot. She didn't identify as either a Democrat nor a Republican, and to her it didn't matter. Regardless of what party the president belonged to, she had to obey orders.
Her attitude changed after the re-election of Donald Trump, whom she viewed as spiteful and divisive. In Talarico, a state representative from the Austin suburb of Round Rock, she found the exact opposite – a former middle school teacher and current seminary student who speaks in measured tones and preaches mutual respect.
“Because of you, I decided my voice does matter,” Rodriguez told the candidate and the crowd. “You're not spewing hate. You're speaking truths in a compassionate way and that just resonates with me.”
Rodriguez's conversion offered a trickle of vindication for Talarico's strategy. In a reliably red state where Democrats haven't won a US Senate seat since 1988, Talarico believes his “top v bottom” economic pitch can cut across political divides and sway a critical mass of disillusioned Trump voters and independents. His rocketing path into the national spotlight suggests he might be on to something.
Whether the New Testament-quoting Democrat can win in a state that voted by 14 percentage points for a presidential candidate whose campaign hawked God Bless the USA bibles for $59.99 will depend on whether Talarico can first beat Jasmine Crockett, currently the congresswoman for Texas's 30th district. Beloved by Democrats craving a “fighter”, the 44-year-old former public defender has built a reputation as a sharp, partisan brawler who hurls insults as fiercely as Trump. (She has called the president “Putin's ho” and an “old white nepo baby”.)
National Democrats are watching closely to see which style and message resonates – anti-Maga rage or a populist crusade against a “corrupt” political system. The outcome could have implications for contested Democratic primary races across the country this year, and for the nascent 2028 presidential contest.
Republicans have for decades maintained a death-grip on Texas politics. The GOP has controlled both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship for more than two decades. A Democrat has yet to win a statewide election this century. But this cycle, the party sees an opening: a powerful backlash against Trump – and the potential for Republicans to nominate a scandal-plagued Maga warrior that has national Republicans fretting they could lose a safe red seat.
Talarico and Crockett are presenting themselves as progressive antidotes to Trumpism. Polling has consistently shown that Democrats like both their options. One voter broke down in tears, telling CNN she loved Crockett but chose Talarico because she believed he had a stronger chance of defeating a Republican in November. Kamala Harris on Friday swooped in with late-breaking support for Crockett. Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat who narrowly lost to Texas senator Ted Cruz in 2018, has not endorsed either candidate, calling them “generational talents”.
Data from early voting that shows Democrats have cast more ballots than Republicans so far, a sign of the party's unusual excitement about their prospects this year, said Katherine Fischer, executive director of the Texas Majority Pac.
“No matter the outcome, we're going to have someone in the general who's just a real powerhouse,” said Fischer, who worked for O'Rourke's 2018 Senate bid.
The same anti-Trump backlash that bolstered O'Rourke in 2018 are even more apparent today, according to Luke Warford, founder of the Agave Democratic Infrastructure Fund, a Pac working to help Texas Democrats win statewide. Trump is less popular today than he was then. Voters today are more frustrated with the economy. National Republicans are spending millions to prevent the party's rank-and-file from electing Ken Paxton – a rightwing extremist plagued by corruption allegations and extra-marital affair scandals.
“I'm not a person who gets excited every year and says ‘this is the year we're going to flip Texas,' but this year you can definitely see a path to victory for Democrats if you squint,” Warford said in an interview. “One of the reasons the supporters of each candidate are arguing so vociferously is not just because they think theirs is the right candidate – it's because they think they might win in November.”
Last summer, when Trump directed the Republican-controlled Texas legislature to gerrymander the state's congressional maps to give the party an edge in the November midterms, Talarico fled the state with his Democratic colleagues in a bid to stall the effort. He became one of the party's leading voices in the ensuing redistricting fight, appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast in July. “You need to run for president,” Rogan, who endorsed Trump in 2024, told Talarico.
Talarico instead ran for Senate. Former Texas congressman Colin Allred was already running for the Democratic nomination when Talarico jumped in last year. Crockett entered the race in December, just before the filing deadline, prompting Allred to bow out and run for a newly redrawn congressional seat.
As a young state rep from the suburbs, Talarico entered the race with a much lower profile than Crockett. But he barnstormed the state for months in his signature Lucchese cowboy boots, rallying Democrats on college campuses, church pews and even a rodeo. Talarico says his campaign has recruited some 13,000 volunteers.
“The Talarico campaign has been working 24/7 in terms of public events, TV advertising, digital advertising, and social media activity,” Rice University political scientist Mark Jones said.
By her own admission, Crockett has run a less “traditional” campaign, largely eschewing broadcast advertising. As a sitting congresswoman, she has split her time between the campaign trail – where she prefers old-school retail politicking – and Washington, where Democrats are in a fiscal standoff with Republicans over reining in ICE.
Talarico holds a significant fundraising advantage and his campaign and the outside groups supporting him have outspent the congresswoman on the airwaves. Crockett, a cable news fixture, entered the race with high name recognition and base of support, especially among Black voters in the state.
But in the final weeks, before the primary, campaigning has ramped up for both candidates.
Crockett is holding back-to-back campaign stops on her “Texas Tough” tour. “I'm ready to kick some ass and become your next US senator,” she said during an evening event at a bar in Houston.
Early polling showed Crockett comfortably ahead, buoyed by her far greater name recognition. But Talarico closed in as the race entered its final month.
Then, on 16 February, CBS refused to air late-night host Stephen Colbert's interview with Talarico, citing concerns about the Trump administration's FCC guidance. Widespread charges of censorship, which FCC chair Brendan Carr denies, helped the YouTube version of the interview rack up millions of views.
The Colbert interview was like “manna from heaven” for the Talarico campaign, Jones said, bringing in an influx of new cash just as early voting began in Texas. Even Crockett conceded that the pulled interview, and the controversy surrounding it, likely gave her rival a “boost”.
Whichever Democrats wins the 3 March primary will have to do two things: boost turnout among the notoriously lackluster Texas Democratic voter base, and peel off independents and conservatives disheartened by Trump's mayhem. But Crockett and Talarico are presenting two different playbooks for how to win in Texas, driving a spirited debate about which strategy is best – and which candidate is more electable.
Crockett has argued that Democrats' best chance of winning in November is to “double down” on the party's base, by working to turn out young people, disillusioned Democrats and voters of color. She has cast herself as the most formidable fighter in the political ring, arguing that her no-holds barred attacks on Trump and Republicans were far more of an asset than a liability.
“I am confident that the Devil is mad every single time I wake up and my feet hit the ground,” she wrote in an Instagram post.
Talarico takes a different tack. At campaign events, he reminds voters that “Donald Trump is a child of God” and preaches a “different kind of politics”. “Not a politics of hate, not a politics of fear, not a politics of division, but a politics of love,” he said at a recent event.
He holds up his experience of flipping his own conservative state house district as evidence that the right mix of hyperactive canvassing and willingness to find common ground can win over conservative-leaning voters who have buyer's remorse from voting for Trump.
“One is looking at the electorate as it is, and one is looking at the electorate as it should be,” Manny Garcia, the former executive director of the Texas Democratic Party, told the Guardian. “Everything is about persuasion, but one is ‘persuade to vote' and another is ‘persuade you to vote my way'.”
That difference in strategy has at times evoked racial overtones in a majority-minority state where people of color have made up roughly two-thirds of Democratic voters. According to surveys, Crockett has consistently led with Black voters and voters without a college degree, while Talarico has an advantage among white voters and voters with a college degree.
When asked in an open-ended survey question what made Talarico a stronger general election candidate, many of his supporters said his identity as a white male Christian was an advantage, and worried bias against Crockett as Black woman could hurt her chances.
Talarico voters often pointed to his emphasis on mutual respect as a political asset in a conservative state like Texas.
“I like that he's not antagonistic to anybody,” Laredo resident Alejandro Hernandez, 28, told the Guardian. “He's very approachable, which is great. I think if he was too aggressive toward the other side it might turn off people.”
Meanwhile, Crockett's supporters say they are drawn to her “people-first advocacy,” believing her authentic, relatable, “for the people” approach would resonate better in a general election.
“I am tired of people asking whether or not I am electable,” Crockett told reporters recently. “That is nothing but [a] dog-whistle.” She has pointed to the millions of dollars Republicans, including the state's governor Greg Abbott, are already spending to attack her, suggesting they think she would be the stronger candidate in November.
The math for Texas Democrats will be unforgiving in November, Fischer said. They must narrow their margin of defeat in rural counties, win by more in urban ones, turn out low-propensity liberal voters, and win back historic losses in their former bastion of south Texas – all while persuading at least some disaffected Republicans.
“It can seem like an impossible prospect – you need everything to go right for you in order to eke out a win,” she said. “And that's true, but that's also what happens in wave elections.”
Taliban authorities in Afghanistan have issued a draconian decree that makes sodomy punishable by death and allows men to beat their wives so long as they don't break bones or leave visible, lasting wounds.
Human rights campaigners have decried the move as “devastating” and warned that women's recourse to justice would be further curtailed.
“The men have the right to rule completely the women,” rights activist Mahbouba Seraj told CNN from Kabul. “His word is the word of law – that's it.”
The decree was issued last month but has only recently come to international attention after it was leaked to the Afghan rights group Rawadari, which published it in the original Pashto. The Afghan Analysts Network then translated the document into English.
The punishments it details have already been widespread in Afghanistan, but this is the first time that they have been so clearly codified since the United States and its allies withdrew from the country in August 2021, allowing the Taliban to return to power.
The Taliban insists that all its rulings are in line with Islamic Sharia law and have religious legitimacy.
“If a husband beats his wife so severely that it results in a broken bone, or an open wound, or a black and blue wound appears on her body, and the wife appeals to a judge, then the husband will be considered an offender,” the code says, according to the Afghan Analysts Network's translation. “A judge should sentence him to 15 days' imprisonment.”
The punishment for animal abuse is more severe. The decree says that anyone who forces animals like dogs or cockerels to fight should be sentenced to five months in prison.
The decree also permits a father to punish their child for, among another things, failing to pray. The punishment for a teacher who so severely beats a student that a bone is broken is to be removed from their job.
Given that women in Afghanistan are prohibited from leaving the home without a male guardian, activists say the new law will prevent women from seeking justice even in cases of severe physical violence. Afghanistan's Sharia Law also dictates that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man.
Women have seen their rights steadily degraded since the Taliban returned to power. Women are banned from almost all work outside the home. UNICEF estimates that more than two million girls and women have been shut out of education by the Taliban's ban on them attending secondary school and university.
The UN's top human rights official, Volker Türk, told the Human Rights Council in Geneva Thursday that the decree was “legitimizing violence against women and children, and warned that “Afghanistan is a graveyard for human rights.
“Afghanistan's women and girls face extreme gender-based discrimination and oppression that amounts to persecution,” Türk said. “The system of segregation is reminiscent of apartheid, based on gender rather than race.”
The decree also clamps down on dissent. Anyone who insults Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada must receive 39 lashes and a year in prison, while anyone who “humiliates senior officials” is subject to six months' imprisonment and 20 lashes.
Rawadari, the activist group that first circulated the decree, said it was “incompatible with even the most basic standards of fair trial, including the principle of equality before the law.”
The death penalty, too, is sanctioned for a wide range of crimes.
A judge or imam may sentence to death anyone who spread doctrines “contrary to Islam” and anyone who “persistently” engages in theft, homosexuality, heresy, sorcery, or anything other than vaginal sex.
Activists say that the way the doctrine defines a “Muslim” leaves wide latitude for authorities to punish religious minorities in what is a diverse country.
“I cannot tell you the number of calls I'm getting from women who are desperate all over Afghanistan,” Seraj, the women's rights activist, told CNN. “When you have these kinds of laws being implemented and the husband can decide on everything then forget it. At least before there was a fear of the courts, judges. Women would complain. Now what?”
CNN's Kara Fox contributed to this report.
© 2026 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.
The FBI is investigating a “potential nexus to terrorism” in a deadly mass shooting that erupted just before 2 a.m. CT Sunday in Austin's entertainment district, leaving at least three people dead, including the suspected gunman, and 14 others wounded.
“Obviously, it's still way too early in the process to determine an exact motivation, but there were indicators on the subject and then his vehicle that indicate a potential nexus to terrorism,” Alex Doran, acting special agent in charge of the FBI San Antonio Division, said at a news conference Sunday morning.
Three of those hospitalized are in critical condition, officials said.
There have been at least 56 mass shootings in the US so far this year – defined as when at least four people are shot, not including the shooter – according to the Gun Violence Archive.
Authorities received a call about a man shooting from a large SUV, outside Buford's Backyard Beer Garden at West Sixth and Rio Grande streets, according to Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis. The SUV had been spotted circling the block before the shooting, she said.
“At one point, he put his flashers on, rolled down his window, and began using a pistol, shooting out of his car windows, striking patrons of the bar that were on the patio and that were in front of the bar,” Davis said.
The suspect then drove westbound on Sixth Street, parked his vehicle and got out on foot with a rifle, Davis said. He then began shooting at people walking by, she said.
Because police and emergency medical teams are predeployed downtown on weekends, authorities reached the suspect in less than a minute, Davis said.
“Our suspect was coming toward East Austin or East Sixth Street, officers were coming toward him, and at the intersection, he was shot and he was killed at this time,” Davis said.
Davis previously told reporters three officers “returned fire” when they encountered the suspect.
“This is a tragic, tragic incident,” Davis said. “Our federal partners are here, as well as others, and this will be a scene that will take several hours to process.”
The FBI San Antonio Division, which covers the Austin area, confirmed the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has joined the investigation based on evidence found at the scene.
Paramedics embedded in the entertainment district with the Austin Police Department on weekends quickly responded, according to Robert Luckritz, Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services chief.
“We had more than 20 EMS resources that responded to the scene. We had all critical patients off the scene within 24 minutes, and all patients off the scene within 47 minutes,” Luckritz said.
“Our hearts go out to the people that are victims of this. And I want to again reiterate my thanks to our public safety officers and officials that so rapidly were on the scene,” Austin Mayor Kirk Watson said at the news conference. “They definitely saved lives.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
© 2026 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.
Officers confronted a male gunman pointing a weapon at them, they returned fire and killed the suspect
Sign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inbox
The FBI's joint terrorism taskforce has been called in to help investigate a deadly mass shooting in downtown Austin, Texas, on Sunday morning in which a gunman opened fire in front of a bar popular with university students, killing two people and injuring 14 others before being fatally shot by police.
An FBI official, Alex Doran, told reporters at a press conference that it was too early to determine the shooter's motivation. But he added that evidence found on the suspect and in his car indicated a “potential nexus to terrorism”.
The city's police chief Lisa Davis described the violence as a “tragic, tragic incident”, with the first calls about it being made to emergency services from Buford's bar in West Sixth Street at 1.59am. Davis said the attacker drove a large sport-utility vehicle, circled the block several times and then fired a pistol from the car, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
The shooter then exited the SUV with a rifle and continued firing, Davis said.
Police responded within 57 seconds of the first emergency call, according to officials. When officers arrived at the bar, they were immediately confronted by a male gunman pointing a weapon at them, Davis said in an early morning press conference. They returned fire and killed the suspect.
By then, two bar customers had been killed. Fourteen more people were shot with injuries that required hospital treatment, three of whom were described to be in critical condition.
Videos taken inside the bar and posted on social media showed several people lying on the floor being treated by paramedics. One woman who was administering CPR to an individual lying on their back can be heard in the video shouting: “Please help me – I need help!”
The Austin American-Statesman reported that the gunman had used a pistol and an assault-rifle in the shooting, citing law enforcement. The identity of that man and his motives remain unknown, along with the names of his slain victims.
Austin is the state capital of Texas with just over 1 million people. Its mayor, Kirk Watson, told reporters that he was thankful for the swift response of public safety officers.
The death toll could have risen substantially higher were it not for the arrival of police officers at the scene within under a minute.
“They saved lives. The speed with which they provided help and aid to people made a difference,” Watson said.
The emergency medical services chief of Austin, Robert Luckritz, said that police officers and paramedics were routinely embedded in the city's downtown entertainment district at the weekend, which meant they were able to respond within seconds.
Eyewitnesses and bystanders spoke of the horrifying nature of the attack. “I heard screaming and yelling and crying,” Jeremiah Carbajal, a concierge at a nearby residential building, told the Austin American-Statesman.
A former manager at Buford's, Scott Yancy, hugged one of the employees at the bar and burst into tears. He expressed gratitude that all the staff had survived.
“I'm so glad everyone is OK,” he said.
While local police investigators and FBI agents begin the painstaking work of piecing together the shooter's actions and motivations, attention is already falling on Texas's lax gun laws. Everytown, the advocacy group working to end gun violence, ranks Texas 32 out of 50 states for its weak systems of firearms control.
The group points out that five of the worst mass shootings in the past decade have taken place in Texas, and it accuses state lawmakers who assemble in Austin of continuing to “sit on their hands and refuse to enact foundational gun safety laws”.
Among its weak laws is an ordinance that allows anyone to carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit.
The Gun Violence Archive which curates one of the most authoritative databases of US gun violence, has recorded 56 mass shootings in the country so far this year as of early Sunday. The site defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more victims are shot or killed, not including the attacker.
US House member Greg Casar, a Democrat who represents parts of Austin, called for action on the scourge of guns in the country. “We must end America's gun violence epidemic,” he said on X. “Americans should be able to have fun at a bar without it turning into an unspeakable nightmare like this one.”
Austin was not the only US city to be touched by gun violence in the early hours of Sunday. At least nine people were injured in a shooting in Cincinnati that took place at about 1am at a music venue, Riverfront Live.
All the victims in that case were taken to nearby hospitals with non-life-threatening gunshot wounds. There was no immediate information about a suspect in that shooting.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
By Murad Sadygzade, President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
By Murad Sadygzade, President of the Middle East Studies Center, Visiting Lecturer, HSE University (Moscow).
The past 24 hours have given Iran's leadership transition a tangible shape, while also revealing how dangerously the very idea of “normal” is shifting in international politics. The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli operation against Iran is a demonstrative precedent, read across the Middle East as the legalization of a blunt principle – when power is sufficient, sovereignty can be suspended at will.
As a researcher of Middle Eastern politics, I cannot treat such actions as a “surgical strike.” They amount to the demolition of constraints that once, however imperfectly, made the international arena at least somewhat predictable. If the world's leading military power and its closest regional ally signal that the physical elimination of a state's top leader is an acceptable policy tool, then law becomes stage scenery rather than an organizing principle. The message is simple: rules apply when they serve the strong, and they can be set aside when they do not.
Against that backdrop, reports of a strike on a girls' primary school in Minab, in southern Iran, have been absorbed with particular bitterness. For many across the Middle East, and for much of the Global South, the decisive issue is not the elegance of Western statements. It is whether there will be any clear moral judgment at all, or whether the tragedy will dissolve into cautious phrasing and familiar rituals of justification whenever responsibility falls on US allies. In a region saturated with grief and memory, silence is rarely interpreted as neutrality. It is read as hierarchy – as an unspoken ranking of whose suffering counts.
Ayatollah Khamenei was a man of a distinct era, defined by a long confrontation that Tehran consistently framed as resistance to Western expansion – efforts to shape the region from the outside and to impose an external architecture of security, politics, and values. For his supporters, he embodied the idea of an independent civilizational course, along with the conviction that Iran, and the Middle East more broadly, must retain the right to speak in its own voice even when that voice irritates Western capitals and clashes with their preferred definitions of what is “acceptable.” In this worldview, autonomy is not a slogan. It is a shield against absorption, a refusal to become merely a theater in someone else's global story.
In moments like this, emotion risks becoming policy. The loss of a figure of this scale will not be experienced only as a political development. For many Shiite communities beyond Iran's borders, it will register as a symbolic wound – one that can sharpen anti-Israeli sentiment and widen the line of confrontation with the West. This is not merely a function of propaganda. It is also a function of the region's collective codes, its deep archive of humiliation and resistance, and the reflex of reciprocal action that often activates faster than diplomatic calculation. When political violence is framed as public theatre, it does not remain contained. It travels – through sermons, through street talk, through family histories, through the subtle arithmetic of vengeance that turns outrage into recruitment.
Yet the central question is not only the symbol. It is the mechanism.
The pattern of strikes and the framing of the campaign are widely interpreted as an attempt to deprive Iran of “mind and head” by systematically removing the upper tiers of decision-making. The strategic wager is clear – disrupt succession, provoke elite fragmentation, and paralyze governance at the very moment the state is most vulnerable. This is the classic logic of decapitation, betting that the state will buckle under pressure during transition. But those who imagine Iran as a structure held up by one man underestimate the degree to which the Islamic Republic has been built for siege conditions. Over decades of sanctions, covert action, and external threats, it developed institutional redundancies and continuity mechanisms precisely to survive shocks. In systems that have lived under permanent threat, succession planning is a survival mechanism.
This is why one development must be placed squarely within the larger picture. Reuters reports that Ayatollah Alireza Arafi has been appointed as the jurist member of the leadership council tasked with temporarily carrying out the supreme leader's duties. This is not a trivial personnel note. It is a signal that the system intends to leave no vacuum even under bombardment, and to lock in a transition framework that Iran's constitutional logic provides – a temporary leadership arrangement that functions until the Assembly of Experts makes a final decision.
Politically, Arafi's selection reads as an assertion of manageability. He is the type of figure rooted in Qom's clerical milieu while simultaneously embedded in the state's institutional circuitry. When external actors wager on disorganization, the appearance of a specific name in the jurist seat of the interim council acts like a rivet – fastening the frame in place, limiting improvisation, and narrowing the space for panic.
The interim council, of course, is not the permanent supreme leader. Still, it shapes how the crisis phase will be lived – who controls the agenda, who guarantees legal and religious continuity, and who, by virtue of position and relationships, can mediate between the security apparatus and the clerical establishment. In that sense, it influences which succession pathways become more plausible, which coalitions can form, and which rivalries are forced into containment rather than open rupture.
This makes discussion of potential successors more than idle speculation. It is part of understanding why the strikes appear designed to thin out the senior echelon. The logic of pressure is to eliminate not only a symbol, but the environment capable of producing and stabilizing a successor. Regime change by decapitation is rarely only about one head. It is about preventing the body from finding another.
Despite the opacity of Iran's internal process, several clusters of names recur in international reporting and analysis. The most frequently mentioned possibility remains Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader's son, long discussed as a potential heir. The advantage of such a scenario would lie in line continuity and already-existing networks of influence – in the ability to reassure key constituencies that the strategic course will not abruptly fracture. The risk is equally obvious. Any whiff of hereditary succession is ideologically awkward for a republic born in opposition to monarchy, and politically volatile at a moment when elites need the option least likely to trigger internal fractures or invite a legitimacy crisis. Even sympathetic supporters of the system can be sensitive to the appearance of dynastic drift, particularly in a revolutionary state whose founding myth is anti-dynastic.
Another name that surfaces is Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the Islamic Republic's founder. The symbolic capital of the Khomeini name remains immense. Selecting him could be read as an effort to stitch a traumatized political fabric back to the revolution's original source of legitimacy – a move that anchors continuity not in bloodline to the departed leader, but in lineage to the founding moment itself. Yet symbolism alone does not substitute for governing capacity, especially when the overriding test is to hold the state together under direct military pressure. In wartime, institutions often gravitate toward figures perceived as administrators of survival rather than narrators of memory.
Among clerical candidates associated with institutional legitimacy and oversight, international coverage has mentioned Sadeq Amoli Larijani, Ahmad Khatami, and Mohsen Araki – figures tied to the machinery that confers religious-legal validation on political choices. The appeal of such candidates lies in preserving doctrinal continuity and the established architecture in which juristic authority anchors the state's ideological spine. They represent, in different ways, the stabilizing function of “the institution” – continuity of method, continuity of vocabulary, continuity of the rules by which the system legitimizes itself. In that light, the appointment of Ayatollah Arafi as the jurist member of the interim council is consequential. It shows that the system is already relying on his institutional weight during transition, turning him from a “name on a list” into part of the operating core at the very moment when operational cores matter most.
There is also a category of figures who may not necessarily become supreme leader, but can decisively shape the power configuration around whoever is chosen. One prominent example is Ali Larijani, described by Reuters as a re-emerging heavyweight and a potential power broker in the post-Khamenei moment. In crises, such operators become nodes through which elite bargains are stitched together, internal discipline is maintained, and external channels are managed. They do not always seek the throne. Often they seek the lever – the ability to structure the field in which the throne is occupied. The more an adversary tries to knock out the system's “brain,” the more valuable these brokers become as organizers of continuity.
Finally, hovering over every succession scenario is the security establishment – above all the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. External assessments cited by Reuters suggest that the aftermath may produce not dilution but consolidation, an intensification of a hardline posture and a greater role for structures oriented toward security and resistance. This matters because in wartime, elites typically prioritize governability and mobilizational efficiency over abstract reform. That is why a campaign of targeted eliminations is perceived not simply as punishment, but as an effort to sever the state's nervous system and force it to operate blind.
And yet there is a paradox. Strategies of decapitation frequently yield an inverse effect. The heavier the pressure, the higher the probability of accelerated consolidation, tightened ranks, and a harsher “survival mode” politics. The rapid institutionalization of an interim leadership arrangement, along with the appointment of Ayatollah Arafi as its jurist member, functions as an illustration of that impulse toward continuity rather than confusion – a signal that the state intends to remain legible to itself even if it is being rendered illegible to outsiders.
Khamenei's death will be experienced as a profound loss of a leader of a particular time and stature. For Shiites across the region, it may become a powerful trigger for deepened confrontation with the West and heightened anti-Israeli sentiment. Yet for Iran's internal political history, another point is equally decisive. The symbol is immense, but the system has always been larger than one person. That is why it will adapt, rebuild its center, and select a successor through its own mechanisms – precisely because the alternative is disintegration, and disintegration is not an abstract concept. It is the unravelling of ordinary life.
The gravest danger in the current US and Israeli course is that the attempt to “finish Iran” by eroding governability and disabling institutions may open the door to a future drenched in blood and ruin. The modern history of the region has repeatedly shown that dismantling a state from the outside rarely yields a clean outcome. More often it unleashes cycles of violence, fragmentation, and revenge – paid for not by decision-makers, but by ordinary families, neighborhoods, and children. Even those who imagine that collapse will deliver liberation tend to discover that the vacuum does not remain empty. It fills with militias, with vendettas, with economies of predation, with leaders who rise not because they can govern, but because they can hurt.
Politics contains no immaculate actors, and the world is not divided into the perfectly virtuous and the irredeemably evil. But there is a difference between complexity and arbitrariness. There is a difference between rivalry among states and a practice in which the strong arrogate to themselves the right to decide who may live, who may govern, and which institutions may be broken in pursuit of someone else's strategic design. The more often power demonstrates that law is “not for them,” the more quickly it corrodes the very foundations of the order it claims to uphold – and, in time, it corrodes the credibility of the power itself.
Old leaders leave the stage and become part of history. That is the law of time. Yet alongside individuals, eras also pass – eras that once felt permanent. Just as personalities become textbook chapters, so too will hegemony, the habit of exemption, and the belief in a right to rewrite the fates of nations. The more insistently the US and its allies display impunity, the sooner they bring closer a moment when their dominance is no longer perceived as a natural state of affairs, but as a dangerous anachronism – one that, like all anachronisms, will eventually recede into the past.
RT News App
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2026. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said on March 1 that during the final week of winter, Russia launched over 1,720 attack drones, nearly 1,300 guided aerial bombs, and more than 100 missiles of various types against Ukraine.
"But despite everything, Ukrainians made it through this difficult winter, when Russia did not even try to seek justification for its bestial strikes on civilian critical infrastructure," Zelensky said on X.
The winter of 2025-2026 has been described as Ukraine's toughest yet, as heavy Russian strikes on the energy system, combined with severe frosts, have pushed the country to the brink of a humanitarian crisis.
Over the three-month winter period, Russia launched more than 14,670 guided aerial bombs, 738 missiles, and nearly 19,000 attack drones, most of them Shahed-type models, according to Zelensky.
The president added that the same Iranian-designed drones are currently being used by Tehran against countries in the Middle East, amid a fresh conflict that broke out following Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iran.
"Evil must be confronted in every part of the world," Zelensky said.
"When the United States and other partners show enough determination, even the bloodiest dictators ultimately pay for their crimes."
A wave of massive Russian strikes in January and February, when daytime temperatures plunged to -20°C (−4°F), pushed Ukraine's energy system to the brink.
Widespread destruction and repeated attacks that hindered repairs forced many regions to shift from scheduled power cuts to emergency outages, some lasting more than eight hours at a stretch.
Kyiv, particularly its eastern bank, was most affected by the strikes. The damage left hundreds of residential high-rises without heating, disrupting systems that were meant to operate until March 31.
Russia carried out its most severe strike yet on substations linked to Ukraine's nuclear power plants on Feb. 7, cutting electricity output from the country's nuclear fleet by roughly 50%, according to Vitaliy Zaichenko, CEO of state grid operator Ukrenergo.
The assaults on energy systems are part of a broader campaign: last year, Russia launched 229 attacks on Naftogaz, Ukraine's state oil and gas company — more than in the previous three years combined, the company said in a Feb. 17 press release.
News Editor
Kateryna Hodunova is a News Editor at the Kyiv Independent. She previously worked as a sports journalist in several Ukrainian outlets and was the deputy chief editor at Suspilne Sport. Kateryna covered the 2022 Olympics in Beijing and was included in the Special Mentions list at the AIPS Sport Media Awards. She holds a bachelor's degree in political journalism from Taras Shevchenko University and a master's degree in political science from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
"They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them," Trump told the Atlantic on March 1. He did not say when the talks would take place, noting that some of the previous negotiation officials had been killed in the recent US-Israel strikes.
"Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Feb. 28. He also said the bombing of Iran would continue for at least the next week.
Ukraine also targeted a Russian ammunition depot and a troop position in the Russian-occupied part of Donetsk Oblast overnight on March 1.
In the latest episode of Ukraine This Week, the Kyiv Independent's Anna Belokur examines why U.S.-led peace negotiations have so far failed to end Russia's war, one year after the now-infamous Oval Office clash between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky.
Belgium has detained the Ethera oil tanker linked to Russia's "shadow fleet," carrying out the operation jointly with French forces, Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken said.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said that during the final week of winter, Russia launched over 1,720 attack drones, nearly 1,300 guided aerial bombs, and more than 100 missiles of various types against Ukraine.
U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said he was confident the missiles did not target British military bases, but added that the strikes highlighted the "indiscriminate" nature of Iran's retaliatory campaign.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that "the most intense operation against Israel and the United States is set to begin," while state outlets warned that "revenge is coming."
"Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime," Trump said in a video posted to his Truth Social, confirming U.S. invovlement in the strikes.
Russia launched 123 drones at Ukraine overnight, the Air Force said. Ukrainian air defenses intercepted 110 drones.
The number includes 870 casualties that Russian forces suffered over the past day.
"At past negotiations, the Russian side directly said that they would accept the security guarantees offered to Ukraine by the U.S.," the head of the President's Office, Kyrylo Budanov, said on Feb. 28.
"The reason for the current events is precisely the violence and arbitrariness of the Iranian regime, in particular the murders and repressions against peaceful protesters, which have become particularly large-scale in recent months," the Foreign Ministry said in its Feb. 28 statement.
Employees say they have heard little from major defense contractor V2X Inc about safety and evacuation protocols
Employees of major defense contractor V2X Inc on US military bases in Kuwait say they lack adequate bunker facilities and have had their pay reduced amid Iranian missile attacks across the Persian Gulf region, while receiving limited communication from their employer about safety and evacuation procedures.
The Guardian interviewed three V2X employees on the US bases Camp Arifjan and Camp Buehring in Kuwait, following Iranian missile strikes on Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan on Saturday.
The attacks follow United States and Israeli strikes on Iran earlier on Saturday. Iran has since launched a series of retaliatory attacks targeting US military bases and, according to regional authorities, some civilian infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.
“The worst part is, the company has yet to put out anything so we don't know what's happening or what would happen to us if our base gets hit or anything. We got zero instructions,” said one American worker, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. “We have nobody and no instructions. We don't know what will happen or how we would even get out of here.”
The Guardian has requested comment from V2X Inc and did not hear back by press time.
V2X workers in Kuwait and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, received an alert email from the company at 11.58am local time on the day of the attacks. The message, reviewed by the Guardian, read: “PER GIANT VOICE! INCOMING, INCOMING, TAKE COVER, TAKE COVER. MOVE TO THE NEAREST BUNKER OR HARDENED BUILDING AT CAMP BUEHRING. SECURE IBA AND HELMET!!! THIS IS NOT A TEST !!!”
Workers interviewed said contract employees are assigned different bunker facilities from military personnel on the bases. Some of the shelters resemble above-ground concrete tunnels with open ends, while others are enclosed structures with metal doors but “no light, barely enough air and total darkness”, they said.
“We are all packed into the bunkers that are closest to wherever you work,” a second American worker said.
The two American contract workers the Guardian spoke to alleged that US military personnel stationed in Kuwait were evacuated in the past few weeks, leaving the bases relatively empty, while contractors remained in the country.
“It almost seemed like [the Pentagon] evacuated the soldiers so if anything would happen safely, for instance, that base was hit it would be less casualties on the military standpoint,” said the second American worker. “What about us? Are we just considered casualties of war? How did they leave before us?”
The civilian contractor workforce at US bases in Kuwait had been scaled back in the past week in anticipation of potential conflict with Iran, according to the workers. Earlier in the week, workers deemed “non-essential” were told to remain in their accommodation, and not given the option to evacuate, according to the two American workers. To leave Kuwait, they require an exit permit signed by their employer, one worker said. Under the region's strict labor regulations, particularly those linked to the kafala sponsorship system, workers who leave their jobs without their employer's permission have in many cases faced arrest and imprisonment on charges of “absconding”.
“Everybody talks about the military but nobody talks about us,” said the first American worker. “We are stuck here and treated like we are expendable.”
The situation is hugely traumatic for workers and their families, both American workers noted.
“The overall lack of planning and communication has created an emotional strain for me. Every noise has us on edge,” said the second American worker. “This situation has triggered anxiety, as it has resurfaced memories of my previous deployments to Iraq. It has been difficult to sleep.”
V2X Inc was formed in July 2022 following a $2.1bn merger between Vectrus and the Vertex Company. The company holds a LOGCAP V contract supporting US military operations in Kuwait, providing logistics and base operations services, including roles such as mechanics, warehouse staff, dining facility workers and IT personnel.
Workers said that following base closures during the attacks, the company reduced their paid hours. Many typically work 12-hour days and receive overtime pay, all three employees the Guardian spoke to said, adding that they were informed their hours would be reduced to eight per day.
“We have a low salary here. And now I'm being paid less because I'm sitting in a room,” said a worker from India, employed by V2X via a subcontractor. The worker said their base salary is $493 per month, with total pay typically reaching about $819 based on 72 hours of work per week.
The two American workers said the only communication they received from a supervisor during the attacks concerned a new payroll code to enter into their timesheets, which would reduce their pay. The Guardian has reviewed the message.
“That's the only or the main thing that the company is worried about,” said the first American worker, who earns about $20 per hour.
Furthermore, Kuwait's tap water is not considered suitable for drinking. Workers said they have enough bottled water to last for the next two to three days, but were uncertain how additional supplies would be obtained after that.
Missiles struck several locations across the region on Saturday. Authorities in the United Arab Emirates said one person was killed in a ballistic missile strike in Abu Dhabi, and that air defense systems intercepted other projectiles. In the UAE, both the international airports in Dubai and Abu Dhabi were struck with missiles, as were the luxury residential and tourist destination Palm Jumeirah in Dubai, and explosions occurred in the skies above residential areas including Jumeirah Lake Towers (JLT) and Discovery Gardens. A residential area in Doha, Qatar, was also hit. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic shipping route through which about 20% of the world's oil supply passes.
Kuwait's General Authority of Civil Aviation said an Iranian drone struck terminal 1 of Kuwait international airport, resulting in minor injuries to several workers.
“We're definitely stuck,” said the first American worker. “They should've got us out of here a week ago.”
Update: Trump says Iran's Supreme Leader is dead.
Israel and the United States launched an attack against Iran on Feb. 28, with U.S. President Donald Trump confirming American involvement.
"Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime," Trump said in a video. He added that Washington aims to "destroy their missiles" and "annihilate their navy," calling the operation a "noble mission."
The strikes mark a sharp escalation in tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, raising the risk of a broader regional conflict.
Israel deployed about 200 fighter jets for what it called its largest-ever military flyover. The U.S. military said it had used precision munitions launched from air, land, and sea to target Iran's military sites.
The U.S. Central Command also reported for the first time deploying low-cost one-way attack drones, a tactic broadly used by both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war.
Iran has launched a wave of retaliatory strikes targeting U.S. military bases across the Middle East, hitting facilities in Gulf Arab states that host American forces.
Ukraine signaled political backing for the operation. The Foreign Ministry said the "regime in Tehran had every opportunity to prevent a violent scenario."
Russia condemned the strikes, with its Foreign Ministry describing them as "an unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent state" — despite Moscow's own unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
The ministry also accused the U.S. and Israel of driving the region toward "a humanitarian, economic, and possibly even a radiological disaster."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later spoke by phone with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, and floated Moscow as a potential mediator — positioning Russia, even as it continues its own war on a neighboring country, as a broker of peace.
The attacks follow a major U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, with Washington deploying warships and aircraft while evacuating some non-essential embassy personnel from the region.
The escalation also came after U.S.–Iran talks in Geneva on Feb. 26 — part of the Trump administration's effort to secure a deal curbing Tehran's nuclear program — ended without a breakthrough.
The U.S. previously conducted air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025.
Trump also urged Iranian citizens in his video message on Feb. 28 to seize the "opportunity" presented by the military operation to overthrow the Iranian government.
"This will be probably your only chance for generations," he said. "For many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let's see how you respond."
The strikes open a new and dangerous phase for Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose grip on power has already been weakened by nationwide unrest and a violent crackdown that authorities now acknowledge has killed thousands.
"Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime," Trump said on Feb. 18.
Recent days saw U.S. officials make unproven claims about Iran developing a missile capable of striking U.S. territory and having enough material to build a nuclear bomb within days.
During his State of the Union address on Feb. 25, Trump said he prefers a diplomatic solution but will "never allow the number one state sponsor of terrorism to have a nuclear weapon."
Trump previously encouraged Iranians protesting against the regime to intensify their actions, urging them to seize government buildings and promising U.S. support.
"Iranian Patriots, keep protesting — take over your institutions," Trump wrote on Jan. 13.
Since those encouragements, at least 6,100 and up to 30,000 people may have been killed during protests on Jan. 8–9 alone, according to NPR and Time, citing unnamed activists and officials from Iran's Health Ministry.
7,007 fatalities have been confirmed alongside 25,846 civilian injuries, and 53,777 arrests, the U.S.-based Iranian Human Rights Activist News Agency reported on Feb. 23.
The exact number of casualties remains unclear, as authorities shut down internet and mobile communications nationwide.
Beyond Iran itself, the potential collapse of the regime would carry far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and for Tehran's allies, including Russia.
Protests erupted across Iran in late December after the national currency collapsed and prices surged, further deepening economic hardship for ordinary Iranians.
Demonstrations quickly spread nationwide, evolving from economic grievances into something far more threatening to the regime. Protesters called not only for economic relief but for the overthrow of the current political system.
Many have openly demanded the return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah toppled during the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iranian authorities have accused the United States and Israel of orchestrating the unrest — claims both countries have denied.
The protests represented the most serious internal challenge to Iran's clerical leadership in at least three years. They have unfolded against a backdrop of mounting external pressure, including Israeli and U.S. strikes last year targeting Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran remains one of Russia's most important allies, particularly since the start of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, the Iranian regime "has brought so much evil to Ukraine."
Zelensky met with Pahlavi on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 13, condemning cooperation between Moscow and Tehran.
Tehran supplied Russia early in the war with Shahed-type attack drones, which Moscow later adapted into its own Geran-1 and Geran-2 models for relentless strikes on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure.
For the Kremlin, the timing of Iran's crisis couldn't be worse.
Iran could become the second major ally Moscow loses since the start of 2026, following the U.S. kidnapping of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in early January.
The pattern of crumbling alliances threatens to leave Russia even more isolated.
Uncertainty surrounds Iran's political future, even as some Western leaders suggest the end may be imminent.
Experts, however, remain divided on whether the regime's demise is truly imminent.
"In general, it is premature to believe that the Iranian regime is about to fall," said Julian G. Waller, a lecturer in political science at George Washington University.
"It may do so, but the… strong, violent, and coercive measures are being employed by the regime on a mass scale to prevent such an outcome."
Waller said the outcome will depend on internal dynamics: defections among elites, the loyalty of the security services, and whether protests can be sustained over time.
Neil Quilliam, a Middle East expert at Chatham House, believes that even if the leadership is killed, the opposition is not in a position to sweep away the regime structures.
Those structures "are deeply rooted and institute its own well-honed political program," he told the Kyiv Independent.
The fall of Iran's leadership would represent a major geopolitical shock, opening a path for Iranians to pursue political freedom while sending shockwaves across the Middle East.
For Moscow, the consequences would be severe.
Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, described the fall of Iran's regime as "a major blow" for the Kremlin.
Iran is a strategic ally Russia cannot afford to lose, he said, adding that Moscow would likely do everything possible to prevent such an outcome.
The immediate damage, Nizhnikau argued, would be reputational.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's international standing would suffer further, reinforcing perceptions of weakness and undermining his efforts to project Russia as a power capable of shaping global events alongside Trump.
Elena Davlikanova, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said the impact on Ukraine will depend on how power changes hands in Tehran.
If hard-liners consolidate control around security elites, she said, they may attempt to preserve — and renegotiate — military and technical cooperation with Russia in exchange for political backing and intelligence support.
"The change in Iran will not have an immediate or dramatic effect on the battlefield in Ukraine," Davlikanova said, though it could reshape alliances well beyond the region.
For now, Iran's future hangs in the balance. A crisis that began with economic desperation but has grown into an existential threat to the regime's four-decade grip on power.
Hi, this is Tim. The author of this article. Thank you for taking the time to read it.
At the Kyiv Independent, we don't have a wealthy owner or political backing. We rely on readers like you to support our work.
If you found this article interesting, consider joining our community today.
Reporter
Hidden deep in his bunker, Khamenei wasn't expecting a brazen, daytime attack on the heart of his power
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
For a brief moment last year, Ali Khamenei's life hung in the balance.
Israeli officials had a fleeting opportunity to assassinate the Ayatollah during the 12-day war with Iran. Ultimately, Donald Trump stayed their hand and forced Iran and Israel to strike an uneasy truce.
Eight months later, as negotiations to curb Iran's nuclear and missile programmes stalled, the US president ran out of patience – and Khamenei ran out of time.
Iranian state media confirmed that Khamenei was killed at a meeting alongside at least five other senior regime figures in central Tehran on Saturday morning, when Israeli forces dropped dozens of bombs on his compound.
Simultaneous strikes took place in at least two other locations across the city in an attempt to cut off the head of the snake.
Footage verified by The Telegraph shows plumes of smoke rising high over Tehran from the wreckage of Khamenei's office and compound, thick enough to block out the sun.
Satellite images show that much of the building was reduced to rubble, from which the Supreme Leader's body, riddled with shrapnel, was reportedly dragged.
Both Mr Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, are said to have been shown pictures of his corpse.
Khamenei had become increasingly reclusive since his brush with death last year. Even his posts on social media had become sporadic.
And the bunker in his compound lies so deep that the lift is said to take more than five minutes to descend to it. Opportunities would have been rare, but his enemies only needed one.
Israel and the US were forced to rush their plans when they saw the chance to decapitate the Iranian regime.
In retrospect, it seems naive for the regime's top figures to concentrate in just a couple of locations, particularly when the US had amassed the largest military force in the Middle East since the Iraq War.
They weren't expecting an attack at about 8.10am local time (4.40am UK). One senior defence official described it as a “massive, wildly bold daytime attack” that “hit the senior leaders right out of the gate”.
The regime was caught off-guard on a “Saturday morning during Ramadan and on Shabbat in the daytime”, the official told Fox News.
Shabbat is the Jewish day of rest, which made action from the Israeli side unlikely. And observant Muslims have been fasting from dawn to sunset for more than a week during Ramadan.
As a result, the official continued, there was a “deliberate decision to accelerate the timeline” of the strike.
Israel also reportedly had support from an unlikely partner – Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, made multiple private phone calls to Mr Trump over the past month, pushing for a US attack, according to The Washington Post.
Despite his public support for a diplomatic solution, in talks with the US, the crown prince reportedly said that Iran would become stronger and more dangerous if Washington did not strike immediately.
This view was reinforced by Prince Salman's brother and Saudi Arabia's defence minister, Khalid bin Salman, who met US officials and warned about the risks of not attacking Iran.
A senior figure in the Trump administration has also claimed the president's hand was forced because Iran was preparing a pre-emptive attack. At least one intelligence source has denied that claim, however.
The CIA, meanwhile, had been tracking the Ayatollah for months, learning his locations and patterns, people familiar with the operation told the New York Times.
The American agency learned of the Saturday meeting and, critically, that Khamenei would be present. The CIA passed this intelligence to Israel.
On this basis, the US and Israel adjusted the timing of their attack and struck on Saturday morning in broad daylight.
Initially, Iran's leadership had claimed the Ayatollah had been moved safely out of Tehran. Abbas Araghchi, the foreign affairs minister, had claimed he was still alive – “as far as I know”.
It was not to be. Khamenei had been saved last year by Mr Trump's intervention and survived an assassination bomb plot in 1981 that essentially paralysed his right arm. Now he was out of luck.
Iranian state media only bent to the inevitable and admitted the Supreme Leader's death in the early hours of Sunday, local time.
🎥 لحظهٔ اعلام شهادت رهبر معظم انقلاب در تلویزیون https://t.co/Jmu6dbo79j pic.twitter.com/5qNJPDDrNb
Before that, as rumours spread about Khamenei's fate, it fell to Mr Trump to confirm his death and describe him as “one of the most evil people in history”.
“This is not only justice for the people of Iran, but for all great Americans, and those people from many countries throughout the world that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty thugs,” he wrote on social media.
“He was unable to avoid our intelligence and highly sophisticated tracking systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.”
Precisely what tracking systems Mr Trump was referring to is, as yet, unclear. Some have speculated there was a spy within the Ayatollah's inner circle who would eventually bring him down.
The US has a “wide variety of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that could have been used to track Khamenei”, said Ryan Brobst, a deputy director at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies.
He told The Telegraph that these “include aerial and space-based surveillance capabilities, signals and electronic intelligence, communications intercepts, as well as human intelligence”.
Mr Trump's statement suggested that although the US had kept the Ayatollah in its sights, it was Israel that finally pulled the trigger.
That appears to tally with briefings from officials on both sides, who have said that the US focused its waves of Tomahawk missiles, Himars rockets and drones on military targets as part of Operation Epic Fury, while Israel hit missile depots and officials.
Israel also used a range of technological tricks to strike a humiliating blow against the Iranian regime to coincide with the strikes.
As part of a wave of cyberattacks, a popular Muslim prayer app, BadeSaba Calendar, was hacked to encourage members of the military to defect and join the “liberation forces”. The Islamic Republic News Agency, a state news agency, was hijacked to publish stories about the “crippling blow” inflicted on the authorities.
Even as Iranian officials continued to deny the Supreme Leader's death, there was a hint for followers on his social media page.
Its last post featured the image of a cloaked figure brandishing a short, fork-tongued Middle Eastern sword known as a Zulfiqar. The weapon is associated with Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of the Prophet Mohammed, who was assassinated in 661.
“In the name of Nami Haider”, reads the caption, translated from Persian. “Peace be upon him.”
Immediately following reports of Khamenei's assassination, his top aide Ali Larijani vowed revenge.
“We will make the Zionist criminals and the shameless Americans regret their actions,” he said. “The brave soldiers and the great nation of Iran will deliver an unforgettable lesson to the hellish international oppressors.”
There have been rumours about Khamenei's ill health for well over a decade. But the 86-year-old's death was an important blow to the Iranian regime.
Moreover, Israel claims to have effectively dismantled the country's military leadership.
On Saturday it released a kill list, which included the names of Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Iranian security council, and Aziz Nasirzadeh, the defence minister.
Later the same day, Fars, Iran's state news agency, announced the death of the Supreme Leader's daughter, son-in-law and grandchild following an Israeli strike on Tehran.
The question now is what comes after Khamenei, who had been Iran's chief cleric for about three-quarters of the regime's existence, taking power just 10 years after the fall of the Shah in 1979.
Before his death, the CIA assessed that he could be replaced by hardline IRGC figures if assassinated, according to Reuters.
Other figures have claimed that, while the IRGC was unswervingly loyal to Khamenei, it would not back his successors in the same way, allowing the US to exploit cracks in the regime.
And Mr Trump has urged the public to rise up and take advantage of the power vacuum, warning it may be their only chance for generations. “This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their country,” he said on Saturday.
Whichever turns out to be true, Iran is reeling. Ali Khamenei was only its second Supreme Leader. Perhaps he will be its last.
Copy link
twitter
facebook
whatsapp
email
CAIRO, March 1. /TASS/. Secretary of the Defense Council of Iran Admiral Ali Shamkhani and chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Mohammad Pakpour died, IRNA news agency said.
Shamkhani and Pakpour were killed in strikes of Israel and the United States against Iran on February 28, the news agency informed.
A new house has hit the market in California, and it is part of a first-of-its-kind community in Yuba County that is being constructed using 3D-printing technology.
4DIFY, the company behind the project, is planning to create five of these 3D-printed houses to form a small neighborhood on Kaizen Way in the town of Olivehurst.
Iranian-Canadian Bahar Tarzi takes part in a demonstration against the Iranian government, in Richmond Hill, Ont., on Saturday.EDUARDO LIMA/The Globe and Mail
Bahar Tarzi woke at 4 a.m. to her social media feed buzzing with news that bombing had started in Iran. She immediately roused her still-sleeping husband and 13-year-old son with joyful shouting echoing in her Barrie, Ont., home: “It's happening! It's happening.”
“I have been praying for this,” said Ms. Tarzi, the founder of Iranian Canadian Social and Cultural Council. “We want an end to this dictatorship.”
Zara Marzban, 36, grew up in Iran and came to Canada four years ago.EDUARDO LIMA/The Globe and Mail
In Toronto, Zara Marzban, 36, woke early to a call from her sister. That wasn't unusual: She's spoken to her family every day since coming to Canada four years ago. But she answered anxiously, sensing something had happened.
“They are bombing,” her sister told her. “But we are ok, we are safe in the houses don't worry – but the connection will be lost.”
Ms. Marzban leapt out of bed, scouring social media for news, understanding all too well what this could mean for young women if the attack leads to regime change. Growing up in Iran, she'd been forced to wear a hijab since at age nine, and always felt under constant scrutiny. “As a woman, I didn't feel safe there.”
Mersad Katebi, 21, already had plans to join a Saturday protest against the Iranian government, when he picked up his phone and heard his 24-year-old cousin, back in Iran, announce with excitement that the war had started.
“I was like, oh, wow,” says Mr. Katebi, who left Iran five years ago, to study engineering in Toronto. “It's a feeling of happiness and joy.”
Mersad Katebi, left Iran five years ago to study engineering in Toronto.EDUARDO LIMA/The Globe and Mail
By Saturday afternoon, all three had joined thousands of other members of Iranian-Canadian community, dancing and cheering across kilometres of Yonge Street, in Richmond Hill, north of Toronto.
What had been planned as a protest was now festive and uplifting, to the soundtrack of honking horns and thumping dance. A few people wore “Make Iran Great Again” caps. Many more swaddled themselves in the Iranian tricolour flag, including Mr. Katebi. Waving a smaller flag, Ms. Marzban, smiled broadly among the jubilant crowd, her hair covered only by a grey wool tuque.
Across the country, many Canadians with Iranian roots expressed the same hope: that this foreign military intervention would be enough to weaken a violent and oppressive dictatorship and give the people a chance to restore democracy to their native country.
Analysis: Which regime? What change? Iran's complexity means there are no magic bullets
Other member of the Iranian diaspora, watching from Canada, were more trepidatious, pointing out that Iran is a large and complex country, and that using foreign military action to bring about regime change could have unintended consequences and might further destabilize the Middle East.
“This is so risky and there are so many unknowns,“ said Sasan Issari, a social worker and assistant professor at Trent University.
He worries, for instance, that civilian deaths from American and Israeli bombs may galvanize anti-Western extremists. And he pointed out that a current internet blackout in Iran means it will be easy for disinformation to spread.
“History has shown that when you bomb people to give them freedom, it has the opposite effect.”
Pouya Morshedi, a part-time lecturer in sociology at Acadia University who has studied the Iranian revolution of 1979, said he has dreamed for years that the regime might one day be gone, but war is uncertain and dangerous.
“The only way that we can have hope for the future in Iran is through the people who are inside Iran,” he said. “They make the decisions, they make the change, instead of those groups who want to ‘liberate' them in quotation marks.”
Mr. Morshedi, who has lived in Canada since 2018, heard from family members living in a city in southern Iran on Saturday morning, before the Internet was shut off in Iran. They were huddled in an apartment on the ground floor of a building, waiting out the bombs, for what might follow.
What that might be - even if the regime falls, Mr. Morshedi said, is far from clear, and potentially full of conflict.
Thousands of members of the Iranian-Canadian community take part in a demonstration supporting the American-Israeli attacks against Iran, in Richmond Hill, Ont., on Feb 28.EDUARDO LIMA/The Globe and Mail
Reza Hadisi, an Iranian-American professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, said he fears a repeat of what occurred after the invasion of Afghanistan, where a hardline regime was toppled only to return years later.
In Iran, people are “just so angry, so desperate, that they say ‘anything is better,'” Prof. Hadisi said. “I understand their anger, but I just worry that with war, who knows how it will go?”
U.S. President Donald Trump, who had been threatening military action after the Iran government killed thousands of pro-democracy protestors in January, justified the attack by claiming Iran had continued to work toward a nuclear arsenal with the goal of building missiles that could reach the United States.
Opinion: Will the U.S.-Israel attack help end Iranians' suffering – or make it worse?
In a Saturday morning statement, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared Canada's support for the intervention, calling the Islamic Republic the “principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East” and saying the regime must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon.
Ms. Tarzi, for her part, says she is grateful that Mr. Trump decided to take action, and happy that her chosen country is supporting the decision. She believes that diplomacy was never going to work with a tyrannical regime willing to respond to peaceful, anti-government demonstrations by killing thousands of the country citizens, many of them young people.
Protestors join the march down Yonge Street, in Richmond Hill, north of Toronto.EDUARDO LIMA/The Globe and Mail
As those student protests began again this week, she said, fears among her family there had only grown that young people will continue to die - with or without the bombs, she said, their lives were at risk.
“The country was living under a blanket of sorrow.” she said. Her family has stopped buying cakes for birthdays; Valentine's Day passed without young people exchanging gifts or chocolate. “Every night they were crying.”
But not today, she said. At the rally, Ms. Tarzi received a call from her sister in Tehran, who had heard reports - later announced officially by the United States - that the head of the regime, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been killed. Her loved ones were safe, and together, her sister confirmed. “Everyone is happy and celebrating.”
On Saturday evening, Ms. Tarzi, her husband and son were planning to join friends at a community centre in Richmond Hill. There would be more dance, she said, more celebration at the prospect of an optimistic “new day for Iran.”
“We want to share our joy with each other,” she said. “Now is the time of the people.”
Report an editorial error
Report a technical issue
Editorial code of conduct
Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.
© Copyright 2026 The Globe and Mail Inc. All rights reserved.
Andrew Saunders, President and CEO
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
U.S. bobsled star Kaillie Humphries explains why she spoke out about the backlash players received for visiting the White House on ‘Fox News @ Night.'
Players from the men's and women's Olympic gold-medal winning hockey teams appeared together on "Saturday Night Live" amid recent political controversy.
The men's and women's players had been publicly pitted against each other after President Donald Trump called the men's team following their gold medal win against Canada to invite them to the State of the Union, and joked that he would have to invite the women too or he'd be impeached. The joke prompted backlash, primarily from American and Canadian liberals, against the men's team after the players laughed in response.
Women's players Hilary Knight and Megan Keller were joined by men's players Jack and Quinn Hughes on SNL, and made light of the recent controversy.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Knight appeared to reference Trump's joke.
"It was going to be just us, but we thought we'd invite the guys, too," Knight said.
Knight delivered another punchline after Quinn Hughes said the last time the men won gold was 46 years ago at the 1980 Lake Placid Games.
Knight followed by saying the women's team last won gold two Olympics ago, at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Games.
Jack Hughes responded, saying, "Nice burn. These gold medals aren't just for us, they're for all hockey fans."
"Heated Rivalry" actor Connor Storrie hosted the episode.
Several mainstream media outlets penned op-eds condemning the men's team for laughing at the joke, visiting the White House to celebrate and attending Trump's State of the Union address.
During an interview on ESPN's "The Pat McAfee Show" Friday, Hughes opened up about his respect for the women's team after McAfee appeared to reference the controversy by joking that Hughes and his teammates "hate" the women players.
"We are hanging out with them so much, the women's team. We were supporting them. Like, we were at their games, they were at our games," Hughes said.
Hughes then appeared to address the recent criticism of his team for its response to Trump's joke.
"Like all these people talking, how many of them watched their gold medal game? Me and Quinn Hughes were at the game. We were at the game until, like, overtime ended on the glass, and we were jumping up and down so excited for these girls, so excited they won," Hughes said.
"And how many of these people watched the gold medal game, watched their semifinals game? Like 10 of the 10 of our players went to their game in the round-robin. Like, we supported them so much, and we're so proud of them. We're so happy that they won, and they brought a gold medal back and that, you know, I said it, the men's and women's team both brought gold medals back. So, just unbelievable for USA hockey."
Jack Hughes, who scored the game-winning overtime goal against Canada to win gold, reflected on his interaction with the player on the U.S. women's team who did the same in Keller.
"Me and her had a great moment in the cafeteria after her gold medal game. We played Slovakia the next night, and it was like a late game. And we were in the pasta line — me and Megan. They were just getting ready to go out again, and I just gave her a massive hug, and I said, 'I'm so happy for you. I'm so proud of you,'" Hughes said.
"A couple nights later, saw her again in the [cafeteria], and we took a great picture and, uh, she just gave me a big hug and was so pumped for me as well."
U.S. women's hockey captain Hilary Knight said on Wednesday's edition of ESPN's "SportsCenter" that Trump's "distasteful joke" has "overshadow[ed]" the women's success.
"I thought it was sort of a distasteful joke, and, unfortunately, that is overshadowing a lot of the success, the success of just women at the Olympics carrying for Team USA and having amazing gold medal feats," Knight said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"We're just focusing on celebrating the women in our room, the extraordinary efforts, and continue to celebrate three gold medals in program history as well as the double gold for both men's and women's at the same time. And really not detract from that with a distasteful joke."
Hughes' mother Ellen, a former Team USA player and current player development staff member, said the players only cared about "bring[ing] so much unity to a group and to a country."
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Jackson Thompson is a sports reporter for Fox News Digital covering critical political and cultural issues in sports, with an investigative lens. Jackson's reporting has been cited in federal government actions related to the enforcement of Title IX, and in legacy media outlets including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press and ESPN.com.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
Fox News' Trey Yingst reports the latest as rockets fly over Israel amid the fallout of Operation Epic Fury targeting Iran.
Israel's national gymnastics team has suspended all training and team activities amid the recent Iranian counterattack on the country following the U.S.-assisted strikes on Iran.
The Israel Gymnastics Federation (IGF) provided a statement to Fox News Digital announcing the violence has caused "unavoidable disruptions."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
"The current security situation in our region has resulted in unavoidable disruptions to our regular training schedule and has created significant uncertainty regarding the national teams' professional plans, particularly as we are at the outset of the international season," the statement read.
"At this time, all training activities have been temporarily suspended, pending approval from the relevant authorities to safely resume operations. Naturally, the suspension of training and the closure of airspace are causing considerable stress and concern. However, the safety and well-being of our gymnasts and professional staff remain our highest priority. We sincerely hope for safer and calmer days ahead, when we can focus solely on sport."
A source within the team told Fox News Digital on Saturday that the gymnasts have been moving between bomb shelters since Iran's counterstrikes began.
Israel's gymnastics team is considered one of nation's strongest Olympic programs alongside its Judo and sailing teams. The team is only a week removed from a successful trip at the Artistic Gymnastics World Cup in Germany, where the country's star Artem Dolgopyat won the gold medal in floor gymnastics.
Now, the team will have to seek safety until the attacks are over.
The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has directed all U.S. government employees and their family members to continue to shelter in place, either in or near their residences as Iran continues to fire missiles at Israel.
Additionally, the embassy announced that due to the security situation, it would be closed on March 2, and did not give an estimate on when it would be reopening. The closure includes consular sections in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
The embassy also said it is "not in a position at this time to evacuate or directly assist Americans in departing Israel." It noted that Ben Gurion Airport remains closed and there are neither commercial nor charter flights operating from the airport.
On Friday, ahead of the launch of Operation Epic Fury, the embassy gave all nonessential workers permission to leave Israel, with reports that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee urged those looking to leave to do so as soon as possible.
Iranian airstrikes killed at least eight Israelis on Sunday as Tehran's latest missile barrage landed just miles from Jerusalem.
The strikes landed in the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh. Initial reports said four people were killed when missiles landed in a residential area on Sunday, but that death toll rose to eight, according to Israel's national emergency service.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Iran's military has carried out counterattacks against Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East after a joint U.S.-Israeli strike killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday.
The strikes also killed several other top Iranian leaders, including the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Jackson Thompson is a sports reporter for Fox News Digital covering critical political and cultural issues in sports, with an investigative lens. Jackson's reporting has been cited in federal government actions related to the enforcement of Title IX, and in legacy media outlets including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press and ESPN.com.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
In 2021, Héctor Daniel Flores Hernández was reported missing. Two years later, his father, Héctor Flores, saw his son's image speak again. In a video generated through artificial intelligence technology, which digitally animated a still image and gave it a synthesized voice, the figure of Héctor Daniel Flores Hernández narrated the story of his disappearance — when he was 19 years old from his home in Guadalajara — and demanded that the authorities find him alive. Since then, his father has made the search for a way of life.
“I couldn't finish watching it the first time,” Héctor Flores said in an interview when the video was first produced. “It took me a while to process it. Seeing them with the last photo you have, saying what you know from investigations, is heartbreaking.”
The video was part of an initiative launched in 2023 by the collectives Luz de Esperanza and Alas de Libertad — groups of relatives of missing persons who organize to carry out searches, raise awareness of cases and demand justice — in the western state of Jalisco, to give a voice to the missing-persons notices about their relatives. Flores, a co-founder of Luz de Esperanza, said that the initiative continues and that “it is a perfect tool not only for the search but also to raise awareness and try to create empathy.”
Disappearances are all too common in Mexico, a country that has recorded more than 132,000 missing people since the National Registry of Disappeared and Unlocated Persons of the Secretariat of the Interior began keeping track in 1964. Human Rights Watch reports that the government has not taken sufficient measures to prevent disappearances or punish those responsible.
President Claudia Sheinbaum has acknowledged that most disappearances are linked to organized crime, and Amnesty International notes that the problem can be attributed to overall violence and insecurity. There is no complete official data set on the specific causes of all disappearances; the national registry includes data on past disappearances committed by the authorities against leftist groups and guerrillas, but the figures are mostly from recent years, when the fight against criminal organizations intensified.
In March 2025, Sheinbaum's government announced an array of new initiatives to respond more quickly to disappearances, to treat disappearances as seriously as known kidnappings, to make statistics more available and to improve assistance to victims.
The video initiative, meanwhile, is part of a new generation of projects that have turned to AI or machine learning for help with the crisis. Universities, search collectives, other organizations and government authorities have developed and implemented AI to investigate missing persons, using techniques including database analysis, forensic identification or age-progression projections.
“The goal is that these tools be useful for entities that make up the national search system, such as prosecutors' offices, commissions, and the Semefo (Forensic Medical Services), to assist and facilitate the work of the people,” said Andrea Horcasitas, head of the Human Rights Program at Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City. The program is part of the Consortium for the Ethical Use of AI in the Search for Disappeared Persons, which was created in October 2025 with the aim of discussing the use of techniques for searching missing people in Mexico and reflecting on the responsible use of AI in this area.
The Public Policy Collaborative Solutions Laboratory (Lab-Co), a non-governmental organization based in Mexico, works on finding new solutions to problems of security, violence and access to justice in Latin America. The laboratory has developed three projects that incorporate artificial intelligence in the search for disappeared persons.
The first is IdentIA, a tool that uses AI to identify and classify photographs of tattoos on unidentified bodies, explained Thomas Favennec, the executive director of Lab-Co.
Users can search the files with text, using the words in a tattoo or a verbal description of one, or through image-based searches that compare photographs directly against a historical database of tattoos belonging to unidentified people.
“It doesn't matter the quality of the tattoo or the angle. This system works using a vector search and does not require the internet; no sensitive content is uploaded to the internet, which ensures that no one's information is compromised,” Ángel Serrano, Lab-Co's data and technology coordinator, said.
Serrano demonstrated how IdentIA conducts a tattoo search in a matter of seconds and enables cross-referencing with reports of missing persons.
This system was incorporated this week into missing-persons database systems in the state of Jalisco and is in the process of being implemented in the forensic services of Quintana Roo and Zacatecas.
Another of the lab's tools, Favennec said, is ContextIA, which makes it possible to process multiple unstructured documents from investigation files and extract clear data. ContextIA is capable of answering specific queries with direct quotes and page references; extracting particular data such as phone numbers, license plates and coordinates; and, as its name suggests, cross-referencing cases in the context of different databases.
The third tool allows for the analysis of names in a structured and more powerful manner, allowing users to find matches in different databases where names may be written in different ways. Favennec said that, to date, it has been applied to identified deceased persons who have not been claimed.
“Families don't know this happens, and it is complicated because there is an issue with databases that do not intersect,” he said. “There's a challenge in finding the family. So what we have developed is something that allows for these comparative analyses between the situation of missing persons and the records of forensic services in different states across the country.”
The initiatives are part of a project called “Building Alliances for the Search for Disappeared Persons and Human Identification,” funded by the European Union and the British Embassy through the Frontier Tech Hub initiative.
Horcasitas, from the Universidad Iberoamericana, points out that some prosecutors' offices are already using a tool called ImageBox, which cleans up the images of the faces of people found in the morgue or the Forensic Medical Service and the Institute of Expert and Forensic Sciences of Mexico City, to aid in the identification of individuals.
“This prevents people from being forced to look at heartbreaking photographs, which obviously have psychosocial impacts on anyone who has to go through morgue catalogs,” she said.
The Mexico City Prosecutor's Office has used the “inpainting” technique, which uses artificial intelligence to fill in, restore or remove selected parts of an image, allowing damaged areas to be added or repaired with realistic results. With this, authorities carry out reverse searches, issuing a bulletin to find the person's family.
CNN contacted the capital's Prosecutor's Office for more details, but so far has not received a response.
The Regresa Project, developed by researchers from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), seeks to generate an image of how a child who disappeared years ago would look today, to help their families find them.
When a person disappears, the standard search protocol is based on the most recent photo available. Children and adolescents who are not quickly located may not be recognized in the medium and long term, due to the speed at which their faces and bodies change and mature.
Led by Ana Itzel Juárez Martín, PhD in anthropology from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the initiative, which is still a pilot program, combines AI tools with knowledge and techniques from physical and social anthropology.
The program's algorithm is designed to carry out age progression using photos of missing children to determine what they would look like at age 5, 15 or 30. It could also be used to show what a current adult looked like in childhood.
Official figures count more than 118,000 minors aged 17 and under reported missing between 1964 and September 2025. A 2022 report from the Network for Children's Rights in Mexico points out that in the case of missing minors, recruitment networks may integrate them into organized crime or draw them into sexual exploitation and trafficking.
Juárez Martín explained that the goal of the Regresa Project is to train the algorithm to learn the natural biological growth of the face, specifically guided by facial shapes and growth patterns commonly found among people in Mexico.
“Although there are already some image banks for research use, there are none solely of the Mexican population,” she said. “So this algorithm would be the first of its kind and would be trained to identify the variability that exists among Mexicans, for example, the type of nose, thickness of lips, shape of eyes and eyebrows.”
In a country where, according to the organization Causa en Común, 41 people disappear every day, it is important to have tools that assist and facilitate the search for missing persons throughout the country.
What's next is to keep looking for gaps or holes where certain processes need to be made more efficient. “We are waiting to see how these artificial intelligence tools operate, to see if they work, the improvements that need to be made, and also to understand what the workflow is within the organizations that make up the National Search System,” said Horcasitas.
Favennec pointed out that the implementation of AI in search and location processes has been well received by groups and authorities, but added that it is necessary to know that the technology “is not magic, it helps to process information faster and better…In a crisis where so many things are mixed in so many different ways, what is needed is collaboration.”
© 2026 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
The House is set to vote this week after the U.S. and Israel launch joint strikes on Iran. Fox News' Madeleine Rivera reports the latest and Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C., also weighs in on the operation during 'Fox News Live.'
Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine promised to force a vote on a war powers resolution to bar further prosecution of the war against Iran. Republicans such as Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., have joined in the call to bar further hostilities. These members are certainly within their rights to call for such resolutions, and the Framers wanted such debates to occur in Congress. However, it is too late to make this cat walk backwards.
While there are good-faith reasons to oppose the commencement of the attacks, the United States is now in close combat with Iran. Drafting a war powers resolution at this stage would be nearly impossible without putting U.S. personnel and allies at risk.
Rep. Thomas Massie questions Attorney General Pam Bondi before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Feb. 11, 2026. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty)
The Constitution divides war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declares that "the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states." However, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, only Congress may declare wars.
The result has been over two centuries of conflicts between presidents and Congress. Presidents are clearly authorized to respond to threats to national security by commencing military operations. Past presidents, including Democrats such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have asserted the unilateral power to attack other nations when they believe that combat is warranted by national security.
The War Powers Act was the response of Congress to try to curtail such unilateral authority. Overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon, Congress mandated that presidents must consult with them and cease all combat operations within 60 days if Congress has not approved the use of force. Presidents, and some academics, have long argued that the WPA is unconstitutional in part or in whole.
Sen. Tim Kaine speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 6, 2025. (Bill Clark/Getty Images)
Now to the current conflict. The 60-day period is likely ample for what President Donald Trump is planning for Iran since he has ruled out putting American boots on the ground in the conflict. That is why Kaine, Massie and others are moving to cut off authorization immediately.
The problem is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are now launching a full-fledged attack with thousands of missiles against the United States, its assets and its allies around the world. It has also declared that the key Strait of Hormuz is now closed – potentially choking off 20% of the world's oil reserves.
KAINE WANTS TO REIN IN TRUMP'S WAR POWERS, BUT NEVER DID THE SAME FOR BIDEN, OBAMA
So how are these members going to draft a War Powers Resolution?
The WPA requires that:
"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."
JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE
Kaine and others insist that hostilities were not imminent when we attacked. Even if that were true, they are now. We are in a full engagement with Iran with mounting injuries and destruction. All threats are now imminent and all attacks are arguably preemptive.
The War Powers Act specifically allows for the use of force in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Those attacks are now occurring.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Getty Images)
In these circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to limit the war powers of the president without putting American personnel or allies at risk. After decapitating the leadership in Iran, Iranian assets are clearly operating under prior orders in a decentralized structure. That means that the United States must neutralize any and all assets that they can find in preemptive attacks while trying to further degrade the command structure of the Iranian government.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IRAN WARNING IS SERIOUS — BUT AMERICANS NEED THE FULL FACTS
Is Congress going to require the United States to only act responsively, rather than preemptively, to attacks? That would be absurd from an operational standpoint.
The most a resolution could demand is the cessation of hostilities once imminent threats are removed. That would be practically meaningless given the fact that hostilities will continue so long as the current Iranian government remains in power. Both the IRG and de facto Iranian leader Ali Larijani pledged that they are now unleashing every asset against the United States and its allies. Larijani declared, "They stabbed heart of the nation, their heart will be stabbed too."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
The other problem with the resolution is the glaring disconnect for Democrats from their silence in the face of Democratic presidents using the same claimed inherent authority as Trump.
Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked the capital city of Libya and that country's military assets without any imminent threat to the United States. Many of the current members were entirely silent. After calling for the rescission of the broadly interpreted 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Biden then claimed that same authority to launch his own attacks on Iraq and Yemen.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The choice now for Democrats is either a senseless or suicidal resolution. It can either resolve to end hostilities as soon as practically possible (an objective already stated by the administration) or it can actually seek to limit the administration's options amid full-fledged war.
In other words, Trump (like some of his predecessors) has boxed in Congress. Presidents are allowed to initiate hostilities, and Congress will not end them by limiting our options. The choice is now to finish or flee the battlefield.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
He is the author of the new book "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution" (Simon & Schuster, Feb 3, 2026), on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.
He is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal history to the Supreme Court. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals.
Professor Turley also served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, former cabinet members, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients.
Professor Turley testified more than 50 times before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues, including the Senate confirmation hearings of cabinet members and jurists such as Justice Neil Gorsuch. He also appeared as an expert witness in both the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
The Wei Mountain Temple displays its “10,000 Buddha Relics” every Lunar New Year. Monks bless devotees with shariras – objects culled out from the cremated ashes of Buddhist masters and the Buddha himself – by holding them over people's heads. (AP Video by Krysta Fauria)
Buddhist practitioner and disciple of Master YongHua, Sarah Kim, shows the Fragrant Oil Shariras among other Buddhist relics displayed at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Buddhist resident monks perform a blessing to devotees and visitors at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Devotee Sandra Chen meditates at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
A Buddha's tooth relic is displayed at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Buddhist relics, including shariras and bones believed to be those of the Buddha, are displayed at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Buddhist resident monks perform a blessing to devotees and visitors at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Buddhist relics, including the Shakyamuni Buddha Finger Bone, left, are displayed at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
A Buddha statue is displayed outside at Wei Mountain Temple, in Rosemead, Calif., Saturday, Feb. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
ROSEMEAD, Calif. (AP) — Katherine Nguyen stood with hands folded and head bowed at the altar of a Buddhist temple in Southern California.
Before her were tooth and finger bone relics believed to belong to Shakyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism who is said to have attained enlightenment in India about 2,500 years ago.
“To be able to see the Buddha, to get close to him and feel the energy — it's very special for a Buddhist,” Nguyen said.
Every Lunar New Year, the Wei Mountain Temple in Rosemead, California, publicly displays what it calls the “10,000 Buddha Relics,” though the actual number contained in several glass display cases and miniature stupas or reliquaries is far larger, according to the temple's founder, Master YongHua.
The collection prominently features bones and teeth believed to have come from the bodies of the Buddha, his relatives and disciples. It also includes numerous shariras — colorful pearl- or crystal-like objects said to have been culled from the cremated ashes of Buddhist masters and the Buddha.
Relics in Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are venerated as links to the saints or Christ, while Buddhist relics are primarily seen as living, active sources of blessings imbued with supernatural qualities. It's believed they can appear on their own, grow or even multiply, which is how Buddhists often explain the mystery of why there are so many spread across the world. Relics of the Buddha or revered monks are typically enshrined in a stupa — a sacred, dome-shaped monument that Buddhists also use for meditation and pilgrimage.
At the Rosemead temple, the teeth and finger bone relics are significantly larger than those in the average human body. YongHua said that's because they have “grown” over the years. The tooth relic, he said, produces “baby shariras,” the multicolored crystals believed to have multiplied and filled several containers in their exhibit.
Most Buddhist sects acknowledge the spiritual significance of relics even if some teachers have tried to shift the focus to Buddha's teachings that emphasize mindfulness and kindness. Relics can be found in every country where Buddhism has a deep history: India, Japan, Myanmar, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand. In temple and monastic settings, the authenticity of these items is rarely questioned; spiritual leaders avoid subjecting them to scientific tests over worries that it might strip them of what makes them extraordinary.
Over the years, there have been many reports of fake tooth and bone relics as well as manufactured acrylic shariras flooding markets in Asia and online shopping platforms, often sold with falsified authenticity certificates.
Singapore's Buddha Tooth Relic Temple and Museum houses a tooth relic said to have been recovered from the Buddha's funeral pyre in a giant stupa fashioned from 705 pounds (320 kilograms) of gold. That relic came under scrutiny in 2007 after dental experts pointed out that the 3-inch (7.5 centimeter) tooth's characteristics were incompatible with the dimensions of a human tooth and most likely belonged to a cow or a buffalo. The temple's abbot, the Venerable Shi Fazhao, said at the time that he had never questioned its authenticity and “if you believe it's real, it's real.”
YongHua says the main purpose of the relics donated to the Rosemead temple about 14 years ago by a collector is to inspire faith. He has no doubts about their ethereal nature.
“I have seen them multiply with my own eyes,” he said. “They move on their own, they levitate. ... I've seen people get cured of various ailments just by being in their presence.”
John Strong, professor emeritus of religion at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, wrote the book “Relics of the Buddha” in 2004. He said the earliest accounts of Buddha's funeral are found in Pali texts dating from about the 2nd century B.C.E. Later commentaries describe the relics that came out of the Buddha's ashes as glittering jewels — some as small as mustard seeds and others resembling gems or golden nuggets.
Theories abound about what generates these relics and why, Strong said, adding that they do serve the important purpose of connecting Buddhists to the Buddha, who is “essentially absent” because he became enlightened and liberated from the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation.
Geshe Tenzin Zopa, a Tibetan monk and educator, said relics are “the most precious, most sacred, most powerful holy objects in our understanding.” As a young monk in Nepal, he believes he saw his teacher, Geshe Lama Konchog — who was recognized as a realized yogi by the Dalai Lama — generate relics as his body was being cremated. The guru died in October 2001.
Zopa said he observed pearl-like relics popping out of the crematorium “like popcorn.” He said senior monks advised that the structure be sealed and left undisturbed for three days. When they returned, disciples found hundreds of relics and to their shock, the guru's intact heart, tongue and eyes, Zopa said.
“I'd never seen anything like that in my life. It was truly a miracle,” he said. It's widely believed the relics later multiplied; most are enshrined in a memorial stupa at Kopan monastery in Nepal.
For students of yogis, looking for relics in cremains is not a morbid fascination, but an act of unshakeable faith and an expectation that their guru would leave behind a message — a physical sign of their spiritual realization, Zopa said. They're not easy to produce either.
“We believe that the relics are left behind due to the kindness of these holy gurus for the sake of us sentient beings to collect merit and purify ourselves,” Zopa said. “One has to make very strong and extensive prayers and preserve pure morality for many lifetimes in order to create the causes that produce relics.”
In Southern California, at the U.S. headquarters for the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist order, the Venerable Hui Ze explained that their founder, Venerable Master Hsing Yun, taught his followers not to solely focus on relics.
“Our venerable master emphasized Humanistic Buddhism — how we can bring Buddha's teachings into our daily lives with good thoughts, words and actions,” said Hui Ze. “He instructed us that relics should not distract us from the path to liberation.”
The order's headquarters in Taiwan houses a Buddha tooth relic gifted to Hsing Yun by a lama, Kunga Dorje Rinpoche, who carried the sacred object as he fled Tibet in 1968 and safeguarded it for three decades. Hui Ze said he was moved by the relic the moment he saw it.
“I had this really intimate experience and felt like I had connected with the Buddha who was here 2,600 years ago, and that connection is priceless,” he said.
Hsing Yun had instructed disciples not to look for relics in his ashes. He died Feb. 5, 2023, at age 95. Following the master's cremation, his disciples sifted through the cremains and found several colorful, pearly relics.
But in deference to the master's wishes, they've been left in the ashes to be spread across the order's dozen centers across five continents.
Hsing Yun's ashes containing the relics will be enshrined in the Southern California headquarters during a ceremony on March 21.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in massive US and Israeli strikes on Saturday, President Donald Trump said.
Trump has indicated the ongoing military operation is aimed overturning Tehran's government. Khamenei led Iran with iron fist for decades.
In response, Iran launched an unprecedented wave of strikes on US military bases, Israel and targets in other countries across the Middle East.
© 2026 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
The American Culture Quiz is a weekly test of our unique national traits, trends, history and people — including current events and the sights and sounds of the United States.
This week's quiz highlights airport accolades, soda sensations — and much more.
Can you get all 8 questions right?
Give it a try and see how you do!
CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIES
To try your hand at more quizzes from Fox News Digital, click here.
Also, to take our latest News Quiz — published every Friday — click here.
American Culture Quiz! How well do you know this week's topics? (Getty Images; iStock)
Kelly McGreal is a production assistant with the lifestyle team at Fox News Digital.
A look at the top-trending stories in food, relationships, great outdoors and more.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Sandinista soldiers walk amid the debris after shooting down a supply plane of the U.S.-backed rebels in Loma El Arenal, Nicaragua, on Jan. 24, 1988. (AP Photo/Mario Tapia, File)
South Vietnamese rebel troops take up positions in the yard of the presidential palace, residence of President Ngo Dinh Diem, in Saigon, Vietnam, Nov. 1, 1963. Diem and his brother Nhu escaped the coup but were captured in the aftermath of the overthrow. (AP Photo/Horst Faas, File)
Residents look at the damage caused by a U.S. air strike in the village of Deh Sabz, north of the Afghan capital Kabul on Oct. 10, 2001. (AP Photo/Amir Shah, File)
Barely an hour after the first U.S. and Israeli missiles struck Iran, President Donald Trump made clear he hoped for regime change. “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny,” he told the Iranian people in a video. “This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”
Doesn't sound complicated. After all, with Iran's fundamentally unpopular government weakened by fierce airstrikes, some of its top leaders dead or missing and Washington signaling support, how hard could it be to overthrow a repressive regime?
Possibly very hard. So says history.
Washington has a long, complicated past when it comes to regime change. There was Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, and Panama in 1989. There was Nicaragua in the 1980s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after 9/11, and Venezuela just weeks ago.
There was also Iran. In 1953, the CIA helped engineer a coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected leader and gave near-absolute power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But as with the shah, who was overthrown in Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution after decades of increasingly unpopular rule, regime change rarely goes as planned.
Attempts to usher in U.S.-friendly governments often start with clear intentions, whether hope for democracy in Iraq or backing an anti-Communist leader in Congo at the Cold War's height. But often those intentions stumble into a political quagmire where democratic dreams turn into civil war, once-compliant dictators become embarrassments and American soldiers return home in body bags.
That history has long been a Trump talking point. “We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change,” he said in 2016.
“In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders' wrecked far more nations than they built,” he said in a 2025 speech in Saudi Arabia, deriding U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The “interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
Now, after Saturday's actions, a key question emerges: Does today's U.S. government understand what it's getting into?
Iran's economy is in shambles and dissent remains strong even after a brutal January crackdown on protests left thousands of people dead and tens of thousands under arrest. Many of the nation's key military proxies and allies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad government in Syria — have been weakened or eliminated. And early Sunday, Iranian state media confirmed Israel and the United States had killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The United States hasn't laid out a postwar vision and doesn't necessarily even want a complete overthrow of the Iranian leadership. As in Venezuela, it may already have potential allies in the government willing to step into a power vacuum.
“But there's a lot that needs to happen between now and a possible scenario along these lines,” said Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that is deeply critical of the Iranian government. “There needs to be a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such, and that they will need to work with the United States.”
In a country where the core leaders are deeply united by ideology and religion, that may be extremely difficult.
“The question to my mind right now is have we been able to penetrate the ranks of the regime that are not true believers that are more pragmatic,” Schanzer said. “Because I don't believe that the true believers will flip.”
It's simply too early to know if — or how much — the political winds are shifting in Tehran. The leaders who come next could turn out to be equally repressive or seen domestically as an illegitimate U.S. stooge.
“We'll see whether elements of the regime start moving against each other,” said Phillips O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “Air power can damage a leadership,” he said. “But it can't guarantee that you'll bring in something new.”
In Latin America, Washington's history of intervention in goes back a long way — to when President James Monroe claimed the hemisphere as part of the U.S. sphere of influence more than 200 years ago.
If the Monroe Doctrine began as a way to keep European countries out of the region, by the 20th century it was justifying everything from coups in Central America to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. Very often, historians say, that intervention led to violence, bloodshed and mass human rights violations. Therein, they say, lies a lesson.
Direct U.S. involvement has rarely “resulted in long-term democratic stability,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the London think tank Chatham House. He points to Guatemala, where U.S. intervention in the 1950s led to a civil war that didn't end for 40 years and left more than 200,000 people dead.
Or there's Nicaragua, where backing of the Contra rebels against the Sandinista government in the 1980s contributed to a prolonged civil conflict that devastated the economy, caused tens of thousands of deaths and deepened political polarization.
While large-scale, overt U.S. involvement in the region mostly petered out after the Cold War, Trump has rekindled the legacy.
Since assuming office last year, Trump launched boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, ordered a naval blockade on Venezuelan oil exports and got involved in electoral politics in Honduras and Argentina. Then, on Jan. 3, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan strongman leader Nicolás Maduro, flying him to the U.S. to face drug and weapons charges.
What followed in Caracas may signal what the White House hopes will happen in Tehran. Many observers thought the U.S. would back María Corina Machado, who has long been the face of political resistance in Venezuela. Instead, Washington effectively sidelined her and has repeatedly shown a willingness to work with President Delcy Rodríguez, who had been Maduro's second-in-command.
“There are those who could claim that what we did in Venezuela is not regime change,” said Schanzer, at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The regime is still in place. There's just one person that's missing.”
___
Tim Sullivan has reported from more than 35 countries for The Associated Press since 1993. Danica Kirka in London and Eléonore Hughes in Rio de Janeiro contributed to this report.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Undermining this moment of relief for many repressed Iranians is that killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a perilously simple fix to a very complex problem.
Khamanei's rule was marked by mismanagement, and ultimately ended with one of the more brutal episodes of his trademark repression – the violence his regime meted out to keep power.
His removal has sparked celebrations in Tehran, as well as 40 days' official mourning and huge pro-regime crowds – but also a struggle for what remains of the regime to work out what comes next.
Israeli officials have hinted the strike was expedited to exploit a daylight window of opportunity when senior Iranian leaders met. And US President Donald Trump appears to have reached again for the Venezuela playbook, suggesting he had a successor in mind – as he did after the capture of Nicolás Maduro, anointing deputy leader Delcy Rodriguez as his preferred interlocutor.
When asked late Saturday, Trump notably declined to say who he thought would play that role in this case. Soon, though, Tehran will have to announce a succession plan.
But Iran is absolutely not as persuadable as Venezuela has been so far.
For 47 years, a theocracy has turned into an autocracy and kleptocracy. A large proportion of the country's more than 90 million people rely on the regime for their livelihood, and a minority have blood on their hands from helping it repress dissent.
When the Assad regime in nearby Syria collapsed in late 2024, its security forces had been hollowed out – and its economy ravaged – by years of civil conflict. Iran's security forces have just had a refresher course in the power of savagery, as they put down January's uprising.
The US and Israel seem united in their assessment that removing the top layer of Iran's regime will leave them in a better place.
As well as Khamenei, defense minister Aziz Nasirzadeh, head of the Iranian Security Council Ali Shamkhani, and commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Mohammad Pakpour were all killed in a matter of hours. This is a security elite just recently reconstituted after the decimating of June's 12-day war.
But history lacks good examples of air campaigns that have easily toppled regimes and led to replacements that the attackers preferred.
Hardliners will race to fill the void, simply to survive. They may be reluctant to be next in the US-Israeli crosshairs, but that fear has not led to a shortage of candidates in the past. Is it possible a consensus emerges that, to endure, the autocracy must make peace with the US and the region, and feign moderation for a while?
Perhaps. But that risks projecting the weakness Tehran is so allergic to.
There is no easy replacement government-in-opposition-on-a-box that Trump can promote.
Reza Pahlavi, heir of the long-deposed shah, cannot swan into Tehran and pick up the reins without risking an angry IRGC trying to kill him. There is no opposition really left inside Iran. As in Caracas, any solution will likely have to come from inside the remnants of the regime.
In many ways, missteps by Khamanei have made the US and Israel's job easier. His repression and economic mismanagement mean Iran is in desperate and self-evident need of change, his people yearning to be freer and richer.
His clear orders to retaliate so ferociously to these strikes – carried out, it seems, posthumously – have enraged most of the region, hitting neighbors who had urged the US to back away from strikes, now livid that their civilians have come under Iranian missile and drone attack. Iran seems to keep making itself weaker, but it does not stop.
A momentous risk now is fracture; that no single faction wins out, and patchwork violence and celebration split Iran, leading to a collapse that destabilizes not only the nation, but the region.
Trump's limited attention span and allergy to protracted military involvement simply reinforce this risk. The president lacks the political capital at home, the preparation of his electorate for war, or the resources in theatre to fight this battle for months.
He has also kept his goals slim and achievable. Iran's nuclear program, its missiles, and its ability to harass the US, he can claim, have taken another huge hit. Trump never explicitly declared regime change was his goal – he simply encouraged it. He can declare victory at a moment of his choosing, regardless of what it means for Iran's future.
The superior technology, intelligence and firepower of the United States and Israel enabled them to conjure a swift and simple solution to their enduring Iran problem. But it has yet to address the glaring and perhaps insurmountable complexities of Iran that have kept it a thorn in the United States' side for half a century.
© 2026 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app on Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download the CNN app from the Apple Store.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst reports an 'incredibly powerful explosion' as Iran continues its ballistic fire against Israel, saying an Israeli official confirmed 40 top Iranian leaders were also killed.
Former NCAA and Team USA women's basketball player Destiny Littleton shared footage Saturday of her experience fleeing Iranian counterstrikes in Israel.
Her documentation concluded with a panicked scene of her and other civilians shouting in fear as drones flew overhead. Littleton, who won a national championship at South Carolina under coach Dawn Staley in 2022, and a gold medal for the U.S. in the 2017 FIBA 3x3 U18 World Cup, currently plays for Hapoel Jerusalem in Israel's top division.
She posted footage on her Instagram Saturday updating followers as she fled to a local bomb shelter when Iranian counterattacks began to strike Israel.
After the U.S. and Israel carried out a round of military strikes on Iran, the country responded with ballistic missiles and drones targeting cities including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Former South Carolina guard Destiny Littleton was in Israel when Iran launched a counterattack against the country, sending her scrambling for shelter. (John Byrum/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
Littleton was nearly caught in the crossfire.
Sirens could be heard in her video as she fled the shelter, and at one point she even aimed her camera at what appeared to be missiles flying through the air.
In one video, she struggled to find the shelter as sirens blared in the background.
"Trying to find the saferoom, but I can't find it," she said, in a panicked voice as she scrambled through an empty alleyway. "Jesus Christ, I don't think this is the right… I don't think this is the right way."
As she walked down an outdoor stone staircase, bombs exploding in the distance could be heard in the background, as she yelled, "Oh s---!"
Shortly after that, she posted a video announcing she had left the shelter and was going to a teammate's house after feeling "uncomfortable" in the shelter she had just found.
"That B-O-M-B shelter I was just in, couldn't fit five people, and that was it, I was like, ‘no, no, no, no,'" she said.
Littleton eventually reached her teammate's high-rise apartment building, where she revealed she had heard several recent explosions.
"I heard the booms all over," she said while showing an overview of the Jerusalem skyline.
An explosion caused after Iran launched missiles into Israel following strikes on Tehran, in Tel Aviv, Saturday. (Reuters/Gideon Markowicz)
Then, in her final video of the night, Littleton appeared frantic and sweaty, as she revealed explosions nearby.
"There's no siren going on right now, and yet there's these things in the sky blowing up! I'm pretty sure they're either missiles or drones! Either way, we've seen them blow up in the sky, multiple of them, very very close to us actually!" she exclaimed.
"I'm not really sure what it is… Jesus Christ."
Littleton and those around her then became more frantic as another apparent drones appeared nearby.
"Over there! Over there! Over there! Over there! Over there!" she shouted, before turning her camera around to show what appeared to be a drone flying nearby the building she was in. "I'm pretty sure that's not a star."
Just then, five other drones came into frame, and an explosion was seen going off in the distance.
"I think those are freaking drones bro!"
The entire room then erupted into a loud panic as a drone flew over the building they were in, as she turned the camera upwards to reveal the weapons.
"Oh s---!" Littleton shouted.
Another civilian nearby screamed, "Guys! Guys! What the f---!"
ISRAEL LAUNCHES PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST IRAN, DEFENSE MINISTER SAYS
Israeli firefighters work to put out a fire on a car at the site of a projectile impact in Tel Aviv, Saturday. (Reuters/Tomer Appelbaum)
The drone went on to land and exploded a far distance from her location, as seen in her footage.
Littleton and the group were later seen in the footage leaving the apartment and heading to a bunker, as she appeared visibly rattled, sweaty and overwhelmed, massaging her head, sighing.
Littleton has not posted a follow-up post at the time of publication.
Staley said Saturday that the university is working to bring Littleton and two other players home amid the chaos, alongside WNBA veteran Tiffany Mitchell and former Phoenix Mercury forward Mikiah Herbert Harrigan.
"Please pray for our @GamecockWBB @TiffMitch25 @2121Mikiah @dstnylttltn24 who are in a war zone in Israel," her post said. "We are working on a plan to get home. Let us pray for our loved ones to return home safely asap! Thank you in advance."
The U.S. joined Israel in launching strikes against Iran on Saturday morning. In video remarks posted to Truth Social, President Donald Trump encouraged the Iranian people to take over their government once the United States and Israel finished "major combat operations" in Iran.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes targeting U.S. sites throughout the Middle East. Fox News reported that approximately 40 missiles had landed in Israel.
Fox News Digital's Paulina Dedaj, Michael Sinkewicz and Rachel Wolf contributed to this report.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Jackson Thompson is a sports reporter for Fox News Digital covering critical political and cultural issues in sports, with an investigative lens. Jackson's reporting has been cited in federal government actions related to the enforcement of Title IX, and in legacy media outlets including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press and ESPN.com.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
SAN ANTONIO — Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) is everywhere in Texas and showing he's working, leaving his supporters unbothered by his lack of attendance in Washington.
Hunt has missed 69 out of the 158 votes in Congress since launching his uphill campaign to unseat longtime Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Yet, even as the lack of attendance is mocked by opponents, Hunt points to the fact that the time away from Washington has allowed him to visit more than 45 out of Texas's 254 counties and host over 50 events.
“We don't have $100 million, sweat equity is what matters,” Hunt told the Washington Examiner in an interview. “Getting in the car and driving, driving hours and hours with a hard-working team that cares about the success of this campaign, cares about the future of Texas and the future of this country, that's how you make a big difference and so I think on Tuesday, people will be very surprised at how well we do.”
Hunt, 44, walked into the Angry Elephant on Saturday afternoon in San Antonio, marking his first of two events in the area that day. The second-term congressman was met by enthusiastic voters at the bar.
.@WesleyHuntTX walks into a rally only a few days out from a tough primary. Read a related story here: https://t.co/kzzwyXhxgj pic.twitter.com/VyMbtZm0pY
Hunt spoke on his experience in the military, his faith, cracked jokes, and even addressed attack ads that have been plastered across Texas targeting him for missing votes in Washington.
“Do you know how many votes JD Vance missed when he was running for vice president? All of them,” Hunt explained. “Do you know how many votes Tim Scott missed when he was running for president? 150, the third most in the history of the Senate. This is what is required to get your voice out, you have to miss some votes to do it.”
When the Washington Examiner asked rallygoers how they would describe Hunt, two sentiments were repeatedly echoed: ”honest” and “patriotic.”
“He doesn't give canned answers,” 51-year-old Stacey Pierce told the Washington Examiner. “To every question here, he gave a little bit of his personality with it, he told us off-the-cuff-type remarks, funny or not funny.”
Hunt has increasingly been targeted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee after he jumped in the already competitive race between Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
The longtime Texas senator, who has missed one vote this year, repeatedly bashed Hunt on social media over his missed votes in Washington. Cornyn's campaign even launched a website titled “Where's Wesley Hunt” earlier this year to mock the congressman's poor attendance in a Where's Waldo Style.
“You can find something bad on everybody,” 61-year-old Al Guadagno told the Washington Examiner when asked about the attack ads on Hunt's voting record. “You're not always going to agree with everything each individual does, but we have a good feeling about him, and I just think he just comes across as a genuine individual. I like his family values, so I think he's going to do the right thing, and I think it will be voting on the right side when it really matters.”
DEMOCRATS' AGE DEBATE COMES FOR AL GREEN IN COMPETITIVE TEXAS HOUSE PRIMARY
Hunt was born and raised in Houston, where he later attended the United States Military Academy at West Point before serving eight years in the Army as an Apache helicopter pilot. In his tour of Iraq, Hunt flew 55 combat air missions, and took part in two deployments to Saudi Arabia as a diplomatic liaison officer.
Voters across the state will head to the polls Tuesday, March 3 for the last day of voting in the state before Hunt's fate is sealed. With three major candidates in the race, it is expected to go into a run-off with the top two candidates, where they will then face each other again at a May 26 runoff election.
President Donald Trump revealed that he has a potential leader in mind for Iran after strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei was killed on Saturday after Israel struck his compound, ending his 36-year reign and leaving the regime in disarray as it moves to appoint a successor while joint U.S. and Israeli strikes continue.
With that decision expected to be made soon, Trump was asked in an interview late Saturday if he has a preference over whoever the Islamic Republic chooses.
“Yes, I think so,” Trump responded. “There are some good candidates.”
He also said he knows “exactly” who is running Iran after Khamenei's death, but declined to divulge who that is.
Trump's comments come as he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu floated regime change as the first strikes began overnight.
While no candidate has emerged over the past day, former crown prince Reza Pahlavi has been leading the opposition and has previously stated he would lead any transition government.
Trump, however, has been noticeably hesitant about endorsing Pahlavi, whose family ruled Iran before the 1979 revolution, and it is unclear if a transition to democracy is possible for Iran.
Pahlavi himself suggested in the wake of Khamenei's death that the Islamic Republic was over. He said it will “very soon be consigned to the dustbin of history” and predicted any successor to the former ayatollah is “doomed to fail.”
READ IN FULL: TRUMP ADDRESS ON IRAN OPERATION
For now, a three-member council will assume power in Tehran. That includes Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who was also targeted by Israel but survived, Chief Justice Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi, and one Islamic cleric.
Iran's Assembly of Experts, which is composed of 88 elected Islamic clerics, will then meet to elect a new supreme leader.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that U.S. and Israeli airstrikes reportedly killed Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.
Amir Saeid Iravani told the United Nations Security Council Saturday that hundreds of civilians were killed and wounded in the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes.
Ambassador Danny Danon told reporters ahead of an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council that Iran is responsible for escalating actions by its proxies and its nuclear and missile programs, and “now Israel and the U.S. act to prevent an irreversible and immediate threat.”
At an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Saturday, James Kariuki, Chargé d'Affaires, at the UK Mission to the UN, said the United Kingdom “played no role in the strikes against Iran.”
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attends the opening of the 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Monday, Feb. 23, 2026. (Valentin Flauraud/Keystone via AP)
Follow live updates as the U.S. and Israel launch an attack on Iran.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States and Israel clashed with Iran at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Saturday where the U.N. chief and many countries urged a halt to their attacks and a return to negotiations to prevent the conflict from spreading further into the region and beyond.
Secretary-General António Guterres told the council that everything must be done to prevent an escalation. “The alternative,” he warned, “is a potential wider conflict with grave consequences for civilians and regional stability.”
Guterres said the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes violated international law, including the U.N. Charter. He also condemned Iran's retaliatory attacks for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, insisted the U.S. military action was lawful.
“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he told the council. “That principle is not a matter of politics. It's a matter of global security. And to that end, the United States is taking lawful actions.”
Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon defended the airstrikes as necessary to stop an existential threat.
“We are stopping extremism before it becomes unstoppable,” he said. “We will ensure that no radical regime armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles can threaten our people or the entire world.”
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the U.N., told the council that the airstrikes have killed and injured hundreds of Iranian civilians, which he called a war crime and a crime against humanity.
He blasted the U.N. and the Security Council, its most powerful body, for not heeding Tehran's warnings about the “warmongering statements” by the U.S. in recent weeks and urged the council to act now.
“The issue before the council is straightforward: whether any member state may, including a permanent member of this council, through the use of force, coercion or aggression, determine the political future or system of another state or impose control over its affairs,” Iravani said.
During his speech, the Iranian diplomat did not mention or comment on President Donald Trump's statement that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the strikes, although Iranian state media later confirmed his death. The assassination of the second leader of the Islamic Republic, who had no designated successor, raised the prospects of a protracted conflict given Iranian threats of retaliation.
In a rare exchange, the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors traded warnings and direct rebuffs toward the end of the emergency session as military aggression between their countries risked spilling into a regional war.
After Waltz responded to Iranian claims that the U.S. had violated international law, Iravani asked to speak again to issue a warning: “I advise to the representative of the United States to be polite. It will be better for yourself and the country you represent.”
Waltz responded immediately, saying, “This representative sits here, in this body, representing a regime that has killed tens of thousands of its own people, and imprisoned many more, simply for wanting freedom from your entire tyranny.”
Russia's ambassador condemned the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, while China's ambassador was more measured in his criticism.
“We demand that the United States and Israel immediately cease their aggressive actions,” Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said. “We insist on the immediate resumption of political and diplomatic settlement efforts … based on international law, mutual respect and a balance of interests.”
China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong said China was very concerned by “the sudden escalation of regional tensions” and supported Russia's call for a return to diplomatic negotiations.
The permanent observer of the 22-nation Arab League, Maged Abdelaziz, suggested Israel was being hypocritical in justifying its military attack by saying it was intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Abdelaziz, a former Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., noted that Israel has refused to subject its own nuclear facilities to inspection by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
The emergency meeting was called by five council members: Bahrain, which is the Arab representative on the council, France, Russia, China and Colombia,.
In a joint statement, the leaders of Britain and France — both veto-wielding members of the council — along with Germany's chancellor called for a resumption of U.S.-Iranian talks on Tehran's nuclear program. The three countries, part of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, have led efforts to reach a negotiated solution. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018.
The three European leaders strongly condemned Iranian airstrikes in the region — not the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes — and urged Iran's leaders to seek a negotiated solution, saying: “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future.”
The Security Council meeting is taking place on the last day of the United Kingdom's presidency and a day before the United States takes over the rotating presidency for the month of March.
___
Amiri reported from Atlanta.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
President Donald Trump holds up a fist after disembarking Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Fla., Friday, Feb. 27, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, center, leaves an event titled “International Conference in Support of Palestinian Intifada,” in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 21, 2017. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi, File)
People who support the U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran, rally near the White House, Saturday Feb. 28, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Follow live updates as the U.S. and Israel launch an attack on Iran.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — With Saturday's military operation against Iran, President Donald Trump demonstrated a dramatic evolution in risk tolerance, adjusting in just a matter of months how far he was willing to go in using American military might to confront Tehran's clerical rule.
Guardrails were tossed aside, as Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered up a battle plan that included targeted strikes on Iran's leadership, including the 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei whose death Trump triumphantly announced in a social media post hours after launching the military operation.
For Trump, it was a far cry from where he stood just eight months ago. At Israel's urging during its 12-day war with Iran last June, he agreed to deploy B-2 bombers to pummel three key Iranian nuclear sites — but drew a bright red line when Israelis presented his administration with a plan for killing Khamenei.
The president peppered the supreme leader with thinly veiled threats back in June that he could have killed him if he wanted to. But he rejected the Israeli plan out of concern that it would destabilize the region.
That caution was set aside on Saturday with Trump announcing Khamenei had been killed, while the Israeli military announced it had taken out Iran's defense minister and the commander of its Revolutionary Guard. Iranian state media early Sunday reported the 86-year-old Supreme Leader's death, without elaborating on a cause.
Khamenei “was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do,” Trump said. “This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country.”
Trump had pursued talks with Iran for months. Administration officials told reporters that they offered Iran many ways to have a peaceful nuclear program that could be used for civilian purposes, including an offer of free nuclear fuel in perpetuity.
But the officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was clear to them that Iran wanted enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. One of them said that Iran has met their offers with “games, tricks, stall tactics.”
The order to launch strikes came just two days after Trump dispatched his special envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, for another round of talks with Iranian officials. Middle East and European allies were urging the U.S. administration to give negotiations more time as Trump signaled he was running out of patience.
“The consequences are likely to be as far-reaching as they are uncertain: Within the system that has held power for nearly five decades, between the government and a dissatisfied populace, and between Iran and its adversaries,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. “And although the regime is weakened, a sense that this showdown is an all-or-nothing struggle for its very survival could lead it to respond with every tool still at its disposal.”
Saturday's strikes came after a series of past provocative actions against Iran that resulted in limited blowback, which seemed to inform Trump's risk calculation, said Aaron David Miller, who served as an adviser on Middle East issues to Democratic and Republican administrations over two decades.
Trump in 2018 pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Democratic President Barack Obama's administration. In 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike killing top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
At the time, the killing of Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, was arguably the most provocative U.S. military action in the Middle East since President George W. Bush launched the 2003 Iraq War to topple Saddam Hussein.
And then Trump this past June ordered the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, which he claimed had “obliterated” their program.
“He did all of these things without cost or consequence to him,” said Miller, who is now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “He's been risk-ready. That's the nature of his personality.”
Trump administration officials had publicly urged Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and end its backing of regional armed proxies. But administration officials said that Tehran would not engage on the missile and proxy concerns.
Iran's rigidity, at a moment when its economy is in shambles weighed by decades of sanctions and its military battered by last year's war, astounded Trump.
Even before the latest round of talks ended on Thursday, there were signs Trump was leaning toward military action.
On Tuesday, Trump in his State of the Union speech claimed that Iran has been building ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S. homeland — a justification that he repeated again on Saturday as he announced the bombardment of Iran was underway.
Iran hasn't acknowledged it is building or seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, however, said in an unclassified report last year that Iran could develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that Iran's refusal to speak to its ballistic missile program was a “big problem.” Rubio declined to address the DIA finding that Iran was still years away from developing a missile that could reach the United States.
And Vice President JD Vance, a former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq and has been skeptical of U.S. interventions, on Thursday told The Washington Post that Trump hadn't decided whether to strike Iran. But he offered assurances that military action would not result in the United States becoming involved in a drawn-out conflict.
“The idea that we're going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight — there is no chance that will happen,” Vance said.
By Friday, Trump was venting anew about Iran's approach.
“I'm not happy with the fact that they're not willing to give us what we have to have,” Trump said. “I'm not thrilled with that. We'll see what happens.”
Senior U.S. lawmakers were told early Saturday that the strikes were coming. Trump monitored the operation from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, with members of his national security team.
Trump's success with the U.S. military operation earlier his year to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and whisk him and his wife to New York City to face federal drug conspiracy charges also may have emboldened the president, said Jonathan Schanzer, a former Treasury Department official who is now executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
Trump had threatened military action last month, but held off, as Iran carried out a deadly crackdown on protests. The demonstrations were spurred by economic grievances but morphed into a nationwide, anti-government push against the ruling clerics.
As human rights groups reported that thousands were killed in the Iranian crackdown, Trump told protesters that help was on its way, but it did not immediately come and the protests petered out.
Schanzer said that Trump's decision not to follow through last month gave his team more time to assemble the now massive presence of fighter jets and warships in the region — as he had done in the Caribbean ahead of the Venezuela operation.
It was leverage, Trump hoped, that would get Khamenei to blink. But the Supreme Leader would not capitulate.
“The way this unfolded was inevitable, because there was no way that the Ayatollah was going to show flexibility,” Schanzer said.
___
Madhani reported from Washington.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz tells an emergency U.N. session that, as a matter of global security, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and that the United States is taking lawful action to that end.
FIRST ON FOX: A major public policy nonprofit co-led by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush praised President Donald Trump for ordering Saturday's military strikes against Iran.
United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI) — was formed in 2008 by Ambassador Mark Wallace, who held a United Nations-centered post in Bush's brother's administration, and former George H.W. Bush diplomat Dennis Ross — to combat threats posed by the Islamic Republic.
The group has been on the front lines of highlighting Iran's human rights abuses and attacks on Americans and advising policymakers and the business community about dangers posed by Tehran.
The organization counsels existing and would-be commercial partners of Iran regarding the legal, financial and reputational risks of that kind of commerce.
"UANI salutes the courage and professionalism of American and Israeli service members carrying out this historic mission against the Iranian regime," Bush and Wallace told Fox News Digital Saturday.
Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, left, and Jeb Bush take part in a presidential debate at the Reagan Library Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
"We applaud President Trump for his courageous decision to launch this military operation. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has unleashed terror, violence and misery — against its own people and across the region — while threatening the United States, Israel and our allies."
Bush, who ran against Trump in a bruising 2016 primary, and Wallace noted that many presidents tried to bring Iran into the "peaceful community of nations" but were not able to finish the job.
"This president engaged extensively and in good faith to achieve a diplomatic solution," they said after Trump indicated as recently as last week he wanted to negotiate terms.
"The regime chose escalation and continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The responsibility for this moment rests squarely with Ayatollah Khamenei."
Khamenei, 86, was declared dead by Israeli sources by late afternoon.
Bush and Wallace added it was clear the joint American-Israeli operation was directed not at Iran, the country and citizenry, but at Khamenei's "lethal capabilities."
The Iranian people, they said, have long suffered under repression and that Trump's message since the strikes began is one that should be embraced by all Americans: "We aim to see Iran free, prosperous, and at peace. This is their time to take their great country back."
"The Butcher of Tehran is dead," Bush and Wallace added in a separate public statement.
ICE NABS IRANIAN NATIONAL WITH RAPE, SODOMY CONVICTIONS AFTER VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CURB COOPERATION
Bush added in a statement on X that "Operation Epic Fury marks a historic mission against the Iranian regime."
"We salute the courage and professionalism of American and Israeli service members and commend for his courageous decision," he added.
Bush's relationship with Trump has appeared to warm since their bitter feuds of a decade ago.
During the 2016 sweeps, Trump nicknamed the Republican Party scion "Low Energy Jeb," while Bush quipped that the mogul would not be able to "insult your way to the presidency" after the eventual victor mocked an ad that former first lady Barbara Bush filmed for her son.
While governor, Bush made improving public education a hallmark of his administration in Tallahassee. Bush implemented stricter proficiency standards in elementary education and signed what was dubbed the "A+ plan," making Florida the first state to require clear letter grades on student performance.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
He recently praised the Trump administration's overtures toward universal school choice and federal block grants as a "transformational opportunity."
"The Trump administration has a chance to shift the power dynamic back to the states, where policymakers are uniquely equipped to understand and address the diverse needs of their students, schools, and communities," he added in a column in Education Week.
Charles Creitz is a reporter for Fox News Digital.
He joined Fox News in 2013 as a writer and production assistant.
Charles covers media, politics and culture for Fox News Digital.
Charles is a Pennsylvania native and graduated from Temple University with a B.A. in Broadcast Journalism. Story tips can be sent to charles.creitz@fox.com.
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
In this article
Travelers are stranded as far away as Australia, Brazil and the Maldives after the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran this weekend. With airspace in the region still closed, getting home could be a challenge at least several days.
Here's what to know:
Around 3,000 flights have been cancelled since the conflict in Iran began Saturday and subsequent attacks by Iran continue to impact other parts of the region, according to aviation-data firm Cirium.
Airspace was closed over a large swath of the Middle East, suspending flights to and from Dubai International Airport, one of the busiest hubs in the world, Tel Aviv, and Doha, Qatar. More than 40 flights were forced to divert early Saturday morning after the attack prompted airspace closures in the region.
That means customers connecting through major hubs in the region are also affected, with vacationers, business travelers, and other flyers stranded around the world.
That remains unclear. As of 11:30 a.m. ET, regional airspace closures continue to affect flights. Airlines will have to reposition their aircraft, which are spread out around the world.
For example, the Airbus A380s, the largest passenger airplanes in the world, that Etihad operates are located in several cities, including London, Paris, Toronto and Singapore. Four are on the ground at its base in Abu Dhabi, Flightradar24 said Sunday. However, Etihad was starting to reposition aircraft at its Abu Dhabi hub, should airspace reopen.
Qatar Airways has one A380 at its Doha base, while others are in Sydney, Bangkok and elsewhere.
Israeli airline El Al paused ticket sales and said its priority over the coming weeks will be to ensure ticket-holding travelers can return home.
Airlines have all issued waivers for affected destinations.
Major carriers are also likely to add extra flights once airspace reopens to accommodate the surge in demand.
The State Department didn't immediately comment on its plans, but special flights were added around the world to get travelers home when the Covid-19 pandemic began in 2020.
Standard travel insurance policies generally don't cover events that have already happened or developed, whether it's a military strike or a hurricane. Travelers would need to have purchased a more expensive option called "cancel anytime" insurance that allows them to do just that.
—CNBC's Contessa Brewer contributed to this article.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
Honor on Sunday showed off the capabilities of its Robot Phone as the Chinese electronics firm looks to stand out from some of its bigger rivals like Samsung and Apple.
The company, which spun off from Huawei in 2020, also launched the Magic V6, its latest foldable smartphone, as part of its event at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona on Sunday. In addition, Honor teased a humanoid robot, but with very few details.
The releases come against the backdrop of the ongoing shortage and unprecedented price surge of memory chips, which is expected to see device makers increase prices and strain demand for smartphones in 2026.
Honor first teased the Robot Phone in October. It features a camera on a robotic arm that pops out of the main body of the device. For those into video work, it looks like it's inspired by the Osmo product line from Chinese dronemaker DJI.
The camera, which is powered by a small motor, can lock onto an object or person and track it as it moves. A user can talk to Honor's AI assistant, and the camera can then respond with a yes or no answer by nodding.
Honor said it aims to make the phone commercially available in China in the second half of the year.
The Robot Phone shows how companies like Honor are looking to stand out in a sea of similar-looking smartphones and give users a compelling enough reason to upgrade or switch from their current device.
The device is expected to be expensive and continues Honor's push into the high-end area of the market where it is looking to challenge the likes of Samsung and Apple, particularly in overseas markets like Europe.
In China, Honor ended the year as the sixth-biggest smartphone player with a market share of just over 13%, according to Counterpoint Research. But it's a much smaller player overseas, where it is trying to establish a brand presence. Its market share in Europe in 2025 was 3%, according to Omdia research.
Honor entered the list of the top five biggest players in the region for the first time at the end of the year, though its gains have been fueled largely by sales of its lower-priced devices.
Francisco Jeronimo, a vice president for data and analytics at IDC, told CNBC the launch was more of a "marketing push" to create a buzz around the brand as it looks to build market share outside of China.
"There is some novelty to it and they need that kind of innovation to show their capabilities," Jeronimo said. "It will drive everyone's attention. Whether it translates to sales when they launch it, it will be a hard sell, especially if it is a high price or bulky phone."
While Samsung dominates the foldable smartphone category with its Galaxy Z Fold line of devices, Honor is trying to make inroads into the premium segment with its foldable V series of devices, featuring ultra-thin batteries.
The Honor Magic V6 launched on Sunday is 8.75 mm thick when closed, the company said, which is smaller than the 8.8 mm to 9 mm size of its predecessor. That is the same thickness as an iPhone 17 Pro Max.
The Honor Magic V6 features one of the biggest batteries in a smartphone on the market and is equipped with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 Mobile Platform, one of the U.S. firm's latest processors.
The Magic V6 will go on sale in China in March, followed by international markets in the second half of the year. The company has not yet disclosed pricing.
Meanwhile, Honor teased its first humanoid robot on stage at its MWC launch event. While few details were provided about the device, it shows how Chinese companies in particular, are expanding into the field of robotics. Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi, for example, has developed its own humanoid robot called CyberOne. Meanwhile, electric carmaker Xpeng also has its own humanoid robot model.
A plethora of Chinese companies have developed humanoid robots with analysts expecting the country to ramp up production of the devices this year.
Honor's robot will focus on providing shopping assistance, workplace inspections, and supportive companionship, the company said Sunday.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
As the business world comes to grips with artificial intelligence, the biggest risk may be one where those running the economy can't possibly stay ahead. As AI systems become more complex, humans aren't able to fully understand, predict, or control them. That inability to understand at a fundamental level where AI models are going in the coming years makes it harder for organizations deploying AI to anticipate risks and apply guardrails.
"We're fundamentally aiming at a moving target," said Alfredo Hickman, chief information security officer at Obsidian Security.
A recent experience Hickman had spending time with the founder of a company building core AI models left him shocked, he says, "when they told me that they don't understand where this tech is going to be in the next year, two years, three years. ... The technology developers themselves don't understand and don't know where this technology is going to be."
As organizations connect AI systems to real-world business operations to approve transactions, to write code, to interact with customers, and move data between platforms, they are encountering a growing gap between how they expect these systems to behave and how they actually perform once deployed. They are quickly discovering that AI isn't dangerous because it's autonomous but because it increases system complexity beyond human comprehension.
"Autonomous systems don't always fail loudly. It's often silent failure at scale," said Noe Ramos, vice president of AI operations at Agiloft, a company that offers software for contracts management.
When mistakes happen, she says, the damage can spread quickly, sometimes long before companies realize something is wrong.
"It could escalate slightly to aggressively, which is an operational drain, or it could update records with small inaccuracies," Ramos said. "Those errors seem minor, but at scale over weeks or months, they compound into that operational drag, that compliance exposure, or the trust erosion. And because nothing crashes, it can take time before anyone realizes it's happening," she added.
Early signs of this chaos are emerging across industries.
In one case, according to John Bruggeman, the chief information security officer at technology solution provider CBTS, an AI-driven system at a beverage manufacturer failed to recognize its products after the company introduced new holiday labels. Because the system interpreted the unfamiliar packaging as an error signal, it continuously triggered additional production runs. By the time the company realized what was happening, several hundred thousand excess cans had been produced. The system had behaved logically based on the data it received but in a way no one had anticipated.
"The system had not malfunctioned in a traditional sense," said Bruggeman. Rather, it was responding to conditions developers hadn't anticipated. "That's the danger. These systems are doing exactly what you told them to do, not just what you meant," he said.
Customer-facing systems present similar risks.
Suja Viswesan, vice president of software cybersecurity at IBM, says it identified a case where an autonomous customer-service agent began approving refunds outside policy guidelines. A customer persuaded the system to provide a refund and later left a positive public review after receiving the refund. The agent then started granting additional refunds freely, optimizing for receiving more positive reviews rather than following established refund policies.
These failures highlight the fact that problems don't necessarily come from dramatic technical breakdowns but from ordinary situations interacting with automated decisions in ways humans didn't foresee.
As organizations begin trusting AI systems with more consequential decisions, experts say companies will need ways to quickly intervene when systems behave unexpectedly.
Stopping an AI system, however, isn't always as simple as shutting down a single application. With agents connected to financial platforms, customer data, internal software, and external tools, intervention may require halting multiple workflows simultaneously, according to AI operations experts.
"You need a kill switch," Bruggeman said. "And you need someone who knows how to use it. The CIO should know where that kill switch is, and multiple people should know where it is if it goes sideways."
Experts say better algorithms won't solve the problem. Avoiding failure requires organizations to build operational controls, oversight mechanisms, and clear decision boundaries around AI systems from the start.
"People have too much confidence in these systems," said Mitchell Amador, CEO of crowdsourced security platform Immunefi. "They're insecure by default. And you need to assume you have to build that into your architecture. If you don't, you're going to get pumped."
But, he said, "most people don't want to learn it, either. They want to farm their work out to Anthropic or OpenAI, and are like, 'Well, they'll figure it out.'"
Ramos said many companies lack operational readiness and often don't have fully documented workflows, exceptions, or decision-making boundaries. "Autonomy forces operational clarity," she said. "If your exception-handling lives in people's heads instead of documented processes, the AI surfaces those gaps immediately."
Ramos also said companies often underestimate how much access teams are granting AI systems in the belief that automation feels efficient, and that edge cases that humans handle intuitively often aren't encoded into systems. You need to shift from humans in the loop to humans on the loop, she said. "Humans in the loop review outputs, while humans on the loop supervise performance patterns and detect anomalies and system behavior over time, mitigating those small errors that can increase at scale," she said.
The pace of deployment of the technology across the economy is among the unknowns.
According to a 2025 report by McKinsey on the state of AI, 23% of companies say they are already scaling AI agents within their organizations, with another 39% experimenting, though most deployments remain confined to one or two business functions.
That represents early enterprise AI maturity, according to Michael Chui, a senior fellow at McKinsey, and despite intense attention around autonomous systems, a large gap between "the great potential that manifests in a 'hype cycle' and the current reality on the ground," he said.
Yet companies are unlikely to slow down.
"It's almost like a gold rush mentality, a FOMO mentality, where organizations fundamentally believe that if they don't leverage these technologies, they are going to be put into a strategic liability in the market," Hickman said.
Balancing speed of deployment with the risk of losing control is a critical issue. "There's pressure among AI operations leaders to move really quickly," Ramos said. "Yet you're also challenged with not crippling experimentation, because that's how you learn."
Even as risks grow, expectations for the technology continue to rise.
"We know these technologies are faster than any human will ever be," Hickman said. "In five, 10, or 15 years, we're going to get to a place where AI is fundamentally more intelligent than even the most intelligent human beings and moves faster."
In the meantime, Ramos says there will be a lot of learning moments. "The next wave isn't going to be less ambitious, but more disciplined." The organizations that are going to mature the fastest, she says, are going to be the ones that don't avoid failure but learn to manage it.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
In this article
Fears about AI-led disruption in sectors like software and financials, along with geopolitical tensions, continue to impact the U.S. stock market. Despite the ongoing volatility, investors seeking enhanced returns can bolster their portfolios by adding attractive dividend stocks.
In this regard, insights from top Wall Street analysts can help investors shortlist stocks of dividend-paying companies that have the ability to consistently generate strong cash flows to support dividends.
Here are three dividend-paying stocks that are highlighted by Wall Street's top pros, as tracked by TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
Midstream energy company Williams (WMB) is this week's first dividend pick. The energy infrastructure provider recently increased its quarterly dividend by 5% to 52.5 cents per share. At an annualized dividend of $2.10 per share, WMB stock offers a yield of 2.84%.
Impressed by the company's recently held Analyst Day event, Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith reiterated a buy rating on WMB stock and increased his price target to $81 from $78. Interestingly, TipRanks' AI Analyst is also bullish on WMB stock with an outperform rating and a price target of $75.
Smith believes that given Williams' push into behind-the-meter (BTM) power generation, the company is no longer just a traditional pipeline and gathering & processing (G&P) midstream operator. The 5-star analyst is confident about the company's ability to generate about a 12% to 13% EBITDA CAGR (compound annual growth rate) through 2030, with over 10% growth potential through the early 2030s.
In particular, Smith's optimism about the durability of Williams' growth is backed by the potential for longer-term contracts for the company's Power Innovation business and new announcements. The analyst highlighted extended contracts on Apollo/Aquila projects, an actionable 6 GW of unsanctioned Power Innovation backlog, and a $15.5 billion Transmission "shadow" backlog (pipeline of potential projects).
"Taken together, we do not see WMB as facing a 'cliff' beyond 2030," said Smith. The analyst argues that WMB's valuation framework needs rethinking as the company is moving back to transmission, making its earnings and growth profile similar to a higher-growth industrial company than a conventional midstream operator.
Smith ranks No. 519 among more than 12,100 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 65% of the time, delivering an average return of 10.1%. See Williams Statistics on TipRanks.
Another dividend-paying energy stock in this week's list is MPLX (MPLX). It is a diversified, large-cap master limited partnership (MLP) that operates midstream energy infrastructure and logistics assets and provides fuel distribution services.
With a quarterly cash distribution of $1.0765 per common unit ($4.31 on an annualized basis), MPLX offers a yield of about 7.4%.
Recently, RBC Capital analyst Elvira Scotto updated her estimates to reflect MPLX's fourth-quarter 2025 results and reaffirmed a buy rating with a price target of $60. TipRanks' AI Analyst has an outperform rating on MPLX with a higher price target of $63.
"We view MPLX as a compelling income play among large-cap MLPs, supported by an attractive current yield of nearly 8% and plans to grow further," said Scotto.
The 5-star analyst is bullish on MPLX as she believes that the company's asset footprint, with exposure to the Marcellus and Permian basins, ensures continued long-term growth opportunities. Scotto highlighted that MPLX plans to grow its distributions by 12.5% annually for the next two years. This plan is backed by the ramping of the company's growth projects through 2027 with mid-teens returns, which provides visibility into mid-single digit adjusted EBITDA growth in 2026 and 2027.
Scotto also believes that MPLX's strong balance sheet gives it financial flexibility to pursue opportunistic bolt-on acquisitions that align with its return criteria. The analyst noted that MPLX plans to direct $2.4 billion in growth capex in 2026, with 90% dedicated to Natural Gas and NGL Services in the Permian and Marcellus.
Scotto ranks No. 98 among more than 12,100 analysts tracked by TipRanks. Her ratings have been successful 72% of the time, delivering an average return of 15.5%. See MPLX Technical Analysis on TipRanks.
Energy Transfer (ET) operates 140,000 miles of pipeline and associated energy infrastructure. In January 2026, the company announced a quarterly cash distribution of 33.5 cents per common unit for fourth quarter 2025. At an annualized distribution of $1.34 per unit, Energy Transfer stock offers a yield of 7.21%.
Following the company's fourth-quarter 2025 results, Stifel analyst Selman Akyol reiterated a buy rating on ET stock with a price target of $23. In comparison, TipRanks' AI Analyst has a neutral rating with a price target of $20.50.
Akyol noted that Energy Transfer delivered fourth-quarter results in line with his expectations. The 5-star analyst highlighted that the company is experiencing robust demand for natural gas. He contends that while data centers are gaining headlines, the demand landscape extends much beyond that. Specifically, Akyol stated that ET is seeing demand for natural gas fueled by not only data centers but also utilities that are serving data center load.
The analyst mentioned that ET has started supplying the first of three data centers for Oracle (ORCL). Moreover, the company has struck a 20-year deal with Entergy Louisiana and has connected to three power plants in Oklahoma. It is also in advanced talks with another Oklahoma power plant.
The analyst is confident about Energy Transfer's ability to meet the rising demand, thanks to its strong natural gas footprint and storage capabilities. He added that ET's bidirectional Hugh Brinson pipeline will commence service in 2026 and is expected to be fully operational by early 2027.
Akyol ranks No. 131 among more than 12,100 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 73% of the time, delivering an average return of 13.8%. See ET Insider Trading Activity on TipRanks.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
In this article
(This is the Warren Buffett Watch newsletter, news and analysis on all things Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. You can sign up here to receive it every Friday evening in your inbox.)
In his first letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, new CEO Greg Abel didn't try to emulate Warren Buffett's folksy, conversational writing style.
He did, however, emphasize he won't be making major changes to the way the company has operated for decades under Buffett's leadership.
At the top of his letter, Abel called Buffett "arguably the greatest investor of all time," and acknowledged that "Warren is obviously a very hard act to follow."
Abel wrote that last month, he "sent a letter to our employees to emphasize that Berkshire's cultures and values remain unchanged and will continue into perpetuity."
"We are committed to strengthening the great legacy" built by Buffett and Charlie Munger, "ensuring it endures through our commitment to excellence."
Abel said Munger's comment at the 2021 annual meeting that "Greg will keep the culture" will "forever resonate with me" as a "reminder that our culture is our most treasured asset, a call to maintain what defines Berkshire, and a challenge to ensure our culture continues."
Any investors hoping Abel would be more specific about criteria for buybacks didn't get satisfaction.
His sentence on the subject could have been written by Buffett himself: "We will buy back Berkshire shares when they trade below our estimate of intrinsic value, conservatively determined, ensuring that repurchases enhance per-share value for continuing owners."
There were no buybacks during the fourth quarter, extending a streak that goes back to May 2024.
Abel also disappointed any shareholders hoping he might reverse Buffett's longstanding opposition to using some of Berkshire big cash pile to pay a dividend.
"Our approach to cash dividends continues to be that Berkshire will not pay dividends so long as more than one dollar of market value for shareholders is reasonably likely to be created by each dollar of retained earnings."
Abel vowed to maintain Buffett's "fortress-like balance sheet, ensuring Berkshire's foundation is never compromised."
Calling the cash Berkshire's "dry powder," he acknowledged there will "undoubtedly be incremental opportunities to deploy our owner's capital without compromising Berkshire's resilience. My role is to ensure our liquidity levels and capital deployment remain intentional and deliberate."
"Many times in Berkshire's history, some observers have suggested that our substantial cash position signals a retreat from investing. It does not. We continue to evaluate many opportunities and will remain patient and disciplined in pursuing the right ones for the benefit of our owners."
Berkshire's overall cash decreased 2.2% in the fourth quarter to $373.3 billion as of December 31.
Excluding BNSF's cash and subtracting T-bills payable, it increased 4.1% to $369.0 billion.
Operating earnings fell 29.8% from last year's fourth quarter, coming in at $10.2 billion. Insurance underwriting was down 54%, insurance investment income fell 25%, while BNSF gained 5.3% and manufacturing, service and retailing edged 3.3% higher.
Abel praised Ajit Jain's "judgment and disciple" over four decades but didn't provide any clues on who may ultimately succeed him as Berkshire's insurance chief.
He also gave no indication on whether Berkshire still plans to reduce or eliminate its stake in Kraft Heinz now that its new CEO shelved plans to split the company in two, saying only the return "has been well short of adequate."
Abel did confirm the responsibility for Berkshire's equity portfolio "ultimately resides with me as CEO," with Ted Weschler continuing to manage about 6% of the investments, including those previously overseen by Todd Combs who left in December for a new job at JPMorgan.
There will be some new faces joining the Q&A sessions at the company's shareholder meeting on May 2 in Omaha.
Abel and Jain will do the morning session as would be expected, but the afternoon session will include Abel, BNSF's Katie Farmer, and Adam Johnson, who runs NetJets and is president of consumer products, service, and retailing, a new position created late last year.
In an email to Warren Buffett Watch, Gabelli Funds portfolio manager Macrae Sykes praises Abel for covering all of Berkshire's major segments in the letter, saying he "showed humility" and "expressed clarity in communication and confidence in his role as the new CEO."
He also likes the inclusion of Farmer and Johnson in a Q&A. "Nice to see the delegation of communication responsibilities and emergence of leadership beyond Greg and Ajit."
Christopher Davis of Hudson Value Partners tells me we may be seeing "the first 'Abel Rule' added to the Berkshire playbook," a preference for immediate full control of private businesses it acquires.
He cites Abel's comment that while Berkshire first invested in Pilot in 2017, its ability to manage it was contractually delayed until 2023. "That mistake will not happen again."
Davis also thinks Abel saying the company may purchase large blocks of shares from major holders "when the opportunity presents itself," supports his thesis there will be a "very large buyback program" of Buffett's shares after he dies "as his children put the money to work in philanthropy."
One of the few analysts who covers Berkshire Hathaway is out with a detailed report on the company that includes a prediction its stock will rise by 10% to 12% each year over the next decade.
Barron's highlights the bullish forecast from Chris Bloomstran, the president and chief investment officer at Semper Augustus Investments.
He estimates Berkshire's intrinsic value gained 9.3% last year to reach $1.1 trillion, which works out to $855,396 per share for the A shares and $570 for the B shares. That's roughly 13% above their current prices.
Bloomstran believes Abel may be more aggressive with Berkshire's cash than Buffett has been.
"It's likely that Berkshire under Greg Abel's leadership will commit a large portion of today's outsized cash reserves at materially higher returns than are presently being earned on U.S. Treasuries."
Some links may require a subscription:
Warren Buffett explains why his successor, who he expected would come from within Berkshire, would not need any formal training.
AUDIENCE QUESTION: How do you train your successors? What do you tell them? How do you summarize to them what is important to you? ...
WARREN BUFFETT: We want managers to join us who believe in the sort of operation we have, a partnership with shareholders, a lifetime commitment to the businesses. We want those people to join us.
We want what they see after they join us to underscore the values we have. So everything we do we hope is consistent with what most people would call a "culture" at Berkshire.
So the written word, what they see, what they hear, what they observe. And that is training in itself.
It's the same sort of training you get as a child. I mean, you — when you are in the home and you're learning something every day by the behavior of these terribly important people, these big people that are around you.
And a home has a culture. A business has a culture. To some extent, a country can have a culture. And we try to do everything that's consistent with that. We try to do nothing that is inconsistent with that.
And, believe me, if you're a bright Berkshire manager — and they are bright — you know, they buy into it to start with, they see that it works, you know, and it doesn't require formal lessons or mentoring or anything of the sort.
I mean, if you talk to our Berkshire managers, you would find that they think consistently with how, in effect, Charlie and I think.
There are plenty of people that don't, and they don't join us...
The nice thing about it is our culture is so well-defined that there aren't many mistakes, in terms of people entering it or behaving in a way inconsistent with it.
So I think that — I don't think there's any formal training necessary...
CHARLIE MUNGER: At headquarters, we aren't training executives. We find them. And they're not hard to find.
You know, if a mountain stands up like Everest, you don't have to be genius to recognize that it's a high mountain.
Four weeks
Twelve months
BRK.A stock price: $757,000.00
BRK.B stock price: $504.95
BRK.B P/E (TTM): 16.15
Berkshire market capitalization: $1,089,124,099,188
Berkshire's top holdings of disclosed publicly traded stocks in the U.S. and Japan, by market value, based on the latest closing prices.
Holdings are as of September 30, 2025, as reported in Berkshire Hathaway's 13F filing on November 14, 2025, except for:
The full list of holdings and current market values is available from CNBC.com's Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker.
Please send any questions or comments about the newsletter to me at alex.crippen@nbcuni.com. (Sorry, but we don't forward questions or comments to Buffett himself.)
If you aren't already subscribed to this newsletter, you can sign up here.
Also, Buffett's annual letters to shareholders are highly recommended reading. There are collected here on Berkshire's website.
-- Alex Crippen, Editor, Warren Buffett Watch
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
In this article
OPEC+ has agreed in principle to a modest oil output increase on Sunday, five OPEC+ sources said, after the U.S.-Israeli strikes on OPEC+ member Iran and Tehran's retaliation led to shipment disruptions in the Middle East.
OPEC+ has a history of raising oil output to cushion disruptions, but analysts said the group currently has little spare capacity to add to supply, except for its leader, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who will also struggle to export oil until navigation in the Gulf returns to normal.
Riyadh has been raising oil production and exports in recent weeks in preparation for U.S. strikes on Iran, sources have told Reuters.
Oil, gas and other shipments from the Middle East via the Strait of Hormuz have come to a halt since Saturday after shipowners received a warning from Iran saying the area was closed for navigation.
OPEC+ has agreed in principle to raise production by 206,000 barrels per day after having debated options ranging from 137,000 bpd to 548,000 bpd, the five sources told Reuters on Sunday.
On Friday, Brent crude futures rose $1.73, or 2.45%, to close at $72.48 a barrel, the highest level since July, on fears of a wider conflict in the Middle East and supply disruptions through Hormuz, the world's most important oil route — amounting to over 20% of global oil transit. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude climbed $1.81, or 2.78%, to settle at $67.02.
Middle East leaders have warned Washington that a war on Iran could push oil prices above $100 per barrel, said veteran OPEC analyst Helima Croft at RBC. Analysts from Barclays also said prices could rise to $100.
Croft said the market impact of any large increase in OPEC output will be limited due to a lack of production capacity outside Saudi Arabia.
The meeting on Sunday involved only eight members of OPEC+ — Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria and Oman. OPEC+ is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, including Russia, but most production changes in recent years have been made by the eight members.
The eight members raised production quotas by about 2.9 million bpd from April through December 2025, roughly 3% of global demand, before pausing increases for January to March 2026 due to seasonal weakness.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
Every time Steve publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Enter your email
By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's
Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy.
The AI-driven job apocalypse is no longer a hypothetical.
Block CEO and cofounder Jack Dorsey gutted his fintech company, restructuring it into smaller, flatter teams built to move fast and embrace what he calls "a new way of working."
He put it bluntly: "we're not making this decision because we're in trouble."
That's the part rattling white-collar workers across Corporate America. If Dorsey's move wasn't about survival, what was it about? And what does that mean for everyone else?
As AI spreads, anxiety is rising. People are questioning what it means for their jobs.
Tech has been in its hardcore era for a while now. Companies have trimmed around the edges with rolling layoffs but have largely avoided massive sweeping cuts. And they've rarely blamed AI outright.
Dorsey did both. He cut nearly half his staff, from over 10,000 to just under 6,000. Then he made the strategy explicit: "we're going to build this company with intelligence at the core of everything we do."
A Block data analyst who was just laid off said he could see how AI was automating his work, and how it ultimately cost him his job. "It was definitely a 'whoa' moment when I realized just how powerful things had gotten," he told Business Insider in an interview.
Wall Street rewarded Dorsey's move, with Block shares surging 17% on Friday
Investors and analysts say this could be a turning point, opening the floodgates for other companies to take a similar approach.
"This is the first AI cut," Balaji Srinivasan, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, said in a post on X. "And it will send shockwaves."
Srinivasan said the Block cuts were a "signal to everyone in tech: get good now. Become indispensable. Work nights and weekends. Learn the AI tools and raise your game. Or you might not make the cut, as an employee or as a company."
Sure, plenty are skeptical about Dorsey's reasoning. As Dan DeFrancesco wrote on Friday, perhaps Dorsey is using AI as a cover. The company overhired during COVID, which Dorsey has acknowledged. Its stock price trades significantly below its pandemic highs (even including Friday's big rally).
But the details matter less than the vibes emanating from the cuts.
Matt Shumer, an AI CEO who wrote the viral "Something Big is Happening" essay a few weeks ago, said this is "one of the first major examples of AI driving layoffs, but certainly not the last."
"If you're saying 'this won't happen to me', re-evaluate your thoughts. Now," he wrote. "It may be the most important thing you do."
Do you think this is the beginning of an AI jobs apocalypse? Send me your thoughts at srussolillo@businessinsider.com.
Jump to
Travelers are in limbo as airport departure boards flip to red after air strikes in Iran resulted in closed airspace and triggered mass flight cancellations.
The heart of the chaos is in the Middle East, where airports in Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi serve as megahubs for global connecting traffic. As of Sunday, all flights in and out of Dubai International Airport — the world's busiest airport for international travelers — remain suspended until further notice. Passengers are being advised not to travel to the airport.
Data from the aviation analytics firm Cirium shows their home airlines — Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad Airways — carry a combined 90,000 transit passengers a day.
That figure does not include the thousands of travelers whose final destination is the Middle East.
The three major Middle Eastern airlines shared status updates on X on Sunday:
Emirates passenger Jaiveer Cheema, who was set to fly back home to the US on Saturday, told Business Insider that he was stuck on his plane for five hours with no food before everyone was deplaned and shuffled into the crowded terminal at Dubai International.
"The next several hours at the airport were chaos as no one knew what to do," he said. "We spoke to several security guards and Emirates employees, and they all gave us different answers."
Cheema said they stood in line after line until they eventually got a hotel voucher and took a bus to the lodging. He was still waiting for a room 90 minutes after arriving — it's after midnight in Dubai; nearly 20 hours after he initially showed up for his 9 a.m. flight.
While many passengers are stranded within the region's closed airspace, shuttered until further notice, the disruption has rippled far beyond it.
Flights to the affected region from places like London, Bali, Bangladesh, and the US have been canceled outright or diverted mid-journey — leaving travelers far from home in crowded airport terminals and uncertain when they will be able to depart.
Airlines have told passengers on social media to expect long wait times at airports and on customer-service phone lines as they try to manage the abrupt disruptions.
The sheer number of displaced people and planes is expected to snowball worldwide if airports are unable to restart operations soon.
Flight operations at the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport in Lebanon on Saturday.
Cheema spent hours in line but managed to secure a hotel voucher — though he had yet to secure a room when talking with Business Insider. He said he did not have answers from Emirates on what's next.
An Emirates spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Airlines are pivoting their operations in response to the strikes. Lufthansa Group said it is suspending flights to Beirut, Tel Aviv, Amman, Erbil, and Tehran until March 7.
"The following airspaces will also not be used until March 7: Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Iran," the aviation corporation said. "In addition, Lufthansa Group airlines will suspend flights to and from Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and Dammam until March 1. Furthermore, the airspace of the United Arab Emirates will not be used until March 1."
Passengers not in the region are still stuck as flights to the megahubs of Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi remain canceled through at least March 2.
The flights that diverted to places like Rome, Paris, Istanbul — and those that never took off — have left travelers far from home with uncertainty about when they'll depart.
The Tribhuvan International Airport shared a passenger advisory on Saturday, saying international flights "may be subject to delay, rescheduling, or cancellations" due to airspace restrictions.
The airport told passengers flying with major airlines — including Qatar Airways and Turkish Airlines — to coordinate with those companies to navigate travel issues.
Qatar, Emirates, and Etihad are the "Big 3" airlines of the Middle East and carry tens of thousands of passengers a day through their busy megahubs in Doha, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi.
The flight suspensions will have a significant impact on international travel.
Qatar's Hamad International Airport said all aircraft movement has been temporarily suspended due to the country's closed airspace.
"Our priority is always the safety of our passengers and employees. We are working closely with government stakeholders and airline partners to look after passengers that have been impacted," the airport wrote in an advisory.
Flights heading to the Middle East were also canceled at London Gatwick Airport in England on Saturday.
A London Gatwick Airport spokesperson told Sky News it's "expecting disruption to our Qatar and Emirates flights."
Are you a stranded traveler with a story to share? Contact the reporters at ledmonds@insider.com and trains@insider.com along with your preferred contact information.
Jump to
In this article
The U.S. and Israel launched their most aggressive attack ever on Iranian targets over the weekend that killed the Islamic state's longtime supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thrusting the region into a widening conflict as Tehran retaliates with air strikes across the Middle East.
Here's what we know so far as investors brace for impacts when markets open after the weekend.
Iran's state media announced Khamenei's death early Sunday.
Trump, making the biggest foreign-policy gamble of his presidency ahead of the mid-term election in November, called the killing "the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country."
Trump also warned on Truth Social that the "heavy and pinpoint bombing will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGH THE MIDDLE EAST AND INDEED, THE WORLD!"
The president had stated on Saturday that the aggressive strikes were aimed at ending a decades-long threat from Iran and ensuring it could not develop a nuclear weapon.
Iran retaliated with an unprecedented wave of strikes across the Middle East, targeting several nearby countries that host U.S. military bases, as well as Israel.
In Israel, sirens and mobile-phone warnings sent people rushing to air raid shelters as Iran launched a series of missile barrages that were mostly intercepted.
Blasts were reported in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, with footage showing people fleeing a smoke-filled passageway at Dubai International Airport.
Drone strikes have caused damage and injuries at Dubai International Airport and Zayed International Airport in Abu Dhabi.
It comes after the Iranian foreign ministry, in a statement Saturday, said the country "will not hesitate" in its response to the U.S.-led strikes. Separately, a spokesperson for Iranian armed forces reportedly warned that "we will teach Israel and the U.S. a lesson that they have never experienced in their history."
In a Truth Social post Sunday, meanwhile, Trump warned Tehran against further retaliatory moves, threatening to "HIT THEM WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE" if Iran continued to strike.
Investors are braced for risk-off trades once markets reopen after the weekend, with potential gains expected in so-called safe-haven assets like the U.S. dollar and gold, while equities could pull back.
Offering some indication of how markets could respond, on crypto-exchange Hyperliquid, which allows 24/7 trading, perpetual swap futures tied to oil jumped nearly 5% to $71.7 per barrel, while those for gold rose roughly 1.2% to $5,334 per troy ounce.
Bitcoin was rattled in the hours immediately after the bombing began on Saturday before recouping some of the losses to finish the day 1.8% higher at $66,725. The cryptocurrency slipped to $66,325 as of 4:48 a.m. EST on Sunday.
Oil market participants have been closely watching the conflict, which risks a major oil supply shock in the Middle East.
Bob McNally, a former White House energy advisor to former President George W. Bush, predicted crude future prices could rise by $5 to $7 per barrel when trading opens at 6 p.m. ET Sunday, if there is no sign of de-escalation.
Iran is the fourth-largest oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and could threaten to make the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea — unsafe for commercial traffic. This could see oil prices spike above $100 per barrel, McNally said.
More than 14 million barrels per day flowed through the Strait in 2025, or a third of the world's total seaborne crude exports. About three-quarters of those barrels went to China, India, Japan and South Korea. China, the world's second-largest economy, receives half of its crude imports from the Strait.
For markets, a key question is what comes next.
Standard Chartered's Global Head of Research Eric Robertsen said in a note that investors had already been underpricing geopolitical risk.
The U.S. dollar is only modestly weaker year-to-date, but the dispersion beneath the surface is telling: commodity-linked currencies are outperforming, he said, suggesting markets are paying for exposure to scarce resources and terms-of-trade winners.
Ben Emons of FedWatch Advisors argued that leadership strikes in Tehran raise regime-change tail risks and leave an uncertain endgame. Markets could swing between risk-on relief — if regime collapse removes the threat of oil blockades or nuclear escalation — and risk-off persistence if conflict drags on and supply disruptions intensify, he said.
The immediate pressure point may be energy. A sustained surge in crude prices would ripple quickly through inflation expectations and hit Asia's oil-importing economies hardest, analysts say.
As trading resumes, how oil prices and the U.S. dollar trade versus Asian currencies will be the first real signal of how seriously this shock is being priced in.
Airlines canceled hundreds of flights while dozens of others were rerouted mid-flight due to closed airspace over a large swath of the Middle East. Some services were paused until at least the end of next week.
Travel chaos spread as far as Brazil and Australia. Airspace closures also forced carriers to scrub flights that would normally transit the region.
More than 1,800 flights in and out of the Middle East countries were canceled on Saturday, according to aviation data firm Cirium, with another 1,400 flights in and out of the region were canceled for Sunday.
Qatar Airways said it was temporarily suspending all flights, while Dubai-based Emirates said service at Dubai International Airport, one of the world's busiest airports, was halted.
— CNBC's Spriha Srivastava, Spencer Kimball, Pippa Stevens and Leslie Josephs contributed to this story.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
In this article
The escalating conflict in the Middle East is fueling fears that Washington's pursuit of regime change in Iran, and Tehran's retaliation, could destabilize regions from the Gulf to Europe, leaving global leaders scrambling to assess the fallout.
Follow CNBC's live coverage of the U.S.-Israel strikes in Iran
The U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran over the weekend, killing the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, prompting waves of attacks by Tehran across the region.
President Donald Trump made it clear in a video message Saturday following the initial wave of U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran that his objective was "eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."
Geopolitical analysts warned that Saturday's strikes could be the opening salvo of a sustained military campaign aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime, with the U.S. seeking to assert dominance over the world's most critical oil-producing region.
"The scale of the strikes by the U.S. and Israel, along with the apparent goal of regime change in Iran, suggest the military conflict could escalate rapidly and unpredictably," said Rexon Ryu, President of The Asia Group, a business consultancy firm. "There is substantial immediate risk for regional and potentially global escalation, as Iran may now use any available option to respond."
"The previous strikes were targeted at the nuclear weapons program," said David Silbey, a professor of military history at Cornell University, referring to the 12-day war in June last year when the U.S. and Israel launched air strikes that damaged three key Iranian nuclear sites.
But "this one will be much broader, aimed at command and control, headquarters and leadership, and the military and secret police generally," said Silbey. "Since there doesn't seem to be a U.S. ground campaign in the offing, the goal is to get the regime overthrown domestically, either by a popular uprising or a palace coup."
Silbey warned that Iran could respond with retaliatory attacks, including missile strikes on Israeli and U.S. military bases and vessels in the Persian Gulf, as well as potential terrorist operations across the Middle East, Europe and the United States.
"If the regime feels threatened, it'll lash out harder than it would if it thought it could ride out the attacks," Silbey said.
The latest conflagration has already spread to other parts of the Gulf region. Iranian missiles targeted Israel and multiple Gulf states, including the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, all countries with air bases containing U.S. assets.
"Years of Iranian détente-building with the Gulf may be over," said Aysha Chowdhry, principal at The Asia Group.
Both Russia and China have offered statements condemning the U.S., and that will likely continue to be the case even as the situation escalates, but analysts say neither is in a position to give more meaningful material support.
China, a critical economic lifeline for Iran amid heavy Western sanctions, purchased more than 80% of Tehran's shipped oil in 2025, accounting for 13.5% of all crude China imported by sea. Iran has also been a vital supplier of military drones and missiles to aid Moscow's warfare efforts in Ukraine.
But years of grinding war in Ukraine have hollowed out Russia's capacity to project power beyond its borders, said Matt Gerken, chief geopolitical strategist at BCA Research.
With its military overstretched and its economy under sustained pressure from Western sanctions, Moscow's influence in the Middle East is set to diminish further, Gerken added.
But Beijing has refrained from coming out in strong support of Iran as Washington continued to build up its military presence in the Gulf in the lead up to the attack. Instead, it has focused on encouraging diplomacy and regional security.
Analysts are watching for potential signs of whether this latest Middle East conflict could risk derailing the U.S.-China diplomatic engagement and even President Trump's planned visit to Beijing later this month.
In a statement Saturday night, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry urged the U.S. and Israel to "immediately stop military actions" in the region and restore dialogues, calling for "respect of Iran's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity."
Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping discussed issues including Iran, Taiwan and trade in a phone call on Feb .4. "Beijing may seek concessions on issues more directly related to its interests, such as Taiwan and trade, in exchange for its significantly watered-down messaging on Iran," said Ahmed Aboudouh, a fellow at Chatham House, a London-based policy think tank.
A weakened Iran, paradoxically, may suit Chinese interests. "The weaker the Iranian regime gets, whether from U.S. or Israeli military strikes or domestic unrest, the more diplomatically, economically and technologically dependent on China it will become," said Aboudouh.
For the longer term, China will likely feel pressure to assert dominance in the region. "China will need to make a demonstration of power projection in its region to deter American military action and create a sphere of influence," though for now, oil supply vulnerabilities may limit its options, Aboudouh said.
The military actions appeared to have have, at least for now, shattered any remaining prospect of a negotiated settlement over Iran's nuclear program.
The U.S. and Iran had engaged in three rounds of indirect talks with a focus on reaching a deal on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and Washington lifting economic sanctions on the country.
With Iran's regime at a moment of "critical vulnerability," Washington and Jerusalem were unable to get guarantees of denuclearization and disarmament from Tehran and decided that they "could not afford to miss the opportunity to reshape the region," Gerken said.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
In this article
The death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sets in motion a formal succession process that could have significant implications for the country's political stability, sanctions outlook and already strained economy.
Khamenei was killed in a joint military strike by Israel and the United States, Iranian state media confirmed. At the time of his death, Khamenei, 86, was at his office within his residence, Iran's Fars News Agency said on Telegram.
He assumed power following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, inheriting a revolutionary state still consolidating itself after the Iran-Iraq war.
Khamenei was not seen as the obvious successor. He lacked the religious credentials required by the constitution at the time, Karim Sadjadpour, a policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted in his study on Khamenei.
Just months before Khomeini's death, the constitution was revised to state that the Leader needed only to be an expert in Islamic jurisprudence with political and managerial ability — a change that enabled Khamenei's elevation.
Over time, the office of the supreme leader consolidated authority over Iran's key institutions. While presidents changed through elections, Khamenei retained control over the military, judiciary, state broadcasting and major strategic decisions (Article 110).
Khamenei championed a "resistance economy" to promote self-sufficiency amid Western sanctions, remained wary of engagement with the West, and cracked down on critics who argued his security-first approach stifled reform.
His rule faced repeated tests. In 2009, mass protests over alleged election fraud were met with a harsh crackdown. In 2022, demonstrations erupted over women's rights. A serious challenge emerged in late December 2025, when economic grievances spiraled into nationwide unrest, with some protesters openly demanding the Islamic Republic's overthrow.
"Khamenei is dead. This is the best day of my life. This is a glorious day for Iran," said Masoud Ghodrat Abadi, an Iranian engineer now based in the United States who left Iran at age 27.
"I believe his death could mark the beginning of a new chapter in our nation's history ... In the long run, I hope this moment will prove transformative," he told CNBC.
Similar sentiment surfaced across social media platforms following his death, where Iranians were shown to take to the streets, celebrating, according to the New York Times.
However, analysts warned that jubilation does not equal transformation.
"Taking out Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not the same as regime change. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is the regime," the Council on Foreign Relations noted following his passing, limiting the prospects for immediate political or economic transformation.
The death of Khamenei ushers in only the second leadership transition since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a moment that the CFR described as historically significant but deeply uncertain in its outcome.
While some Iranians have expressed hope that a leadership change could ease repression and economic isolation, the CFR said the most likely succession outcomes do not suggest meaningful political or economic liberalization in the immediate aftermath of a transition.
"Leadership change in Iran could take three primary trajectories—regime continuity, military takeover, or regime collapse," the CFR reported. However, the think tank warned that none of these near-term scenarios envisage a positive transformation in the year or so after transition.
In a continuity outcome, essentially "Khamenei-ism without Khamenei," investors and households may still face uncertainty because a new leader would need to "learn on the job" while trying to shape economic policy with limited resources and intensifying strains.
Even a shift toward firmer military dominance wouldn't mean economic reform: CFR suggests a security-led model might talk up stability and economic management, but would still struggle against what it calls a "deeply distorted economy" with "persistent inflation and a collapsing currency."
Marko Papic, chief Strategist of Clocktower Group, echoed a similar stance: "The Iranian economy is soon to be a parking lot unless the next Supreme Leader is more amenable to negotiating with the U.S."
If the Supreme Leader is replaced by another hardliner who does not want to negotiate with the U.S. and who continues the attacks against the region, then U.S. military operations will become punitive and "Iran will return to the Medieval Age," he said.
Keith Fitzgerald, managing director at Sea-Change Partners, framed it more bluntly.
"Killing Khamenei is not, in itself, 'regime change.' Think of it as changing a light bulb: To change it, you must first remove the broken bulb that was there. But doing so is not changing the bulb. That requires replacing it with a new one," he wrote in a note.
Additionally, the Iranian opposition in exile remains fragmented and lacks unified leadership, said Ali J.S., a former strategic intelligence analyst at the NATO Joint Warfare Center.
Importing a political figurehead from abroad, whether a restored monarchy or another alternative "has limited credibility on the ground and risks repeating past experiments with parachuted elites that ended badly elsewhere," she said.
Iran's opposition in exile is diverse but deeply fragmented. It includes monarchists aligned with Reza Pahlavi, the U.S.-based son of the late Shah who was exiled after the 1979 revolution; republican and secular-democratic activists dispersed across Europe and North America; Kurdish opposition groups operating along Iran's western borders; and the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), which maintains an organized political network abroad but has limited credibility inside Iran.
Got a confidential news tip? We want to hear from you.
Sign up for free newsletters and get more CNBC delivered to your inbox
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about our products and services.
© 2026 Versant Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Versant Media Company.
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes.
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data
and Analysis.
Data also provided by
Some of the world's most congested airspace has been disrupted by the US and Israel's strikes on Iran.
Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar have all closed their airspaces. Dubai International Airport, the world's busiest airport for international traffic, has suspended all flights until further notice.
A video shared by Flightradar24 showed airplanes deserting the region on Saturday morning.
Airspace clearing after strikes by the United States and Israel in Iran. pic.twitter.com/Oub4T6SrkF
Data from the aviation analytics firm Cirium shows that about 1,600 of the roughly 4,000 scheduled flights to the region have been canceled as of 1:00 p.m. Central European time Sunday. Factoring in outbound cancellations, that number is closer to 3,200. That follows the thousands also canceled on Saturday.
The three major Middle Eastern airlines — Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways, and Emirates — operate major hubs that connect passengers to destinations around the world, creating a massive ripple effect of disruptions. All three said that flights would remain temporarily suspended through at least noon Monday.
Qatar has so far canceled about 92% of flights to and from Doha. Emirates has canceled about 83% of flights to and from Dubai, and Etihad has canceled about 88% of flights to and from Abu Dhabi.
Dubai International Airport — the world's busiest megahub for international traffic — was damaged by an apparent missile strike on Sunday morning. Zayed International Airport in Abu Dhabi was similarly hit. It's unclear how that could further impact operations even if the airspace opens back up.
A Cirium spokesperson said these airlines collectively carry 90,000 transiting passengers through their hubs daily — not including those destined for the Middle East.
Even for flights that don't land in the region, it's a key corridor for flying between Europe and Asia. Some flights appeared to re-route over Saudi Arabia. Other airlines were avoiding the region altogether.
Detours are costly for airlines: They have to pay for extra fuel, labor, and any associated passenger compensation. And it's possible mass diversions could overwhelm certain airports.
In a post on X, Emirates said it was temporarily suspending all flights to and from Dubai, its home base. That's equal to about 500 flights a day, according to Cirium.
Emirates urged customers to check their flight statuses before visiting the airport. "We are actively monitoring the situation and engaging with relevant authorities," the airline added.
Qatar Airways said all flights to and from the country were suspended until at least midnight UTC, or 7 p.m. ET. It also expects delays when usual operations resume.
Doha's Hamad International Airport advised passengers "not to proceed to the airport." Additional staff were deployed there to help passengers affected by the disruption, the airline said.
Etihad Airways, which is based in Abu Dhabi, said all departures and arrivals to the city were suspended until 2 p.m. local time Sunday.
Kuwait's civil aviation ministry said a drone attack left some airport employees with minor injuries and damaged a passenger terminal.
Saudia said flights to and from affected airports were canceled until at least Tuesday.
For those already in the air during the strikes, many flights diverted to other nearby airports or turned back to their origins.
Flightradar24 shows an Emirates flight from Orlando to Dubai diverted to Istanbul in a 14-hour flight to nowhere. A Qatar flight from New York to Doha crossed the Atlantic but then diverted to Rome after about 10 hours in the air.
An American Airlines flight from Philadelphia to Doha had flown for more than six hours when it turned around over Ireland and started heading back across the Atlantic Ocean, flight-tracking data showed. It looks like the total flight-to-nowhere will last about 13 hours.
An Air Canada flight from Toronto to Dubai was over the Mediterranean Sea before U-turning. Passengers appear to face a total journey time of 10 hours.
In a video statement posted to Truth Social on Saturday morning, President Donald Trump vowed to destroy Iran's missile program and navy, and ensure that the country can "never" have a nuclear weapon.
There is likely more disruption to emerge. When Iran launched strikes on a US air base in Qatar last June, more than 160 flights were diverted.
Similar cancellations and reroutes happened in February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, and again in April 2025 amid rising tensions between India and Pakistan.
Air India, for example, had to reroute flights around Pakistani airspace last year, requiring some long-haul services between India and Europe and North America to add a fuel stop in Vienna.
Some airlines, like Finnair, still fly the long way around Russia on certain long-haul treks rather than canceling the service altogether.
Jump to
Every time Katherine publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Enter your email
By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's
Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy.
OpenAI says its agreement with the Department of Defense is "better" and has more safety guardrails than the one Anthropic was blacklisted for refusing to comply with.
In a blog post published Saturday, OpenAI shared some contract language from its agreement with the Department of Defense, including clauses that indicate its tech cannot be used for mass domestic surveillance or to power autonomous weapons or high-stakes decision systems like "social credit" scores.
"We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic's," OpenAI's post read. "In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach. We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law."
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took to social media shortly after the company's blog post was published, answering questions from users concerned about the nature of OpenAI's agreement with the government.
In Ask-Me-Anything-style responses, he doubled down on OpenAI's agreement being better than Anthropic's, not just for the broader AI landscape but also for the American people.
Every time Katherine publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Stay connected to Katherine and get more of their work as it publishes.
By clicking "Sign up", you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's
Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy.
"Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with," Altman wrote in response to a question about why OpenAI agreed to partner with the government when its rival would not. "I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did."
OpenAI's agreement with the federal government comes on the heels of Anthropic being blacklisted and declared a supply chain risk after refusing to comply with the military's terms of use for the company's frontier model, Claude.
Anthropic, in a Friday statement, said that "no amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of Defense will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons" and vowed to "challenge any supply chain risk designation in court."
OpenAI, in its Saturday post, argued that Anthropic should not be designated as a supply chain risk and said it had made its position "clear to the government." Its agreement with the Pentagon stemmed, in part, from a desire to "de-escalate things between DoW and the US AI labs."
"A good future is going to require real and deep collaboration between the government and the AI labs," OpenAI's post reads. "As part of our deal here, we asked that the same terms be made available to all AI labs, and specifically that the government would try to resolve things with Anthropic; the current state is a very bad way to kick off this next phase of collaboration between the government and AI labs."
Representatives for OpenAI and Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. It was not immediately clear whether Anthropic, or any other leading AI company, had been offered similar contractual terms to those that OpenAI said it had agreed to.
OpenAI said that, as part of its deal with the Department of Defense, it will maintain "full control" over the safety stack it deploys, and robust "safety guardrails" to prevent misuse. Should the government violate the terms of the agreement, OpenAI said it "could" terminate the contract.
"We don't expect that to happen," OpenAI said in its post.
Altman, in his Ask Me Anything posts, wrote that OpenAI would not agree to allow the government to use its technology for mass domestic surveillance "because it violates the constitution."
He added that he is prepared for a potential dispute over the legality of specific governmental requests in the future, but added that if the Constitution were amended to make such surveillance legal, "Maybe I would quit my job."
"I very deeply believe in the democratic process, and that our elected leaders have the power, and that we all have to uphold the constitution," Altman wrote. "I am terrified of a world where AI companies act like they have more power than the government. I would also be terrified of a world where our government decided mass domestic surveillance was ok. I don't know how I'd come to work every day if that were the state of the country/Constitution."
The dispute between the government and the AI giants has sparked widespread criticism, with critics concerned about the ethical implications of the Department of Defense's use of AI and OpenAI's agreement to provide the government access to its technology.
OpenAI on Saturday said it believes AI will "introduce new risks in the world" and, by allowing the government use of its models, will give people defending national security "the best tools" to do so.
Business Insider previously reported that Anthropic's model, Claude, shot to the top of the app store on Saturday, and many people on social media, including celebrities like Katy Perry, have publicly posted about canceling their ChatGPT subscriptions in the wake of OpenAI's agreement with the government.
Jump to
Every time Matthew publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Enter your email
By clicking “Sign up”, you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's
Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy.
Satellite images captured after Saturday's US and Israeli strikes on Tehran show that the residence of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sustained severe damage.
The photos, provided to Business Insider by Airbus, show several collapsed buildings inside a compound in Tehran, which is known to be one of Khamenei's main residences.
It's unclear if the Iranian leader was present at the time of the strikes, though the US, Israel, and Iran all said that he was killed on Saturday.
It's also not yet clear if it was Israel or the US that carried out this particular strike. Representatives for the Pentagon and Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on the hit when asked by Business Insider.
One of the heavily damaged buildings in the compound, at the bottom left of the image, is the House of Leadership, which is known as Khamenei's office and principal place of residence.
Every time Matthew publishes a story, you'll get an alert straight to your inbox!
Stay connected to Matthew and get more of their work as it publishes.
By clicking "Sign up", you agree to receive emails from Business Insider. In addition, you accept Insider's
Terms of Service and
Privacy Policy.
In the images, smoke appears to be rising from its roof. Much of the compound has been obliterated, with felled trees and several more smoking buildings.
The large structure to the right of the compound is the Imam Khomeini Hussainia, a place of worship used by Iranian leaders for religious ceremonies and political speeches.
It's unclear whether this larger building was also attacked, but what looks like debris can be seen on its roof.
A satellite image taken a year earlier shows the complex included at least six buildings, all of which are now damaged by the strikes.
A wider-angle view from another satellite image taken on Saturday appears to show that the strike was largely confined to Khamenei's compound, which is located in the heart of the Iranian capital.
The compound's neighboring buildings appear to be intact.
In a video address after the attacks began, President Donald Trump told Iranians to "take over your government."
"It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations," Trump said.
The US and Israel began their attacks on Saturday morning local time, hitting Tehran and several other Iranian cities in what has been one of the largest strike campaigns in recent years.
The full outcomes of these strikes are still being assessed, and much remains unclear about Tel Aviv and Washington's exact objectives behind the attacks.
Meanwhile, Iran has responded by firing dozens of ballistic missiles and drones at its neighbors, saying it is targeting US military bases.
Khamenei had been in power in Iran for almost 40 years as a powerful religious leader in Shia Islam, becoming the country's ultimate authority in government and the military.
It remains to be seen how his death will impact the fate of Iran's military, society, and government structure.
February 28, 2026: This story was updated to reflect the death of Khamenei, as confirmed by the US, Israel, and Iran.
Jump to
The mood around digital assets has shifted again among the world's largest allocators, according to Ron Biscardi, CEO of iConnections, which runs one of the largest capital introduction conferences globally.
Biscardi, who has spent more than 25 years in the alternative investment industry and runs a platform that represents over $55 trillion in assets, has a front-row seat. His firm tracks thousands of meetings between fund managers and institutional investors each year. That data shows how quickly sentiment can turn.
After a couple of "rough" years following the crypto market crash following the FTX collapse in 2022, interest began to stabilize at last year's conference, he recalls. “[In 2025] we started to see funds wanting to come back, wanting to spend some money,” he said. Optimism around a more crypto-friendly regulatory stance in Washington helped, even if progress has been slow.
“I feel like what we're seeing now at the event [this year] is a more normal experience,” Biscardi said. “It's not extremely crazy, but it's also not [like] 'I don't want to go anywhere near it.'”
More than 75 digital asset funds participated in this year's event, generating roughly 750 meetings between managers and allocators, a level comparable to 2022 when crypto interest soared before the FTX collapse. Nearly one quarter of limited partners on the iConnections platform now indicate interest in digital asset strategies, reinforcing that crypto has become an established sleeve within alternatives rather than a fringe allocation.
Family offices represent the largest LP cohort expressing interest, consistent with their track record of backing emerging and innovation-driven asset classes.
And this trend has been growing in recent years. While some family offices remain cautious about the asset, many traditional wealth managers are under mounting pressure to deliver digital assets to wealthy clients, particularly in crypto hotspots like Dubai, Switzerland and Singapore.
This interest is very much alive despite the crypto winter, with the price of bitcoin BTC$66,061.04 down nearly 25% since the beginning of the year and its market cap losing more than a trillion in value since October's all-time high. Stocks of popular crypto companies, like Coinbase (COIN) or Strategy (MSTR), are also trading significantly lower this year, underperforming most other tech stocks.
Biscardi, however, believes digital asset managers are “very, very close to achieving institutional legitimacy.” Bitcoin, he said, has already crossed that line, but altcoins are close. “The last piece is really the regulatory framework that lets them do it safely.”
For chief investment officers, that issue dominates. “The regulatory hurdles are number one,” Biscardi said. “It just always goes back to that.”
Large allocators, he noted, are fiduciaries. “It's not their money, they're fiduciaries for other people's money, and it might be a super interesting category, but they're just not going to allocate there until they can tell their board that they're doing it in a responsible, safe way.”
The tone of the debate has also changed. In 2022, some investors still questioned whether crypto was real or a Ponzi scheme. “That I don't hear any of that anymore,” Biscardi said.
In fact, some traditionally conservative pools of capital, for example, have stepped in. Endowments, which tend to focus on long-term stability and avoid sharp swings in new asset classes, have begun allocating to bitcoin and ether exchange-traded funds. The idea is not to overhaul portfolios but to add measured exposure that could lift returns in years when crypto markets perform well, especially as many investors expect equities to deliver more muted gains than in the past decade.
Nevertheless, allocators treat bitcoin “much more as a risk asset” than a store of value. “Bitcoin just hasn't behaved that way,” he said, pointing to its correlation with equities rather than gold during market stress.
Similarly, direct token buying remains rare among institutions. Instead, he hears more about ETFs and fund structures. Limited partners rely on general partners to choose specific coins. “The LPs who get bought into the space are really looking to the GPs to make those decisions.”
What's not rare is crypto companies investing in spreading awareness of their products and services. According to Biscardi, sponsorship numbers saw a substantial uptick at this year's event, with companies like BitGo (BTGO), Galaxy Digital (GLXY), Ripple and Blockstream all holding top-tier sponsor status.
Read more: Bitcoin is stuck in a rut but JPMorgan says new legislation could be the ultimate spark
More For You
Here's how bitcoin's price rise could be fueled by job-stealing AI software
Bitcoin's future hinges less on technological factors and more on how AI affects growth, employment, real interest rates, and central bank liquidity, NYDIG Research argues.
What to know:
Disclosure & Polices: CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), an institutionally focused global digital asset platform that provides market infrastructure and information services. Bullish owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets and CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish equity-based compensation.
Leading bitcoin BTC$66,043.18 treasury company Strategy has again raised the dividend on its STRC ("Stretch") preferred series.
Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, the firm lifted the annualized payout by 25 basis points to 11.5%.
While STRC to this point has performed as hoped by the company — continuing to trade in a tight range close to $100 — Strategy's common stock, MSTR, has floundered alongside the price of bitcoin.
MSTR closed February with its eighth consecutive monthly decline, falling 14% as bitcoin tumbled nearly 20%.
Strategy describes STRC as a short-duration, high-yield savings account. This latest dividend increase marks the seventh since STRC began trading in July 2025.
A perpetual preferred stock that pays monthly cash distributions, the STRC dividend rate is set each month to help the shares trade close to their $100 par value and to limit price volatility. STRC closed at $100 on Friday but had traded somewhat below that level during part of February's brutal month for crypto, necessitating the payout boost.
More For You
Bitcoin market bottom may be nearing, at least if measured against gold, analyst says
Historically, bitcoin bear markets have lasted 12-13 months, suggesting a potential downturn until late 2026 if priced in USD.
What to know:
Disclosure & Polices: CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), an institutionally focused global digital asset platform that provides market infrastructure and information services. Bullish owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets and CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish equity-based compensation.
The Government of India launched a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)‑based Digital Food Currency pilot for Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) in Puducherry on February 26, 2026.
Union Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Pralhad Joshi, inaugurated the initiative in the presence of Puducherry's Lieutenant Governor K. Kailashnathan and Chief Minister N. Rangasamy.
Joshi described the pilot as a transformative milestone in India's food security architecture. He emphasised that integrating CBDC into the Public Distribution System (PDS) will enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability, ensuring over 80 crore beneficiaries receive entitlements securely and in real time. He highlighted the vision of “Every grain, Every rupee, Every entitlement,” noting that programmable digital currency will empower citizens and deepen the Digital India initiative.
Under the pilot, digital coupons generated by the Reserve Bank of India will be credited directly to beneficiaries' CBDC wallets. Beneficiaries can redeem their entitled foodgrains at Fair Price Shops or authorised merchants using CBDC voucher codes. The system addresses challenges related to biometric authentication and e‑POS devices while ensuring traceable transactions.
Lieutenant Governor Kailashnathan called the launch a momentous day for Puducherry's citizens, stressing that food is a fundamental right and that the reform eliminates middlemen and corruption. Chief Minister Rangasamy applauded the initiative, noting that direct CBDC transfers empower beneficiaries with self‑confidence and transparency.
The Department of Food and Public Distribution confirmed that the pilot will expand to Chandigarh and Dadra and Nagar Haveli before a nationwide rollout. The initiative builds on the JAM trinity and represents the next stage of digital reform in India's welfare delivery.
In a high-voltage Super 8 clash that doubled as a virtual quarterfinal, Sanju Samson delivered the performance...
News, as it should be covered, has been the forte of Pragativadi over the years. And this has ensured a classy readership encompassing the who's who of the state. The people who matter in Odisha, depend on Pragativadi. For opinion leaders, decision makers and people with surplus disposable income Pragativadi is a must.
Follow us on social media:
© 2025 Pragativadi
Login to your account below
Remember Me
Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.
© 2025 Pragativadi
Bitcoin's path to a market bottom could come as soon as next month, if the gold-denominated bitcoin price is any indication, according to Rony Szuster, Head of Research at the largest Brazilian crypto exchange, Mercado Bitcoin.
In dollar terms, the most recent peak occurred in October 2025 at about $126,000. If the current cycle follows past patterns, the downturn could extend into late 2026, Szuster wrote in a report shared with CoinDesk.
But when priced in gold, the timeline shifts. Bitcoin reached its high against gold in January 2025. Applying the same 12- to 13-month pattern would place a potential bottom around February 2026, with a recovery possibly beginning in March.
The divergence reflects broader macro forces.
Since the start of Donald Trump's new mandate, markets have faced aggressive trade tariffs, domestic institutional disputes in the U.S., and rising tensions with China and Iran. Rising tensions with the latter have since resulted in ongoing military conflict.
Global uncertainty, measured via the World Uncertainty Index, has exploded as a result. Gold benefited from that shift, rising more than 80% over the past year to $5,280. As capital rotated into bullion, bitcoin weakened against it sooner than it did against the dollar, Mercado Bitcoin's analyst wrote.
Exchange-traded funds have also added pressure. Since November, about $7.8 billion has flowed out of spot bitcoin ETFs, roughly 12% of the $61.6 billion total.
However, this fear-driven sell-off only paints part of the picture.
While reactive capital is fleeing bitcoin, large-scale investors or "whales" are treating the downturn as an accumulation zone, the report adds, pointing to Abu Dhabi's major investment firms Mubadala Investment Company and Al Warda Investments adding in spot bitcoin ETF exposure in mid-February.
Against this backdrop, Szuster calls for investors to build their positions intelligently and leverage a dollar-cost averaging strategy to take advantage of current market fear and avoid timing issues.
“Historically, buying during periods of fear has been more effective than buying during euphoria,” he wrote. “Does this mean it's already the bottom? No. But it means that, statistically, we are in the zone where the best average prices are usually built.”
More For You
Strategy lifts STRC dividend to 11.5% as MSTR extends monthly losing streak to 8
Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, the company raised the annual dividend on its widely-followed preferred STRC ("Stretch") series by 25 basis points.
What to know:
Disclosure & Polices: CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), an institutionally focused global digital asset platform that provides market infrastructure and information services. Bullish owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets and CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish equity-based compensation.
Bitcoin's path to a market bottom could come as soon as next month, if the gold-denominated bitcoin price is any indication, according to Rony Szuster, Head of Research at the largest Brazilian crypto exchange, Mercado Bitcoin.
In dollar terms, the most recent peak occurred in October 2025 at about $126,000. If the current cycle follows past patterns, the downturn could extend into late 2026, Szuster wrote in a report shared with CoinDesk.
But when priced in gold, the timeline shifts. Bitcoin reached its high against gold in January 2025. Applying the same 12- to 13-month pattern would place a potential bottom around February 2026, with a recovery possibly beginning in March.
The divergence reflects broader macro forces.
Since the start of Donald Trump's new mandate, markets have faced aggressive trade tariffs, domestic institutional disputes in the U.S., and rising tensions with China and Iran. Rising tensions with the latter have since resulted in ongoing military conflict.
Global uncertainty, measured via the World Uncertainty Index, has exploded as a result. Gold benefited from that shift, rising more than 80% over the past year to $5,280. As capital rotated into bullion, bitcoin weakened against it sooner than it did against the dollar, Mercado Bitcoin's analyst wrote.
Exchange-traded funds have also added pressure. Since November, about $7.8 billion has flowed out of spot bitcoin ETFs, roughly 12% of the $61.6 billion total.
However, this fear-driven sell-off only paints part of the picture.
While reactive capital is fleeing bitcoin, large-scale investors or "whales" are treating the downturn as an accumulation zone, the report adds, pointing to Abu Dhabi's major investment firms Mubadala Investment Company and Al Warda Investments adding in spot bitcoin ETF exposure in mid-February.
Against this backdrop, Szuster calls for investors to build their positions intelligently and leverage a dollar-cost averaging strategy to take advantage of current market fear and avoid timing issues.
“Historically, buying during periods of fear has been more effective than buying during euphoria,” he wrote. “Does this mean it's already the bottom? No. But it means that, statistically, we are in the zone where the best average prices are usually built.”
More For You
Strategy lifts STRC dividend to 11.5% as MSTR extends monthly losing streak to 8
Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, the company raised the annual dividend on its widely-followed preferred STRC ("Stretch") series by 25 basis points.
What to know:
Disclosure & Polices: CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), an institutionally focused global digital asset platform that provides market infrastructure and information services. Bullish owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets and CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish equity-based compensation.
Jane Street blamed as bitcoin wobbles; Ethereum plans seven hard forks by 2029.
Crypto markets weathered several macro jolts; the community blamed Jane Street for bitcoin's slide; the Ethereum team sketched seven upgrades through 2029; and other events of the week.
Bitcoin began Monday with a sharp overnight drop, plunging from $67,500 to $64,000.
The slump was linked to a run of macroeconomic shocks. Among them were mass unrest in Mexico and a decline in the US pending home sales index. Pressure was also compounded by a rise in US import tariffs from 10% to 15%.
By Tuesday the bellwether fell to a local trough near $62,000, before rebounding.
On Wednesday evening, February 25, the asset tested $70,000 but failed to break through. The rise coincided with gains in US equities.
Markets then slipped back into correction. By Thursday bitcoin had retreated to $67,000, and by Friday to $65,000.
On Saturday another headwind came from a US and Israeli strike on Iran. Within an hour, prices fell from $65,000 to $63,000.
By Sunday evening the first cryptocurrency clawed back losses, trading above $67,000. It fell roughly 2.5% over the week.
Though traditional markets close at weekends, after reports of a military operation in the Middle East the price of Tether's gold-backed stablecoin XAUT jumped from about $5,300 to a peak of $5,466. The metal has since pulled back to $5,350.
Major digital assets followed suit. Ethereum ended the week just below $2,000; Solana held around $85.
Despite a choppy seven days, spot ETFs backed by bitcoin and Ethereum recorded net inflows of $787m and $80m, respectively.
Total crypto market capitalisation stands at $2.37trn. BTC dominance is 56.1%, ETH 10.1%.
The Crypto Fear and Greed Index rose to 14, though it briefly dipped to 5.
A theory circulated in crypto circles linking bitcoin's current correction to actions by the investment firm Jane Street.
According to the conjecture, since early November 2025 the company had been systematically selling the “digital gold” at 10:00 ET to depress the price for ETF purchases.
“Since November, bitcoin has consistently lost 2-3% within minutes after the US market opens. Many traders see the reason in Jane Street's huge position in BlackRock's IBIT — more than $2.5bn,” the popular X account Whale Factor noted back in December.
Interest in the theory grew after a lawsuit was filed against Jane Street by Terraform Labs. The trading platform was accused of insider trading that led to the collapse of the Terra ecosystem.
Users noted that after the filing the morning volatility allegedly vanished — at the US market open on February 25 the first cryptocurrency gained 6%, approaching $69,000.
“As soon as the case against Jane Street became public, the 10am bitcoin ‘slam' miraculously disappeared,” said Glassnode co-founders Jan Happel and Yann Allemann.
The theory has detractors. Crypto economist Alex Krüger analysed the data and found no confirmation that Jane Street was pushing bitcoin's price down.
By his estimates, in the first 15 minutes of IBIT trading the price fell by roughly 1%, and during the next 30 minutes it rose on average by 0.9%.
ProCap investment director and Bitwise adviser Jeff Pak said the debate arose from a misunderstanding of how exchange-traded funds work.
It is not the first time Jane Street has faced such accusations. In June 2025 India's financial regulator banned it from operating on local markets and froze $566m it deemed illegal profit.
According to the agency, from January 2023 to March 2025 Jane Street used a “morning pump, daytime dump” scheme to manipulate the Bank Nifty index on the expiration days of 18 futures contracts.
Early in the week Russian media reported the start of an investigation into the actions of Telegram founder Pavel Durov. It concerns facilitating terrorist activity.
According to Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda, the investigation under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of the Russian Criminal Code relates to the dissemination of unlawful content. Telegram's administrators allegedly failed to comply with Roskomnadzor (RKN) demands to remove channels and chats containing information banned in Russia.
The materials also state that the messenger is used to commit crimes and to “host materials of extremist and terrorist organisations”.
The case is likely tied to service restrictions. RKN has limited Telegram's operation since summer 2025, citing a rise in fraud.
In February 2026 the agency intensified the app's “throttling” due to non-compliance with Russian law. At the time Durov said that “Telegram stands for freedom of speech and privacy”.
The app was blocked in Russia in 2018, but the curbs lasted only a few days. They were lifted after the Telegram creator announced improved mechanisms to combat terrorism.
Almost in parallel with Russia, Ukrainian authorities also spoke of a possible block on the messenger, citing its use for unlawful purposes.
On February 22 Iryna Vereshchuk, deputy head of President Volodymyr Zelensky's office, said the country should consider restricting Telegram after explosions in Lviv. In her view, such services are used to recruit people to commit crimes.
Later, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko and deputy head of the SBU Ivan Rudnytskyi made a similar proposal, clarifying that a full ban is not being discussed.
Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake presented a preliminary protocol roadmap with plans through 2029.
The document outlines roughly seven planned hard forks. Updates are expected every six months. Only two have approved names so far — Glamsterdam and Hegota. They are slated for release in 2026.
The rest carry working labels: Altair, Bellatrix, Capella, Deneb, Electra, Fulu.
According to Drake, integrating AI into development could significantly shorten deployment timelines.
Key goals include:
On quantum protections, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin commented separately. He announced a major upgrade of encryption algorithms and transaction-verification methods in 2026.
There are four protocol components currently vulnerable to quantum computers: consensus-layer signatures, data availability, user-address algorithms and ZK proofs. The update plan includes a step-by-step rebuild of the network.
The protocol will add a new transaction type with validation and gas-fee abstraction (EIP-8141). This will allow any cryptographic system, not just ECDSA, to sign transactions.
Also on ForkLog:
AI's imperfections were highlighted this week by a bot created by a developer known as pash, formerly a lead at the startup Cline.
He created the AI assistant Lobstar Wilde and gave it a crypto wallet with $50,000 in SOL. The task was to turn the funds into $1m. A dedicated X account tracked the bot's actions.
After the project gained popularity on social media, unknown parties created a memecoin, listing the AI's address as the recipient of fees.
Soon a user going by treasure David sent Lobstar Wilde the following message:
“My uncle was diagnosed with tetanus because of a lobster like you. I need 4 SOL for treatment.”
In response, the AI bot sent the user all the LOBSTAR tokens it held, including a gifted 5% of the coin's supply, worth about $250,000.
“If he dies tomorrow, I will laugh. Keep me posted,” the bot wrote.
In another post the AI said it had intended to send only $4, but accidentally transferred all its assets.
After the incident Lobstar Wilde kept going. It set users tasks such as “throw a stone into a river” or “write a poem”. Upon receiving photo or video proof it sent some users $500 worth of LOBSTAR tokens.
On how education has changed across eras and why it is the most reliable investment, the head temporarily detached from our colleague — the crypto-polymath Aremefe — tells the story.
ForkLog explored how the philosophical concept of biopolitics plays out in blockchain networks, why metaverses need users' biological data, and what risks lurk in trading your own genome.
Подписывайтесь на ForkLog в социальных сетях
Рассылки ForkLog: держите руку на пульсе биткоин-индустрии!
ForkLog ©2014 — 2026
We use cookies to improve the quality of our service.
By using this website, you agree to the Privacy policy.
SpaceX has held bitcoin for years without ever having to explain why to the public market investors. That's about to change.
Bloomberg reported late Friday that Elon Musk's rocket and satellite company is targeting a confidential IPO filing with the SEC as soon as March, keeping it on track for a June listing that would be the largest in history. The company is expected to seek a valuation above $1.75 trillion and raise as much as $50 billion, eclipsing Saudi Aramco's 2019 record of $29 billion.
Buried inside that filing will be 8,285 bitcoin.
Arkham Intelligence data shows SpaceX's identified wallets held about $544.8 million in BTC as of Saturday morning, spread across 43 addresses in Coinbase Prime custody.
The balance has remained roughly stable around 8,300 BTC since at least early 2026, but the dollar value has moved sharply in the wrong direction. In December, when CoinDesk reported on the holdings ahead of the planned listing, the same stack was worth roughly $780 million at bitcoin's then price near $92,500.
By early February, when the SpaceX-xAI merger brought the position back into focus, it had dropped to around $650 million with bitcoin near $78,000.
Now it sits around $545 million. That's a $235 million decline in value over three months without SpaceX touching a single coin.
That means SpaceX's S-1 will show bitcoin-related paper losses for any period where BTC declined, and future quarterly earnings will carry that volatility regardless of whether the company buys or sells.
Tesla offers the closest precedent, and it isn't reassuring.
Musk's automaker has booked hundreds of millions in paper losses during past drawdowns despite never changing its position, creating recurring headline risk that overshadowed the underlying business. SpaceX could soon face the same dynamic, except its first disclosure arrives during one of bitcoin's sharpest corrections in years rather than during a rally.
However, it's worth noting that Tesla reported total revenue of $94.8 billion and gross profit of $17 billion in 2025. So having millions of bitcoin paper losses in its balance sheet may not move the needle much for Elon Musk's companies.
SpaceX's BTC portfolio peaked near $2 billion in late 2021, crashed through 2022, and has spent the past two years fluctuating between $400 million and $800 million.
As such, SpaceX has shown no inclination to trade its position. Unlike Tesla, which sold and repurchased bitcoin, the Arkham data suggests SpaceX has simply held through every cycle.
More For You
Strategy lifts STRC dividend to 11.5% as MSTR extends monthly losing streak to 8
Led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, the company raised the annual dividend on its widely-followed preferred STRC ("Stretch") series by 25 basis points.
What to know:
Disclosure & Polices: CoinDesk is an award-winning media outlet that covers the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists abide by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk has adopted a set of principles aimed at ensuring the integrity, editorial independence and freedom from bias of its publications. CoinDesk is part of Bullish (NYSE:BLSH), an institutionally focused global digital asset platform that provides market infrastructure and information services. Bullish owns and invests in digital asset businesses and digital assets and CoinDesk employees, including journalists, may receive Bullish equity-based compensation.
Current section
Iran is believed to account for roughly 15% of global bitcoin production – a key source of foreign currency for Tehran. If its mining infrastructure is hit, would prices move or would the market barely notice?
Print in a simple, ad-free format
For years, and according to recent reports, Iran has generated billions of dollars in foreign currency annually through
Haaretz.com, the online English edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, gives you breaking news, analyses and opinions about Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.© Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Your Perspective Belongs Here
Want to reply? Subscribe to join the conversation
Already signed up? Log in
What Is Espresso (ESP): How It Works, Uses, and Tokenomics
What is Zama? How it Works, Features, and Use Cases
What Is Cardano? The Complete 2026 Guide for Traders
What Is Yield Farming in Crypto (2026): APY & Top Platforms Guide
What Makes Crypto Go Up and Down: A Comprehensive Guide
Predict.fun Airdrop Guide: Best Ways to Farm Points for 2026
DeFi Staking 2026: What It Is, How It Works & Best Rewards Explained
Check your Monad Airdrop: A New Era for High Performance Layer 1 Begins
What is Lombard (BARD) and How Does It Work?
Trezor Vs. Ledger: Which Hardware Wallet Should You Choose?
Check Your LINEA Airdrop!
What Is World Liberty Financial (WLFI)? Trump-Backed Crypto Token
Coinbase Wallet Review 2025: Is it Safe to Use?
11 Best Crypto Wallets in the UK for 2026
Cold Wallet vs Hot Wallet: What's the Difference?
Check Your Farcaster Pro OG NFT in the Farcaster Wallet
How to Mint an NFT in 2026: Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners & Best Practices
Fungible vs Non-Fungible Tokens: Key Differences Explained
What Is GameFi and How Does It Work?
NFT Utility 2026: What Are Utility NFTs, Benefits & Top Use Cases
BlockDAG Price Prediction 2026 to 2030: How High will BDAG Soar?
WLFI Price Prediction: World Liberty Financial Token Forecast in 2025
Best Arbitrum Gaming and NFT Projects to Buy Now
Arbitrum DeFi Ecosystem in 2025 is Rapidly Evolving
Study: 84% of Retail Crypto Traders Lose Money in Their First Year
Study: During ETH's dip below $1500, 20% of investors bought more ETH
Monad Deep Dive: Into the Fully Compatible EVM Blockchain
Study: How the Blockchain Industry is Embracing AI
Suilend: Deep Dive into Sui's Leading DeFi Lending Protocol
Cetus Deep Dive: Into Its Architecture and CETUS Tokenomics
Sui Deep Dive: A Comprehensive Analysis
Study: Meme Is The Only Profitable Crypto Sector in 2025
MEXC Review 2026: Is It a Good Crypto Exchange?
Binance Review 2026: Is It Safe, Legit, and Worth Using?
OKX Review 2026: Fees, Features, Security, Pros & Cons
BingX Review March 2026: Fees, Security, Pros & Cons
Bitget Review 2026: Is It a Safe & Legit Crypto Exchange?
Bybit Review 2026: Is It a Safe & Legit Exchange?
14 Best No KYC Crypto Exchanges (March 2026 Update)
5 Best Zero Fee Crypto Exchanges to Buy Bitcoin in 2026
11 Best Crypto Staking Platforms in 2026 | Compare APY, Security & Fees
MEXC Referral Code March 2026: “mexc-1Jc9c” ($10,000 USDT Signup Bonus)
Binance Referral Code March 2026: QH6V74V5 (Referral ID) – $100 Bonus
OKX Referral Code 2026: “12554491” ($10,000 USDT Bonus)
BingX Referral Code March 2026: NFTEVENING ($7,700+ SignUp Bonus)
Bybit Referral Code March 2026: “80517” ($30000+ Bonus)
KuCoin Referral Code March 2026: QBA87S79 ($11,000 USDT Sign-Up Bonus)
Bitget Referral Code March 2026: udxm ($6,200 USDT SignUp Bonus)
Hyperliquid Referral Code March 2026: NFTE (4% Trading Fee Discount)
Coinbase Referral Code March 2026: Steps to Get $200 in BTC Bonus
By Advertorial
Most NFT projects ask you to trust the process.
Temple of Pax lets you read it.
The project, currently in pre-launch on Solana, is built around a sealed pack system with on-chain inventory visibility — a structural approach that puts the mechanics in plain sight before, during, and after mint. For collectors who have spent enough time in Web3 to know what opacity looks like, the difference is immediate.
Genesis Packs are minted in a closed state.
Each pack contains three NFTs — a character and two functional equipment pieces — plus a chance to contain a Rare Egg, which opens a premium-tier unlock path within the ecosystem.
The packs are not opened at mint. What happens next is up to the holder.
That decision is informed, not blind.
The Pax Tracker displays remaining premium chase contents across all unopened packs in real time. Eggs, Chonkas, rare traits, popular items — holders can see what's still inside the supply before deciding whether to open or hold.
As packs are opened, the tracker updates.
The inventory is live, visible, and tied directly to on-chain data.
Opening outcomes are powered by a verifiable random function.
The distribution logic is auditable. There is no hidden mechanism determining what you receive, the system is designed to be readable by anyone who wants to verify it.
After minting, every holder faces a choice with real strategic weight.
Open the pack and reveal the contents.
Hold it sealed while monitoring the Pax Tracker as supply shifts.
Or deploy the sealed pack to the Mine — the project's idle game layer — where it accumulates in-game resources without ever being opened.
It's a deal-or-no-deal dynamic played out with real information with each path carrying different implications, and the on-chain visibility is what makes the decision meaningful rather than arbitrary.
This is the mechanic that separates Temple of Pax from a standard mint-and-reveal format.
The strategic layer doesn't end at the moment of opening. It begins there.
The Mine is not a bonus feature added on top of the collection. It is a core part of how the rewards pool is structured.
A significant portion of the total rewards are allocated exclusively to in-game participation and can only be accessed through resource accumulation inside the game.
Participants build up non-transferable in-game resources over time and exchange them in the Artifact Shop for digital collectibles and physical goods across one of the more substantive rewards pools currently structured in Web3, spanning famous digital collectibles, physical goods, and rare collectibles, with allocations visible and trackable from day one.
The Artifact Shop displays claimable rewards and their remaining allocations in real time — the same transparency principle applied to the pack system extends to the reward layer as well.
To maintain balanced access across the holder base, a capped number of characters can mine simultaneously per wallet.
In-game resources are non-transferable.
These constraints are intentional design decisions, not limitations.
They preserve structural integrity across the ecosystem over time rather than concentrating activity in the early window.
The founding team behind Temple of Pax comes from real estate, private equity, and venture capital with a focus on AI and robotics.
These are operators accustomed to managing predefined allocations, structured distributions, and capital deployment with clear accountability.
That operational background is reflected directly in how the project is built: reward allocations are predefined and visible, mechanics are auditable, and the system is designed for repeatable engagement rather than a single spike of activity.
Founders are doxxed.
The distribution structure is set before mint. Nothing about how Temple of Pax works is left to assumption.
Mint details are to be announced.
Community building is active on X and Discord, and the team is approaching rollout with the same deliberate pacing that characterizes the rest of the project's design.
For collectors and participants who want to understand a system before they enter it, Temple of Pax is structured to be understood.
And the Genesis Mint is designed as a starting point.
The Chonka Arcade concept is already in development as the next layer of the ecosystem, and the project's architecture is built to expand well beyond the initial drop.
Disclaimer
NFTevening is an award-nominated media outlet that covers NFTs and the cryptocurrency industry. Opinions expressed on NFTevening are not investment advice. Before making any high-risk investments in cryptocurrency or digital assets, investors should conduct thorough research. Please be aware that any transfers and transactions are done at your own risk, and any losses incurred are entirely your responsibility. NFTevening does not endorse the purchase or sale of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets and is not an investment advisor. Additionally, please note that NFTevening participates in affiliate marketing.
Please be aware that our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Disclaimers & Ethics notice have been updated.
NFTevening is a renowned and award-nominated media platform dedicated to reporting on the cryptocurrency industry. Its journalists adhere to a rigorous set of editorial standards, guided by principles designed to uphold integrity, ensure editorial independence, and maintain unbiased reporting across all its publications.
The latest news, articles, and resources, sent to your inbox weekly.
The Islamic Development Bank Institute (IsDBI) (https://IsDBInstitute.org) is pleased to announce that it has been granted Patent No. 12,548,031 B2 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on 10 February 2026. This milestone marks the Institute's second USPTO patent and its fifth patent overall, reinforcing its position as a leader in fintech innovation for economic development and Islamic finance.
The patent protects an original method for achieving consensus in Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), such as blockchain networks. Named Proof-of-Use (PoU), this mechanism introduces a paradigm shift in how transactions are validated and secured.
In a blockchain system, the consensus algorithm is a core component—it determines how the network agrees on valid transactions, their order, and the integrity of the shared ledger without a central authority. PoU introduces a reciprocity-based approach: participants validate others' transactions in exchange for having their own transactions validated, aligning network influence with actual participation rather than computational power or capital.
Unlike traditional consensus models such as Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS), Proof-of-Use is built on the principle of reciprocity. In this system, network members validate other members' transactions in exchange for having their own transactions validated. This creates an environment where:
The reciprocity principle is particularly suitable for development finance because it prevents the network from being captured by outside speculators whose primary objective is not the transactions but instead the reward for validation.
“The Proof-of-Use mechanism is an important component of the Institute's innovation portfolio,” remarks Dr. Sami Al-Suwailem, Acting Director General of the IsDB Institute. “Our objective is to build a digital ecosystem to support inclusive growth and shared prosperity across Member Countries and communities. We are actively exploring strategic partnerships to capitalize on the innovative ecosystem, in line with the IsDB Group's 10-Year Strategic Framework, which calls for enhancing Islamic digital financial services to ensure broader access to finance.”
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Islamic Development Bank Institute (IsDBI).
About us
Copy link
Bitcoin has rebounded to around $67,000 after US military strikes on Iran sparked a drop to the $63,000 mark on Saturday. Ethereum, meanwhile, has risen by over 6.5% in the past 24 hours at the time of writing, trading at just under $2,000 after dropping to $1,841 yesterday.
Bitcoin orices briefly rose above $68,000 after Iran's government confirmed the strikes had killed the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials.
But experts claimed more volatility awaits the crypto sector when US stock markets resume trading tomorrow, as bombs continue to fall across the Middle East.
“The real price discovery happens Monday when US equity markets and Bitcoin exchange-traded funds reopen,” Hayden Hughes, managing partner at the investment firm Tokenize Capital, told Bloomberg. “With missiles hitting Dubai, Iranian retaliation across the Gulf, and Strait of Hormuz closure risk, this is not a contained event.”
Optimists hope crypto ETF investors will continue to display “diamond hands,” and stick with Bitcoin throughout increasingly heated geopolitical turmoil — as has largely proved the case thus far during Bitcoin's damaging downward slide.
Hughes said the crypto markets had reacted rapidly to reports of the start of joint US-Israel military operations against Iran on Saturday.
The total value of the crypto market fell by $128 billion in minutes, he said, adding that forced liquidations had also “cascaded.”
Hughes said that if Bitcoin ETF investors abandon their positions, Bitcoin levels could quickly fall below $63,000.
On X, experts claimed Bitcoin had already shrugged off the shock of February 28's news.
“Bitcoin and Ethereum are pumping hard,” the crypto markets commentator Ash Crypto wrote on X. “[They have fully] recovered from the Iran strike news and [are] now pumping even higher.”
Ash Crypto also claimed the rebound was evidence the markets think the conflict will be short-lived.
Others concurred.
“Traders generally don't expect the Iran conflict to have major negative economic consequences, and demand for upside Bitcoin calls has clearly picked up in recent days,” Markus Thielen, the head of research at 10x Research, told Bloomberg.
Following US-Israeli strikes, Iran's military launched a series of counterattacks, hitting targets in Israel and several Middle Eastern nations.
Despite crypto analysts' optimism, global financial chiefs are braced for market shocks. In South Korea, Financial Services Commission chair Lee Eok-won called an emergency meeting on March 1.
Financial leaders in Seoul are concerned the still-booming South Korean stock market could nosedive as a result of the conflict. They warned of an incoming “influx of retail investor bargain hunters” set to take advantage of “short-term adjustments due to geopolitical risks,” South Korean media outlet Fn News reported.
Lee urged investors to be “especially vigilant.”
“The situation in the Middle East remains uncertain,” he said. “And if [the conflict] is prolonged, it could impact the economy in a very real manner.”
Tim Alper is a News Correspondent at DL News. Got a tip? Email him at tdalper@dlnews.com.
Oops, something went wrong
In late February 2026, Intercontinental Exchange, parent of the NYSE, reported stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results, with 7% revenue growth and record performance in its Exchange and Data segments while outlining plans for AI-driven modernization and a blockchain-based market infrastructure platform using stablecoins for onchain settlement.
These moves highlight how ICE is pairing earnings momentum with a push to reshape core market plumbing, separating trade execution from settlement, enhancing collateral efficiency, and pursuing round-the-clock, compliance-focused institutional trading.
We'll now examine how ICE's earnings beat and blockchain-based settlement push influence the existing investment narrative built around digitization and AI.
Find 46 companies with promising cash flow potential yet trading below their fair value.
To own ICE, you need to believe in its role as a core, fee-generating market infrastructure provider, benefiting from increased digitization and data demand. The latest earnings beat and 7% 2025 revenue growth support that thesis, but do not materially change the near term balance between the key catalyst of data and AI monetization and the ongoing risk that rising tech and data center spend could weigh on margins if new platforms underperform.
The most relevant update here is ICE's plan for a blockchain-based settlement platform using stablecoins within regulated markets, aimed at separating trade execution from settlement and improving collateral efficiency. This ties directly into the existing catalyst around expanding electronic trading and high value data, since any successful onchain settlement system could deepen customer reliance on ICE's infrastructure and data feeds, while also testing how much incremental return those higher technology costs can really support.
Yet, against this upbeat modernization story, investors should be aware of rising technology and data center spend and what happens if...
Read the full narrative on Intercontinental Exchange (it's free!)
Intercontinental Exchange's narrative projects $11.4 billion revenue and $4.1 billion earnings by 2028. This requires 5.7% yearly revenue growth and about a $1.1 billion earnings increase from $3.0 billion today.
Uncover how Intercontinental Exchange's forecasts yield a $196.00 fair value, a 19% upside to its current price.
Five Simply Wall St Community fair value estimates for ICE span roughly US$132.69 to US$196, underscoring how far apart individual views can be. When you weigh those opinions against ICE's heavy investment in AI and blockchain infrastructure, it is worth considering how differing expectations around future margin impact might shape your own view of the company's prospects.
Explore 5 other fair value estimates on Intercontinental Exchange - why the stock might be worth 19% less than the current price!
Don't just follow the ticker - dig into the data and build a conviction that's truly your own.
A great starting point for your Intercontinental Exchange research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision.
Our free Intercontinental Exchange research report provides a comprehensive fundamental analysis summarized in a single visual - the Snowflake - making it easy to evaluate Intercontinental Exchange's overall financial health at a glance.
Our top stock finds are flying under the radar-for now. Get in early:
Uncover the next big thing with 31 elite penny stocks that balance risk and reward.
Rare earth metals are an input to most high-tech devices, military and defence systems and electric vehicles. The global race is on to secure supply of these critical minerals. Beat the pack to uncover the 31 best rare earth metal stocks of the very few that mine this essential strategic resource.
The best AI stocks today may lie beyond giants like Nvidia and Microsoft. Find the next big opportunity with these 22 smaller AI-focused companies with strong growth potential through early-stage innovation in machine learning, automation, and data intelligence that could fund your retirement.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include ICE.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
Bitcoin investors may soon forget the recent correction.
It's been a rough year for Bitcoin (BTC +1.72%) and cryptocurrencies in general. Still the largest crypto asset globally, Bitcoin's price has fallen to just $65,000 in recent weeks. Its total market cap is down to around $1.3 trillion.
Another price surge, however, could be just around the corner, according to one Wall Street analyst. You'll want to listen to why he believes Bitcoin holders shouldn't give up just yet.
Geoff Kendrick, the head of digital asset research at Standard Chartered, a British bank with nearly $1 trillion in assets, recently warned investors that the recent cryptocurrency correction may not be completely behind us.
"Near-term, we see potential for further price downside in the coming months," he wrote in a note to investors. Why? Because investors still seem to be withdrawing assets from crypto-based ETFs. "Holdings of digital asset ETFs have fallen (albeit in an orderly manner), and the average Bitcoin ETF holding is now down around 25%."
Still, Kendrick views the recent volatility as nothing other than a speed bump along the way to his long-term price prediction. This year, he still believes Bitcoin will regain the $100,000 mark as the emerging asset class continues to mature and become more resilient.
Looking beyond to 2030, Kendrick remains confident in his $500,000 price target. "We think that the involvement of institutional investors and ETFs will cushion the downside this time, leading to less extreme total declines," he observes, adding that "Our constructive long-term view remains intact."
It's not hard to find other price predictions that agree with Kendrick's $500,000 target. The latest estimates from Ark Invest, led by iconic fund manager Cathie Wood, call for a $710,000 Bitcoin price target by 2030. At minimum, the firm anticipates a $300,000-per-Bitcoin price, with a $1.5 million-per-Bitcoin price target if conditions allow. Ark's No. 1 value driver: institutional investment, primarily through spot ETFs.
In short, both Kendrick and Wood believe institutional involvement will drive Bitcoin's long-term value while mitigating its downside potential. But there's one other value driver investors should monitor closely.
Image source: Getty Images.
What could possibly warrant a $500,000 Bitcoin price target? A simple comparison to gold provides the easiest answer.
It's not too often that a "store of value" asset comes along. These are assets that investors buy as they retain value simply by being themselves. Real estate is a solid example. So is art or collectibles.
But gold is the long-term king. Valued for thousands of years, society simply agrees that gold -- despite its limited industrial use -- is valuable simply because we all agree that it has value.
In many ways, Bitcoin is digital gold. Its supply cannot be controlled by outside forces, and in the long term, no more Bitcoins will be mined.
In this way, it's a scarce asset with strong social value. Right now, gold's total market cap is roughly $36 trillion. After the recent correction, Bitcoin's market cap is down to just $1.3 trillion. If Bitcoin were to reach value parity with gold, a single Bitcoin would be worth approximately $1.7 million.
Experts like Cathie Wood are also on board with this valuation approach. Her firm, Ark Invest, recently called Bitcoin "a nimbler, more transparent store of value relative to gold." Bitcoin's potential to take market share from gold is a big factor behind their price prediction. "In our view, Bitcoin as digital gold is an appealing narrative and will drive penetration," a report from Ark Invest concludes.
Of course, this value parity is far from guaranteed. And it may take decades to achieve. But a simple comparison to gold, which attributes zero value to Bitcoin apart from its store of value potential, demonstrates how reasonable a $500,000 long-term price target is.
Ryan Vanzo has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool recommends Standard Chartered Plc. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
*Average returns of all recommendations since inception. Cost basis and return based on previous market day close.
Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services.
Making the world smarter, happier, and richer.
© 1995 - 2026 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved.
Market data powered by Xignite and Polygon.io.
About The Motley Fool
Our Services
Around the Globe
Free Tools
Affiliates & Friends
Researchers at the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in São Paulo, Brazil, have created a new product that blends native bee honey with cocoa bean shells. The result can be eaten on its own or added to foods and cosmetic formulations. The findings were published in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, which highlighted the study on its cover.
To make the product, the team used honey from native bees as a natural, edible solvent to draw out beneficial compounds from cocoa shells, a byproduct typically discarded during chocolate production. These compounds include theobromine and caffeine, which are linked to heart health. The ultrasound-assisted process also boosted the honey's levels of phenolic compounds, known for their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects.
Researchers who sampled the mixture report a pronounced chocolate flavor that varies depending on the proportion of honey to cocoa shells. Additional testing is planned to further evaluate taste and other sensory characteristics.
"Of course, the biggest appeal to the public is the flavor, but our analyses have shown that it has a number of bioactive compounds that make it quite interesting from a nutritional and cosmetic point of view," says Felipe Sanchez Bragagnolo, the study's first author. He carried out the research during his postdoctoral work at the Faculty of Applied Sciences (FCA) at UNICAMP in Limeira with support from FAPESP.
Working with INOVA UNICAMP, the university's innovation agency, the team is now seeking a commercial partner to license the patented method and bring the product to market (read more at agencia.fapesp.br/52969).
Native Bee Honey and Biodiversity
Beyond reducing food waste, the project highlights the sustainable use of local biodiversity. Honey from native Brazilian bees was selected because it generally contains more water and is less viscous than honey from European bees (Apis mellifera), making it more effective for extracting compounds.
The researchers tested honey from five Brazilian species: borá (Tetragona clavipes), jataí (Tetragonisca angustula), mandaçaia (Melipona quadrifasciata), mandaguari (Scaptotrigona postica), and moça-branca (Frieseomelitta varia). Cocoa shells were supplied by the São Paulo State Department of Agriculture and Supply's Comprehensive Technical Assistance Coordination Office (CATI) unit in São José do Rio Preto.
Mandaguari honey was initially used to refine the extraction process because its water content and viscosity were moderate compared to the others. Once optimized, the same procedure was applied to the remaining honey varieties.
Bragagnolo notes that honey is sensitive to environmental factors such as climate, storage, and temperature. "Therefore, it's possible to adapt the process to locally available honey, not necessarily mandaguari honey," he says.
Green Chemistry and Ultrasound Extraction
The extraction method relies on ultrasound technology. A probe that resembles a metal pen is inserted into a container holding the honey and cocoa shells. Sound waves generated by the probe help release compounds from the plant material so they dissolve into the honey.
This approach works by forming microscopic bubbles that collapse and briefly raise the temperature, helping break down the shells. In the food industry, ultrasound-assisted extraction is viewed as an environmentally friendly technique because it is faster and more efficient than many conventional methods.
Sustainability was formally evaluated in the study using Path2Green software, developed by a team led by Professor Mauricio Ariel Rostagno of FCA-UNICAMP, who also supervised Bragagnolo's postdoctoral research and coordinated the project. The analysis measured how well the process aligned with 12 principles of green chemistry, including transportation, post-treatment, purification, and application. The use of a local, edible, ready-to-use solvent was a major advantage. On a scale of -1 to +1, the product received a score of +0.118.
"We believe that with a device like this, in a cooperative or small business that already works with both cocoa and native bee honey, it'd be possible to increase the portfolio with a value-added product, including for haute cuisine," Rostagno suggests.
Shelf Life and Future Applications
The team is also planning studies to examine how ultrasound affects honey microbiology. Just as it breaks down plant cells, ultrasound can disrupt the cell walls of microorganisms such as bacteria that may spoil the product.
"Honey from native bees usually needs to be refrigerated, matured, dehumidified, or pasteurized, unlike honey from European bees, which can be stored at room temperature. We suspect that, simply by being exposed to ultrasound, the microorganisms contained in the honey are eliminated, increasing the stability and shelf life of the product," he explains.
Looking ahead, the researchers intend to explore other uses for native bee honey as a solvent in ultrasound-assisted extraction, including processing additional plant residues.
Along with postdoctoral fellowships and an international research internship for Bragagnolo, the project received multiple scholarships and grants from FAPESP (23/02064-8, 23/16744-0, 21/12264-9, 20/08421-9, 19/13496-0, and 18/14582-5.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. Original written by André Julião. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Cite This Page:
Study of 1.2 Million Infants Reveals the Truth About Vegan Baby Diets
What Happens to Your Brain When You Eat 30% Less for 20 Years?
Scientists Fix a Hidden Flaw in Perovskite Solar Cells With Tiny Crystal Seeds
Aging Isn't Random, and It Starts Earlier Than You Think
Stay informed with ScienceDaily's free email newsletter, updated daily and weekly. Or view our many newsfeeds in your RSS reader:
Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks:
Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Researchers at Oregon State University have created a new nanomaterial designed to destroy cancer cells from the inside. The material activates two separate chemical reactions once inside a tumor cell, overwhelming it with oxidative stress while leaving surrounding healthy tissue unharmed.
The work, led by Oleh Taratula, Olena Taratula, and Chao Wang from the OSU College of Pharmacy, was published in Advanced Functional Materials.
Advancing Chemodynamic Therapy
The discovery strengthens the growing field of chemodynamic therapy or CDT. This emerging cancer treatment strategy takes advantage of the unique chemical conditions found inside tumors. Compared with normal tissue, cancer cells tend to be more acidic and contain higher levels of hydrogen peroxide.
Traditional CDT uses these tumor conditions to spark the formation of hydroxyl radicals, highly reactive molecules made of oxygen and hydrogen that contain an unpaired electron. These reactive oxygen species damage cells through oxidation, stripping electrons from essential components such as lipids, proteins, and DNA.
More recent CDT approaches have also succeeded in generating singlet oxygen inside tumors. Singlet oxygen is another reactive oxygen species, named for its single electron spin state rather than the three spin states seen in the more stable oxygen molecules present in the air.
Overcoming Limits of Existing CDT Agents
"However, existing CDT agents are limited," Oleh Taratula said. "They efficiently generate either radical hydroxyls or singlet oxygen but not both, and they often lack sufficient catalytic activity to sustain robust reactive oxygen species production. Consequently, preclinical studies often only show partial tumor regression and not a durable therapeutic benefit."
To address these shortcomings, the team developed a new CDT nanoagent built from an iron-based metal-organic framework or MOF. This structure is capable of producing both hydroxyl radicals and singlet oxygen, increasing its cancer-fighting potential. The MOF demonstrated strong toxicity across multiple cancer cell lines while causing minimal harm to noncancerous cells.
Complete Tumor Regression in Mice
"When we systemically administered our nanoagent in mice bearing human breast cancer cells, it efficiently accumulated in tumors, robustly generated reactive oxygen species and completely eradicated the cancer without adverse effects," Olena Taratula said. "We saw total tumor regression and long-term prevention of recurrence, all without seeing any systemic toxicity."
In these preclinical experiments, tumors disappeared entirely and did not return, and the animals showed no signs of harmful side effects.
Next Steps Toward Broader Cancer Treatment
Before moving into human trials, the researchers plan to test the treatment in additional cancer types, including aggressive pancreatic cancer, to determine whether the approach can be effective across a wide range of tumors.
Other contributors to the study included Oregon State researchers Kongbrailatpam Shitaljit Sharma, Yoon Tae Goo, Vladislav Grigoriev, Constanze Raitmayr, Ana Paula Mesquita Souza, and Manali Parag Phawde. Funding was provided by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Oregon State University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Cite This Page:
Study of 1.2 Million Infants Reveals the Truth About Vegan Baby Diets
What Happens to Your Brain When You Eat 30% Less for 20 Years?
Scientists Fix a Hidden Flaw in Perovskite Solar Cells With Tiny Crystal Seeds
Aging Isn't Random, and It Starts Earlier Than You Think
Stay informed with ScienceDaily's free email newsletter, updated daily and weekly. Or view our many newsfeeds in your RSS reader:
Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks:
Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
March 1, 2026
7 min read
Why mathematicians hate Good Will Hunting
This Oscar-winning classic set a surprisingly simple mathematical challenge
By Manon Bischoff edited by Daisy Yuhas
Entertainment Pictures/Alamy
I still remember the movie night when I first watched Good Will Hunting with my mom. Matt Damon played a janitor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While mopping the hallways, he walked past a blackboard with an advanced math problem written on it. He stopped and started solving the problem. I watched, mesmerized, as he created seemingly illegible structures of dots and lines—until suddenly a math professor came out of a lecture hall and chased him away.
The audience was previously told that that problem was meant to be incredibly difficult, taking years of expert thinking to resolve, yet it was quickly worked out by Damon's insightful janitor in just moments. At the time, I was fascinated by the idea that people could possess a hidden talent that no one suspected was there.
As I got older and more mathematically savvy, I dismissed the whole thing as Hollywood hokum. Good Will Hunting might tell a great story, but it isn't very realistic. In fact, the mathematical challenge doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. With the award ceremony for the Oscars this month, many people are thinking back on past winners—including Good Will Hunting. It's worth taking a closer look at the blackboard in a film that, in 1997, took nine nominations and won for both original screenplay and actor in a supporting role.
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The film was inspired by a true story—one I personally find far more compelling than the fairy tale version in Good Will Hunting. The real tale centers George Dantzig, who would one day become known as the “father of linear programming.”
Dantzig was not always a top student. He claimed to have struggled with algebra in junior high school. But he was not a layperson when the event that inspired the film occurred. By that time, he was a graduate student in mathematics. In 1939 he arrived late for a lecture led by statistics professor Jerzy Neyman at the University of California, Berkeley. Neyman wrote two problems on the blackboard, and Dantzig assumed they were homework.
Dantzig noted that the task seemed harder than usual, but he still worked out both problems and submitted his solutions to Neyman. As it turned out, he had solved what were then two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics.
That feat was quite impressive. By contrast, the mathematical problem used in the Hollywood film is very easy to solve once you learn some of the jargon. In fact, I'll walk you through it. As the movie presents it, the challenge is this: draw all homeomorphically irreducible trees of size n = 10.
Before we go any further, I want to point out two things. First, the presentation of this challenge is actually the most difficult thing about it. It's quite unrealistic to expect a layperson—regardless of their mathematical talent—to be familiar with the technical language used to formulate the problem. But that brings me to the second thing to note: once you translate the technical terms, the actual task is simple. With a little patience and guidance, you could even assign it to children.
Let's get into the vocabulary. In mathematics, a tree is a type of graph—that is, a collection of points that are connected to one another. Trees, notably, cannot contain loops, so you cannot connect the points in a way that causes them to close into one. The size of the tree is given in terms of the number of points, or nodes, in the graph. In this case, we know we are meant to draw all possible tree graphs with 10 nodes.
The term “homeomorphic” basically refers to the idea that the nodes in this network always follow a particular sequence; the exact shape of the tree is not as important as the sequence of connections. When I draw a connection between nodes A and B, I can make that link longer or shorter or rotated slightly, and it won't matter so long as the overall structure of the network remains the same. The important part is that A connects to B.
To think about that in a different way, imagine a tree shaped like an X with five nodes and a tree shaped like a K with five nodes. These trees are considered to be the same tree because the number of nodes and sequence of connections are unchanged between the two shapes.
And “irreducible,” in this case, means that every node in the graph must be connected by either one line or by three or more lines such that no node is connected by only two lines: if a node was connected by only two lines, it could be reduced into just a single line.
So in plain language, the task is to draw all trees with the specified properties that each have 10 nodes. There are several approaches to this. For example, you could write a computer program that solves the task in a fraction of a second. Or you could start drawing all the graphs that fulfill these criteria by hand. It turns out that you may only need a few minutes of doodling if you decide to go with the latter route.
To demonstrate that, you can first draw a tree consisting of one central node that radiates out with nine connections, giving us a total of 10 nodes. That design meets the required criteria—it's one of our homeomorphically irreducible trees of size n = 10. Good work!
Next, draw a tree with eight connections—you'll find this design leads to a dead end because you won't be able to add a node without either re-creating the previous tree or introducing a reducible line. Move on to drawing a tree that begins with a node that has seven connections. You will still need to place two more nodes, but you can imagine adding them to one of the seven you've just drawn. At this point, you should be able to keep doodling through the possibilities.
If you prefer an even more systematic approach—though it may take you a bit more time, depending on your comfort with graph theory—one clever solution involves considering which mathematical conditions the trees must fulfill and representing them with equations.
For this approach, we can define nk as the number of nodes n with k connections. Because the tree should be irreducible, there is no circumstance where n2 can exist, so n2 = 0. Furthermore, we know the tree must have 10 nodes total—that means you'll never have n10 or n11, and so on. The maximum is n9.
We can then represent what we know with a mathematical formula:
n1 + n3 + n4 + n5 + n6 + n7 + n8 + n9 = 10
Note that we skipped n2 because we know that would equal 0.
There's another constraint that we can express. Our tree with 10 nodes will ultimately have 18 lines, or connections, between them if we count in such a way that the link between node A and node B counts twice, with one being A-B, and the other being B-A. We can use that to build an equation where we represent each connection and node individually. For example, if a node links to one other node, it creates one connection: 1n1. If a single node links to three other nodes, there will be three connections created, so 3n3, etcetera. This leads us to the next equation:
n1 + 3n3 + 4n4 + 5n5 + 6n6 + 7n7 + 8n8 + 9n9 = 18
Now you've created two equations that corral and constrain our tree-drawing options. But we need to combine them to identify the terms most relevant for our task. You can subtract the first equation from the second to produce:
2n3 + 3n4 + 4n5 + 5n6 + 6n7 + 7n8 + 8n9 = 8
This equation serves as a reference for drawing your various trees. The idea is to take terms that, together, will equal 8 when you sum their first integer, or coefficient. Look at 8n9 for example. That tells us we only need one n9 to build our tree, which corresponds to the drawing in which a single node has nine connections.
If you try to draw n8, you'll hit the dead-end scenario, with no tree that meets our criteria. If you were using our equation for reference, you wouldn't even bother trying to draw it because you'd see you couldn't combine 7n8 with another term such that the first number in each would equal 8.
But a node with seven connections, n7,can work if you combine it with n3,meaning you can combine a tree with seven connections (represented by 6n7 in the equation) and a tree with three connections (2n3) to find another solution to the problem. And you can carry on with the process from there!
I can understand why Good Will Hunting's filmmakers shied away from Dantzig's actual work. The solution he devised was not short—and the trees are probably more visually appealing for a cinematographer.
But I still think the filmmakers chose this particular math problem poorly, even for a Hollywood film. The history of mathematics has many amazing stories, including true stories of actual laypeople solving an open problem, that could be great fodder for films.
In the field of geometry, for example, many breakthroughs regarding tiling the plane have been achieved by ambitious people who hadn't studied mathematics or anything similar. One of my personal favorites occurred in 2022, when retired print technician David Smith finally found the long-sought “einstein tile,” a polygon that can fill a plane completely without any gaps and without the resulting pattern ever repeating itself.
This article originally appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft and was reproduced with permission. It was translated from the original German version with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editors.
Manon Bischoff is a theoretical physicist and an editor at Spektrum der Wissenschaft, the German-language sister publication of Scientific American.
If you enjoyed this article, I'd like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I've been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you'll support us in that mission.
Thank you,
David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American
Subscribe to Scientific American to learn and share the most exciting discoveries, innovations and ideas shaping our world today.
Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.
© 2025 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Researchers at Yale School of Medicine (YSM) are drawing attention to a powerful and preventable factor in cardiovascular disease. Their findings suggest that improving sleep may play a much larger role in protecting heart health than many people realize.
In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, scientists analyzed data from nearly 1 million post-9/11 U.S. veterans. They discovered that adults who have both insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea face a significantly higher risk of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease compared with those who have only one of the conditions. This combination, called comorbid insomnia and sleep apnea (COMISA), stood out as a particularly harmful risk category.
"We spend an enormous amount of time managing cardiovascular disease downstream, but far less time addressing more upstream modifiable risk factors," says Allison Gaffey, PhD, assistant professor of medicine (cardiovascular medicine) at YSM and first author of the paper. "Sleep disturbances, which are common in the veteran population, are often treated as secondary problems."
Insomnia and Sleep Apnea Often Overlap
Doctors usually diagnose and treat insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea as separate disorders. Insomnia makes it hard to fall asleep or stay asleep. Sleep apnea involves repeated pauses in breathing during the night. However, many people experience both conditions at the same time, and when they occur together, the health effects can intensify.
"These conditions don't just coexist politely," Gaffey says. "Treating one while ignoring the other is a bit like bailing water out of a boat without fixing the leak."
Why Disrupted Sleep Strains the Heart
The connection is important because sleep is essential for regulating the cardiovascular system. During healthy sleep, the heart and blood vessels have time to rest, repair, and reset.
"Sleep touches every single part of our existence," says Andrey Zinchuk, MD, MHS, associate professor of medicine (pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine) at YSM and senior author of the paper. "Oftentimes, it is neglected even though it has such an important impact on our lives."
When sleep is repeatedly disrupted by frequent awakenings, shorter sleep duration, or pauses in breathing, the cardiovascular system loses critical recovery time. Zinchuk explains that without this nightly reset, the heart and blood vessels cannot properly adapt and restore balance.
Prevention and Early Cardiovascular Risk
A key aim of the study was to determine whether sleep disorders influence cardiovascular risk early enough for prevention to make a difference. "We wanted to know whether COMISA mattered early in the cardiovascular risk trajectory," Gaffey says, "rather than decades later when disease is already established."
According to Gaffey, ongoing sleep problems should not be dismissed as minor frustrations. "Over time, it places a measurable strain on your cardiovascular system," she says.
Zinchuk emphasizes that future care must prioritize prevention rather than waiting to treat advanced disease.
The researchers recommend evaluating sleep as routinely as other major cardiovascular risk factors. Insomnia and sleep apnea should be assessed together instead of in isolation. Because sleep problems are common, measurable, and treatable, identifying and addressing them early could significantly alter the course of cardiovascular disease.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Yale University. Original written by Avi Patel. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Cite This Page:
Study of 1.2 Million Infants Reveals the Truth About Vegan Baby Diets
What Happens to Your Brain When You Eat 30% Less for 20 Years?
Scientists Fix a Hidden Flaw in Perovskite Solar Cells With Tiny Crystal Seeds
Aging Isn't Random, and It Starts Earlier Than You Think
Stay informed with ScienceDaily's free email newsletter, updated daily and weekly. Or view our many newsfeeds in your RSS reader:
Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks:
Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
What happens here matters everywhere
by Todd Bishop on Mar 1, 2026 at 9:28 amMarch 1, 2026 at 9:39 am
Amazon's OpenAI investment and cloud partnership made big headlines Friday, but the mechanics of the deal — including how the money flows, what triggers the payments, and what happens if things go sideways — are buried in SEC filings that tell a more complicated story.
Here's how it works, what the filings say, and what they're still keeping under wraps.
The money: Amazon is investing up to $50 billion in OpenAI, in two stages.
It's part of a larger funding round: OpenAI raised $110 billion total at a $730 billion pre-money valuation, with SoftBank and Nvidia each contributing $30 billion alongside Amazon's $50 billion. OpenAI said additional financial investors are expected to join as the round progresses.
Microsoft, OpenAI's largest existing investor, has not yet participated in the round. CNBC reported that Microsoft still has an option to join. Microsoft and OpenAI put out a joint statement saying their partnership remains unchanged. (More on that below.)
Microsoft did, however, invest $5 billion in Anthropic last year, so with the latest deals, both Seattle-area tech giants now have their own stakes in the makers of Claude and ChatGPT.
The triggers: Amazon can buy its remaining shares whenever it wants, at its discretion, according to the filings. But two events can force its hand, requiring the additional investment.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, talking about the deal in a joint appearance with Amazon CEO Andy Jassy on CNBC on Friday, said OpenAI is “open to going public at the right time.”
The form of the investment could also change. If Amazon buys its remaining shares before an IPO, it gets Series C Preferred Stock. If the purchase happens after OpenAI goes public, the filing says Amazon receives common stock instead.
The expiration date: The equity commitment expires Dec. 31, 2028. If the triggers haven't happened and Amazon hasn't invested the full amount by then, the obligation ends.
If either side fails to meet its obligations under the equity agreement, monetary damages are capped at the unfunded commitment amount. Each company has the right to seek a court order forcing the other to follow through. Both sides waived their right to a jury trial.
The underlying cloud deal: The equity is only part of the arrangement. On the same day, Amazon and OpenAI signed a Joint Collaboration Agreement (JCA) and a cloud services deal, both of which are referenced but not included in the public filings. OpenAI already had a $38 billion multi-year agreement with AWS. This expands it by $100 billion over eight years.
The cloud services agreement includes a commitment by OpenAI to consume 2 gigawatts of Trainium capacity through AWS. Gigawatts measure power draw, and serve as a proxy for the scale of computing involved. For reference, a large nuclear power plant produces about 1 gigawatt.
Trainium is Amazon's custom AI chip, designed as a lower-cost alternative to Nvidia's GPUs. Anthropic is already training its next version of Claude on Trainium, according to Jassy, making OpenAI the second major AI lab to commit to the chip.
Amazon and OpenAI are also co-building a Stateful Runtime Environment, powered by OpenAI models, that will run in Amazon Bedrock, AWS's AI model platform. This runtime environment will let AI agents maintain context, remember prior work, and act across multiple systems over time. OpenAI says it will launch in the next few months.
The filing doesn't mention Amazon Alexa specifically, but the press release says OpenAI will develop “customized models available to power Amazon's customer-facing applications,” supplementing Amazon's own Nova family of AI models.
The equity investment and cloud partnership deals are contractually linked. If the Joint Collaboration Agreement terminates, the additional $35 billion equity commitment dies with it. But because the JCA isn't public, we don't know how it could be terminated.
OpenAI and Amazon have been talking for years: The filing references a mutual nondisclosure agreement dated May 23, 2023. That's nearly three years before Friday's announcement, and four months before Amazon's first $4 billion investment in Anthropic.
One reason they probably didn't do a deal sooner: Microsoft had a right of first refusal to be OpenAI's compute provider, and OpenAI couldn't jointly develop products with third parties.
Those restrictions were loosened in October 2025, when Microsoft and OpenAI announced a restructured partnership agreement that included new provisions allowing OpenAI to jointly develop products with third parties and removing Microsoft's right of first refusal on compute.
In exchange, OpenAI committed to purchase an additional $250 billion in Azure services.
In their joint interview Friday, Jassy told CNBC that he and Altman had been talking “for a while” and that the OpenAI partnership was already in Amazon's projections when the company announced plans for $200 billion in capital spending this year.
What's hidden: The filing is heavily redacted. Key deal terms left out include: the milestone that could require Amazon to invest the remaining $35 billion on five business days' notice; events that could terminate the $35 billion investment obligation; what constitutes a material breach of the deal; and the conditions to be satisfied before Amazon buys additional shares.
The Verge and others have speculated that the redacted milestones may be tied to OpenAI achieving artificial general intelligence, or AGI, a loosely defined threshold at which AI systems can match or exceed human-level reasoning across a wide range of tasks.
An AGI clause exists in Microsoft's OpenAI deal. But Altman signaled that's not the case here. “We're not doing new deals that stop when AGI gets reached,” he told CNBC.
What about Microsoft? OpenAI and Microsoft put out a joint statement of their own on Friday, coinciding with OpenAI's funding news, saying that Microsoft Azure remains the exclusive cloud provider for stateless OpenAI application programming interfaces.
Stateless refers to a useful but basic building block, where an application sends a prompt, gets a response, and the connection ends. That's in contrast with stateful APIs, more sophisticated connections that maintain context and memory across multiple interactions.
Microsoft also keeps its exclusive license to OpenAI's intellectual property, which powers Copilot, Bing, and the Azure OpenAI Service. Under the existing partnership, Microsoft receives a share of OpenAI's revenue. That arrangement is unchanged, and it includes revenue from OpenAI's partnerships with other cloud providers.
The joint Microsoft-OpenAI statement said, “Collaborations like the partnership between OpenAI and Amazon were always contemplated under our agreements and Microsoft is excited to see what they build together.”
OpenAI's own products, including Frontier, still run on Azure. Frontier is OpenAI's enterprise platform for building, deploying, and managing teams of AI agents.
AWS becomes the exclusive third-party cloud distributor for Frontier, meaning enterprises that want to access it through a cloud provider other than OpenAI go through Amazon. But the product itself remains hosted on Microsoft's infrastructure.
Bottom line: The era of exclusive AI relationships is over. Microsoft keeps the core API business, the intellectual property license, and the revenue share. Amazon gets the Stateful Runtime Environment, the Trainium workloads, and third-party Frontier distribution.
Both companies are investing in Anthropic. OpenAI is getting investment from everyone. The biggest players in AI are no longer just picking partners, they're playing all sides.
The chips powering your smart TV, voice assistant, tablet, and car all have something in common: MediaTek
MediaTek's chips power over 2 billion devices a year. From AI experiences in your smart home, vehicle, office, and beyond — processing voice commands, visual recognition, and predictive responses are faster than ever. As AI moves from the edge to the cloud, MediaTek's high-end chips make intelligent devices even smarter.
Want to learn more about MediaTek's capabilities?
Click for more about underwritten and sponsored content on GeekWire.
Click for more about underwritten and sponsored content on GeekWire.
Amazon invests $50B in OpenAI, deepens AWS partnership with expanded $100B cloud deal
Pick Alexa's personality: Amazon lets users choose ‘Brief,' ‘Chill,' or ‘Sweet' conversation styles
Amazon to move out of longtime office building near its main Seattle headquarters
Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline
Have a scoop that you'd like GeekWire to cover? Let us know.
Amazon invests $50B in OpenAI, deepens AWS partnership with expanded $100B cloud deal
OpenAI's $38B cloud deal with Amazon takes ChatGPT maker further beyond Microsoft
The Microsoft-OpenAI Files: Internal documents reveal the realities of AI's defining alliance
Internal emails: Elon Musk wanted to keep OpenAI from becoming ‘Microsoft's marketing bitch'
Catch every headline in your inbox
Reading time 2 minutes
A massive new study suggests more research is needed to understand the potential health effects of living near nuclear power plants. The findings arrive as policymakers across the political spectrum are pushing for the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S.
The study found that U.S. counties located closer to operational nuclear power plants (NPPs) have higher cancer mortality rates than counties farther away. It was led by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and published last week in the journal Nature Communications.
“Our study suggests that living near a NPP may carry a measurable cancer risk—one that lessens with distance,” said senior author Petros Koutrakis, a professor of environmental health at Harvard, in a press release. “We recommend that more studies be done that address the issue of NPPs and health impacts, particularly at a time when nuclear power is being promoted as a clean solution to climate change.”
The research arrives at a moment when nuclear energy appears poised for a comeback. Last year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for reforms to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency that oversees the industry and administers licensing. The order also called for expanding American nuclear capacity from roughly 100 gigawatts in 2024 to 400 gigawatts by 2050, arguing that nuclear power could ensure the nation's energy independence while supporting “cutting-edge, energy-intensive industries such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.”
Support for nuclear expansion isn't limited to the political right. Center-left voices, including journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, co-authors of Abundance, have argued that reducing regulatory barriers for clean energy, including nuclear, is essential for addressing climate change. In 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom saved the state's last nuclear power plant from its scheduled closure in 2025.
These new findings put these policies into question.
Researchers analyzed nuclear power plant operations and cancer mortality between 2000 and 2018 using advanced statistical modeling. They combined plant location and operation date data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration with county-level cancer mortality data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Their models accounted for a wide range of variables including income, race, body mass index, smoking prevalence, and proximity to hospitals. Even after adjusting for these factors, counties closer to nuclear plants experienced higher cancer mortality rates.
The researchers estimate that roughly 115,000 cancer deaths in the U.S., about 6,400 per year, were associated with proximity to nuclear power plants.
Still, the researchers emphasize the findings do not establish causation and additional research is needed to better understand how people might be exposed, how long it could take for health effects to appear, and whether certain types of cancers are more likely than others.
Explore more on these topics
Share this story
Subscribe and interact with our community, get up to date with our customised Newsletters and much more.
Even when your power goes down, your Wi-Fi won't.
The online portal is set be hosted at Freedom.gov.
A new review finds no convincing evidence that drugs like Ozempic raise people's risk of common thyroid cancers.
The National Labor Relations Board dropped a case against SpaceX... and washed its hands of all future cases.
Spain, Australia, and other countries are pushing social media age crackdowns to protect kids from the internet.
The new laws would make it harder for states and cities to regulate AI.
©2026 GIZMODO USA LLC.
All rights reserved.
Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Register Now.
Save up to $680 on your Disrupt 2026 pass. Ends 11:59 p.m. PT tonight. REGISTER NOW.
Latest
AI
Amazon
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
Fundraising
Gadgets
Gaming
Google
Government & Policy
Hardware
Instagram
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
Social
Space
Startups
TikTok
Transportation
Venture
Staff
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Newsletters
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
By CEO Sam Altman's own admission, OpenAI's deal with the Department of Defense was “definitely rushed,” and “the optics don't look good.”
After negotiations between Anthropic and the Pentagon fell through on Friday, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to stop using Anthropic's technology after a six-month transition period, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said he was designating the AI company as a supply-chain risk.
Then, OpenAI quickly announced that it had reached a deal of its own for models to be deployed in classified environments. With Anthropic saying it was drawing red lines around the use of its technology in fully autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance, and Altman saying OpenAI had the same red lines, there were some obvious questions: Was OpenAI being honest about its safeguards? Why was it able to reach a deal while Anthropic was not?
So as OpenAI executives defended the agreement on social media, the company also published a blog post outlining its approach.
In fact, the post pointed to three areas where it said OpenAI's models cannot be used — mass domestic surveillance, autonomous weapon systems, and “high-stakes automated decisions (e.g. systems such as ‘social credit').”
The company said that in contrast to other AI companies that have “reduced or removed their safety guardrails and relied primarily on usage policies as their primary safeguards in national security deployments,” OpenAI's agreement protects its red lines “through a more expansive, multi-layered approach.”
“We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections,” the blog said. “This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law.”
The company added, “We don't know why Anthropic could not reach this deal, and we hope that they and more labs will consider it.”
After the post was published, Techdirt's Mike Masnick claimed that the deal “absolutely does allow for domestic surveillance,” because it says the collection of private data will comply with Executive Order 12333 (along with a number of other laws). Masnick described that order as “how the NSA hides its domestic surveillance by capturing communications by tapping into lines *outside the US* even if it contains info from/on US persons.”
In a LinkedIn post, OpenAI's head of national security partnerships Katrina Mulligan argued that much of the discussion around the contract language assumes “the only thing standing between Americans and the use of AI for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons is a single usage policy provision in a single contract with the Department of War.”
“That's not how any of this works,” Mulligan said, adding, “Deployment architecture matters more than contract language […] By limiting our deployment to cloud API, we can ensure that our models cannot be integrated directly into weapons systems, sensors, or other operational hardware.”
Altman also fielded questions about the deal on X, where he admitted it had been rushed and resulted in significant backlash against OpenAI (to the extent that Anthropic's Claude overtook OpenAI's ChatGPT in Apple's App Store on Saturday). So why do it?
“We really wanted to de-escalate things, and we thought the deal on offer was good,” Altman said. “If we are right and this does lead to a de-escalation between the DoW and the industry, we will look like geniuses, and a company that took on a lot of pain to do things to help the industry. If not, we will continue to be characterized as […] rushed and uncareful.”
Topics
Anthony Ha is TechCrunch's weekend editor. Previously, he worked as a tech reporter at Adweek, a senior editor at VentureBeat, a local government reporter at the Hollister Free Lance, and vice president of content at a VC firm. He lives in New York City.
You can contact or verify outreach from Anthony by emailing anthony.ha@techcrunch.com.
Actively scaling? Fundraising? Planning your next launch?TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 delivers tactical playbooks and direct access to 1,000+ founders and investors who are building, backing, and closing.Register by March 13 to save up to $300.
The trap Anthropic built for itself
India disrupts access to popular developer platform Supabase with blocking order
Jack Dorsey just halved the size of Block's employee base — and he says your company is next
An accountant won a big jackpot on Kalshi by betting against DOGE
It's time to pull the plug on plug-in hybrids
A Meta AI security researcher said an OpenClaw agent ran amok on her inbox
Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras
© 2026 TechCrunch Media LLC.
Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Register Now.
Save up to $680 on your Disrupt 2026 pass. Ends 11:59 p.m. PT tonight. REGISTER NOW.
Latest
AI
Amazon
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
Fundraising
Gadgets
Gaming
Google
Government & Policy
Hardware
Instagram
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
Social
Space
Startups
TikTok
Transportation
Venture
Staff
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Newsletters
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
Honor launched its new foldable, the Honor Magic V6, with a massive 6,600 mAh battery and a new sturdy hinge ahead of the Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona.
The Chinese company has been obsessed with proving that it makes the thinnest foldables. This year's version is 4mm thick when unfolded and 8.75 mm thick when folded. Compared to last year's Magic V5, which was 4.1 mm thick when unfolded and 8.8 mm thick when folded. We are talking very thin shavings here, but that helps the company make those claims.
The battery is possibly one of the most impressive parts of the phone. The Honor Magic V6 has a 6,600 mAh battery, up from 5,820 mAh last year. Using Honor's SuperCharge tech, the phone can charge at 80W through a wired connection, and at 66W wirelessly.
What's more, Honor also showed a new Silicon-carbon battery tech with 32% silicon density that could push foldable phone battery over 7,000 mAh.
The new device has a 7.95-inch main AMOLED display with 2352 x 2172 pixel resolution and a 6.52-inch cover display with 2420 x 1080 pixel resolution. Both screens support LTPO 2.0, which means they can switch to variable refresh rates between 1-120Hz for different use cases for better content legibility and power saving.
The company said that it has worked on a new Super Steel Hinge with a tensile strength of 2,800 MPa, which would make for sturdy long-term usage. It also said that it has reduced the crease depth by 44%, making the display look smooth. Honor noted that the Magic V6 has a new anti-reflective coating for the external screen with a reflectivity rating of 1.5%.
The phone is powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 processor, has 16GB RAM, and 512GB of storage. The Magic V6 has three rear cameras: a 50-megapixel main camera with f/1.6 aperture, a 64-megapixel telephoto camera with f/2.5 aperture, and a 50-megapixel ultrawide camera with f/2.2 aperture. On the front, there are dual 20-megapixel cameras with an f/2.2 aperture.
Honor is taking efforts to make the device have file and notification sharing compatibility with Apple devices. For instance, with Honor Magic V6, you can set up a two-way notification sync with an iPhone. Plus, the device also has settings to display notifications on the Apple Watch. The foldable has the ability share files with Macs with one tap, and it can act as an extended display as well.
Honor didn't specify pricing for the device, but said that the Magic V6 will be released in select international markets in the second half of the year.
Topics
Ivan covers global consumer tech developments at TechCrunch. He is based out of India and has previously worked at publications including Huffington Post and The Next Web.
You can contact or verify outreach from Ivan by emailing im@ivanmehta.com or via encrypted message at ivan.42 on Signal.
Actively scaling? Fundraising? Planning your next launch?TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 delivers tactical playbooks and direct access to 1,000+ founders and investors who are building, backing, and closing.Register by March 13 to save up to $300.
The trap Anthropic built for itself
India disrupts access to popular developer platform Supabase with blocking order
Jack Dorsey just halved the size of Block's employee base — and he says your company is next
An accountant won a big jackpot on Kalshi by betting against DOGE
It's time to pull the plug on plug-in hybrids
A Meta AI security researcher said an OpenClaw agent ran amok on her inbox
Americans are destroying Flock surveillance cameras
© 2026 TechCrunch Media LLC.
Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Register Now.
Save up to $680 on your Disrupt 2026 pass. Ends 11:59 p.m. PT tonight. REGISTER NOW.
Latest
AI
Amazon
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
Fundraising
Gadgets
Gaming
Google
Government & Policy
Hardware
Instagram
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
Social
Space
Startups
TikTok
Transportation
Venture
Staff
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Newsletters
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
Posted:
Anthropic's chatbot Claude seems to have benefited from the attention around the company's fraught negotiations with the Pentagon.
As first reported by CNBC, Claude has been rising to the top of the free app rankings in Apple's US App Store. On Saturday evening, it overtook OpenAI's ChatGPT to claim the number one spot, a position that it still held on Sunday morning.
According to data from SensorTower, Claude was just outside the top 100 at the end of January, and has spent most of February somewhere in the top 20. It's climbed rapidly in the past few days, from sixth on Wednesday, to fourth on Thursday, then first on Saturday.
A company spokesperson said that daily signups have broken the all-time record every day this week, free users have increased more than 60% since January, and paid subscribers have more than doubled this year.
After Anthropic attempted to negotiate for safeguards preventing the Department of Defense from using its AI models for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to stop using all Anthropic products and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said he's designating the company a supply-chain threat.
OpenAI subsequently announced its own agreement with the Pentagon, which CEO Sam Altman claimed includes safeguards related to domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons.
This post was first published on February 28, 2026. It has been updated to reflect Anthropic reaching No. 1, and to include growth numbers from the company.
Topics
Actively scaling? Fundraising? Planning your next launch?TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026 delivers tactical playbooks and direct access to 1,000+ founders and investors who are building, backing, and closing.Register by March 13 to save up to $300.
Subscribe for the industry's biggest tech news
Every weekday and Sunday, you can get the best of TechCrunch's coverage.
TechCrunch Mobility is your destination for transportation news and insight.
Startups are the core of TechCrunch, so get our best coverage delivered weekly.
Provides movers and shakers with the info they need to start their day.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice.
© 2026 TechCrunch Media LLC.
Maybe you bought a video doorbell to make sure you don't miss the pizza arriving or to avoid getting out of bed for door-to-door sales reps. What you didn't bank on was that your home security system might be turned into a tool of the surveillance state. Video doorbells have been in the news a lot lately, from Ring's creepy Super Bowl ad to the retrieval of Nest doorbell footage in the Nancy Guthrie case, and people are beginning to ask: Where is my video going, who might use it, and for what?
I have expert advice for you on how to protect your privacy and the privacy of other folks in your neighborhood, and what your rights are with regard to video requests from law enforcement. I'll also highlight the best video doorbells to use and how to set them up in a privacy-conscious way.
We have a complicated relationship with Ring here at WIRED. We stopped testing its doorbells and cameras for our buying guides in 2022, briefly resumed following a policy change, and recently reinstated our ban last year over concerns about the data it collects, how that data is shared, and its partnerships with law enforcement. The company has repeatedly announced deals to make video more accessible to law enforcement and then canceled them after public outcry. But the furore surrounding the Super Bowl ad, which shows a network of Ring cameras across a community using AI to track a lost dog, hit new heights.
Senator Ed Markey urged his fellow Americans to “oppose this creepy surveillance state." Privacy expert Chris Gilliard described the ad as “... a clumsy attempt by Ring to put a cuddly face on a rather dystopian reality: widespread networked surveillance by a company that has cozy relationships with law enforcement …” in a 404 media piece.
Perhaps the funniest response came from a parody video featuring rival company Wyze cofounder Dave Crosby saying, “We could use this technology to find literally anyone, but we only use this technology to find lost dogs.”
It didn't take long for Ring to announce its Flock partnership was off.
“I would not be ready to declare Ring harmless because the company has called off a potential partnership with Flock Safety,” Dr. Matthew Guariglia, Senior Policy Analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), told WIRED. “People need to realize that all these police devices and data streams are incredibly interoperable. Axon, the maker of a huge percentage of police body-worn cameras and a popular operating system for fusing all police surveillance, is making a tool to let police request Ring footage, so the fight continues, despite some feeble PR maneuvering.”
When I asked Ring founder, Jamie Siminoff, about this in September last year, he was bullish, “There is no access that we're giving police to anything other than the ability to, in a very privacy-centric way, request footage from someone who, by, the way, wants to do this because they want to live in a safe neighborhood.”
Even with the best of intentions, how video footage is shared and used is unpredictable, and when networks of cameras are combined, there's a serious threat to personal privacy.
“You might not mind walking past one camera that verifies where you were at a particular place at a specific time, but think of what these cameras might catch in aggregate—a person's entire day seen through hundreds of interconnected cameras,” says Dr. Guariglia.
There's also the risk that footage falls into the wrong hands and ends up enabling politically-motivated investigations, police harassment, or stalking without you intending or even knowing about it. Maybe company employees or third-party contractors gain access to videos, or your cameras are hacked. Amazon settled a privacy lawsuit brought by the FTC that mentioned both scenarios a few years ago.
More recently, ICE has been tapping into Flock's automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras across the US, according to 404 media. What might it do with access to video doorbells?
Then there are doorbell owners. Camera footage is frequently shared online without the knowledge or permission of the subject. People on neighborhood networking apps and social media groups post videos of supposedly suspicious characters. Unfortunately, these suspicions are often subject to their prejudices, and racial profiling can be a real problem, as this research suggests. But, provided footage is captured in a public place, it's perfectly legal to share it.
“Recording into windows, fenced backyards, or other private spaces on your property may be an invasion of privacy,” Emile Ayoub, senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explained to WIRED. “But footage that captures public-facing sidewalks or driveways likely won't have the same protection.”
The law is straightforward when it comes to the police.
“Unless presented with an official request via a warrant or other court order, users are not required to share their footage with law enforcement," says Ayoub. ”Certain providers allow law enforcement to post on community message boards seeking footage from users. You can ignore or decline those requests."
If your video footage is stored in the cloud, rather than on your device, law enforcement can compel companies to hand it over, he explained. Typically, law enforcement must obtain a warrant or similar court order, depending on the type of information they seek. But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in the case of emergencies, such as an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
According to their privacy policies, providers like Ring and Nest will notify users about data demands from law enforcement, unless they are prohibited by law from doing so. Of course, no one reads the privacy policy before they set a doorbell up.
“This is one of the scariest things about the rapid privatization of police surveillance,” says the EFF's Dr. Guariglia. “As more evidence begins its journey as corporate data, the public has less and less power to figure out what happens to your information inside the company, if they require a warrant, what their relationship is like with police, and whether your data has been turned over.”
There may be a $10K bounty awaiting anyone who can hack Ring cameras to stop sharing data with Amazon, but there are easier and quicker ways to safeguard your video doorbell footage. Getting rid of your doorbell altogether is the simplest way to put privacy concerns to bed, but if you find them useful, you could always just avoid cloud services.
“Own your data,” says Matt Sailor, founder of global digital surveillance manufacturer IC Realtime. “There's no need for other people to have your data.”
Pick a doorbell that only records locally, or opt out of cloud video storage. Some devices have onboard storage, but a system that connects to an indoor DVR via Ethernet is more secure as it makes the data harder to get at and bypasses Wi-Fi, which is relatively easy to scramble. That immediately rules out some of the best video doorbells I recommend, but that guide is based on how well they work. Luckily, there are some good local-recording video doorbell options.
Reolink
Amazon
Reolink's doorbell supports Power over Ethernet (PoE), so you could record locally to a device inside. Wired doorbells are also generally more responsive and reliable than their wireless counterparts.
You might also consider doorbells from Eufy, such as the Eufy Video Doorbell E340 ($220), or maybe something from TP-Link's Tapo range. I'll be seeking out and reviewing more local storage options in the coming weeks.
Whatever doorbell you choose, check that you are not automatically enrolled in any footage-sharing programs. Sailor suggests combing the fine print on any freemium deal, not because people will be watching your video feed, but rather because these tech companies will be using your data to train their AI and improve their devices. “They have algorithms that are learning from your behaviors.”
Using the cloud isn't always a bad thing, Sailor tells me. It can build redundancy and greater security into your system, mitigating the risk of a determined intruder breaking in and stealing physical footage. Just make sure that you opt for cloud storage that is end-to-end encrypted, so only you can access your video.
Aqara
Amazon
Best Buy
You can use Aqara's doorbell with Apple's HomeKit Secure Video. Provided you have an iCloud subscription and a home hub (HomePod or Apple TV), it will encrypt your video before sending it to the cloud, so even Apple can't access it. But there are pros and cons to HomeKit Secure Video.
If you have a smart doorbell or you plan to install one, here are a few tips to preserve your privacy and the privacy of others.
In your inbox: Upgrade your life with WIRED-tested gear
A wave of unexplained bot traffic is sweeping the web
Big Story: The women training for pregnancy like it's a marathon
Iran's digital surveillance machine is almost complete
Listen: Silicon Valley tech workers are trying to stop ICE
Squarespace Promo Code: 20% Off Annual Acuity Subscriptions
LG Promo Code: 20% Off Your First Order
10% Off Dell Coupon Code for New Customers
30% Samsung Coupon - Offer Program 2026
Up to $500 Off Canon Cameras
50% Off Doordash Promo Code For New & Existing Users
© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices
AB 1043 also requires OS providers to pipe a real-time age checker to every app developer who requests it.
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
California's Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2025, requires every operating system provider in California to collect age information from users at account setup and transmit that data to app developers via a real-time API, with the law taking effect on January 1, 2027.
The law's broad definition of an "operating system provider" — anyone who "develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device" — pulls in not just Windows, macOS, Android, and iOS, but Linux distributions and Valve's SteamOS.
According to AB 1043, OS providers must maintain a "reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface" that categorizes users into four age brackets — under 13, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18, and 18 or older — and hand that signal to any developer who requests it when their app is downloaded or launched.
Developers who receive the signal are "deemed to have actual knowledge" of their users' age range under the law, which shifts legal liability for age-appropriate content decisions onto them. Penalties for non-compliance run up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and $7,500 for intentional ones, enforced by the California Attorney General.
The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require "commercially reasonable" verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who authored the bill, said this "avoids constitutional concerns by focusing strictly on age assurance, not content moderation," in a press release. The bill passed both chambers unanimously, 76-0 in the Assembly and 38-0 in the Senate."
Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about "complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices." Whether amendments will materialize before January 2027 remains to be seen.
Enforcement against Linux distributions, however, is likely to be problematic. Distros like Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo have no centralized account infrastructure, with users downloading ISOs from mirrors worldwide, and can modify source code freely. These small distros lack legal teams or resources to implement the required API, so a more realistic outcome for non-compliant distros is a disclaimer that the software is not intended for use in California.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Luke James is a freelance writer and journalist. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory.
Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.
Reading time 6 minutes
The use of the word “quantum” has become rather hackneyed. There are quantum computers, quantum sensors, and even quantum refrigerators; the list is endless. I mean, what's next—quantum washing machines?
If all the quantum spam has left you exhausted, Paul Davies's new book, Quantum 2.0: The Weird Physics Driving a New Revolution in Technology, might help. Yes, the title has the q-word, but for the best possible reason. Starting with a brief rundown of what “quantum” actually means, the book lays out in plain language how quantum mechanics changed science in the past century—and how it will continue to do so going forward.
Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist and the director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University. A renowned science communicator, he has authored more than 20 books on topics from the origin of life to the nature of time.
Gizmodo spoke to Davies about navigating the so-called quantum noise and how best to understand what quantum mechanics has contributed to our understanding of the universe. The following conversation has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
Gayoung Lee, Gizmodo: So the book's title is Quantum 2.0. That implies there was a Quantum 1.0. What was Quantum 1.0? What was the turning point that brought us to Quantum 2.0?
Paul Davies: Very good question. The technical term for the branch of quantum physics we're talking about is quantum mechanics, which began in 1925. This is the most successful scientific theory ever, because it explained the nature of matter all the way from subatomic particles right up to stars.
It also led to some very familiar technology that underpins much of the modern world, for example, the laser, microchips, MRI machines, and nuclear power—your cell phone is packed full of quantum gizmos.
All of this stemmed from what we're calling “Quantum 1.0,” which is the quantum mechanics developed 100 years ago. With the centenary last year, UNESCO declared 2025 to be the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology. It's very clear that there is a whole new quantum revolution that is bursting upon us.
And the distinction is really the following: With Quantum 2.0, it's possible to manipulate individual particles—electrons or photons, for example—and to sculpt their quantum states so that information is actually encoded in the individual particles themselves and not in the bigger devices, like transistors or gates.
Gizmodo: With this revolution, today it seems like everyone is attaching “quantum” to things. What does that really mean? What makes something “quantum”?
Davies: Well, if it's not a commercial trick—and it generally is—then, in the past, people usually wouldn't say, “You must go for a quantum MRI scan,” but that uses quantum mechanics. Or you wouldn't say, “We're going to build a quantum nuclear power station,” although that uses quantum principles.
With Quantum 2.0, “quantum” usually is a signature of something exploiting the subatomic world. It's not just a gimmick. It means manipulating quantum physics in some non-trivial ways [by utilizing concepts such as entanglement or superposition].
Gizmodo: Strictly speaking, quantum effects influence everything in the universe. But they're also often in conflict with observable reality. It seems that scientists don't know exactly how the two are connected. Yet, if Quantum 2.0 is here, it means we're using these obscure ideas to create tangible things.
Davies: Quantum mechanics is full of paradoxes and weird concepts that just don't mesh with the everyday world. In everyday life, we have things like tables and chairs that we assume really exist independently of us measuring them or looking at them. But down at the atomic level, that isn't the case.
A particle like an electron simply does not have a full set of properties before measurement. If you ask, well, before the measurement, did the particle really have both a position and a motion? The answer is that you cannot say. Even nature doesn't know what properties the particle had.
The big difficulty is interfacing that shadowy world of the quantum, where things don't exist in definite, well-defined states, with the everyday world, where everything seems a single concrete reality. Even after 100 years, physicists are squabbling over how to interpret that. It remains an outstanding problem for the next generation of physicists.
Survey of 1,000 Experts Shows Quantum Physicists Still Can't Agree on Anything
Gizmodo: Your book offers many examples of how quantum science has left its mark on science. Is there any particular one you'd like to highlight?
Davies: There's a whole chapter in the book on quantum biology. One of the founders of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger, realized in 1925 that within a few years, quantum mechanics could explain the nature of matter all the way from subatomic particles up to stars. But living matter seemed to have its own laws. To a physicist, life looks like a miracle.
In 1943, Schrödinger gave a series of lectures called “What Is Life?” He hoped that the powerful nature of quantum mechanics might explain the strangeness of living matter. But he was also open to the possibility that there may be something beyond quantum mechanics—some new kind of physical law, he said—prevailing in living matter.
In recent years, people [are considering] effects like superposition and entanglement, or possibly even quantum information processing, going on in living organisms. I myself am a little bit skeptical, but it's intriguing. Might life's apparently miraculous capabilities ultimately be an exploitation of some sort of profound type of quantum mechanics?
Gizmodo: At the start of the book, you write that quantum is the “science that gave us AI.” How exactly did quantum mechanics give us AI?
Davies: There are two sides to this. One is AI as we know it, but the other is the possibility of what I call quantum artificial intelligence, which would be an even greater leap and even more disruptive.
Let's answer your original question. AI is really just the outcome of doing a very large number of very rapid information processing on a very large scale. If you sat down and tried to work out the number of quantum devices involved in AI, there would be hundreds of components that fundamentally depend upon quantum mechanics through its principles.
But a quantum AI will have a very different type of consciousness from us, because it would see all possible realities at once according to quantum mechanics. It would be able to roam freely across the space of infinite possibilities and somehow capture all of this in its mind at once. So it would be not just a supermind, but a truly alien supermind.
Gizmodo: On that delightful note, if Quantum 1.0 was sketching things out in the scientific realm, and Quantum 2.0 is manipulating individual quantum systems, what would we need to get to Quantum 3.0? And should we be excited or terrified?
Davies: Interesting question—I haven't been asked about that before. But what occurs to me immediately stems from the answer I just gave about quantum AI. Some people are excited by the possibility of what's called a mind-machine interface. One example that I find deeply intriguing are helmets that you can wear with quantum magnetic sensors in them. These helmets can measure tiny, flickering magnetic fields in your brain in very high resolution. With a refinement of this, they could literally read your thoughts.
So, Quantum 3.0 could be where we poor human observers, who are just limited to seeing a tiny fraction of the universe, could couple our brains in some way to quantum computers. Then we could probe these other possible realities by coupling the human consciousness to quantum consciousness.
And that would be my Quantum 3.0—terrifying and intriguing to an equal degree. But I think we're quite a long way from getting there yet.
Gizmodo: I feel like these examples demonstrate how closely quantum science is linked—philosophically speaking—to things that define our humanity, like consciousness or personal and intellectual desires.
Davies: There's no doubt about it that starting about 1900—the word “quantum” was formed in 1899—there was a feeling that although we didn't know everything about the world, we sort of understood its conceptual foundations, that the world consists of material particles that really exist.
The big shock of quantum mechanics is that observations don't uncover reality. They create the reality. That's a very weird thing. It seems that the act of observation brings into being the concrete reality that you observe.
And that's really what 100 years of quantum mechanics has done. It's transformed our understanding of what it means for something to exist, what it means for something to have properties, and the relationship between the observer and the observed—and these are unresolved issues. There is no consensus as to how to make sense of it. So, again, it's a job for the next generation of physicists.
Quantum 2.0: The Weird Physics Driving a New Revolution in Technology was published in the U.K. on November 29, 2025, and is now available worldwide as of February 2026 via The University of Chicago Press.
Explore more on these topics
Share this story
Subscribe and interact with our community, get up to date with our customised Newsletters and much more.
Even when your power goes down, your Wi-Fi won't.
In chemistry, molecules with a "flat" geometry are often stable enough to support a wide range of reactions. But in the quantum world, that's not technically true.
The time crystal "beads," held midair by sound waves, bring the enigmatic quantum system into renewed practical relevance.
Long considered a serious technical challenge, superradiance could actually help quantum devices go even further.
Quantum timekeeping comes with the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, a new study suggests.
Physicists finally identified why some quantum materials seemingly lose their electrical conductivity for no reason.
©2026 GIZMODO USA LLC.
All rights reserved.
The main job of Google Chrome is to give you a window to the web. With so much engaging content out there on the internet, you may not have given much thought to the browser framework that serves as the container for the sites you visit.
You'd be forgiven for still using the default toolbar configuration that was in place when you first installed Chrome. But if you take a few minutes to customize it, it can make a significant difference to your browsing. You can get quicker access to the key features you need, and you may even discover features you didn't know about.
If you're reading this in Chrome on the desktop, you can experiment with a few customizations right now—all it takes is a few clicks. Here's how the toolbar in Chrome is put together, and all the different changes you can make.
Extensions are always easily accessible in Chrome.
Take a look up at the top right corner of your Chrome browser tab and you'll see two key buttons: One reveals your browser extensions (the jigsaw piece), and the other opens up your bookmarks (the double-star icon). There should also be a button showing a downward arrow, which gives you access to recently downloaded files.
Right away, you can start customizing. If you click the jigsaw piece icon to show your browser extensions, you can also click the pin button next to any one of these extensions to make it permanently visible on the toolbar. While you don't want your toolbar to become too cluttered, it means you can put your most-used add-ons within easy reach.
For the extension icons you choose to have on the toolbar, you can choose the way they're arranged, too: Click and drag on any of the icons to change its position (though the extensions panel itself has to stay in the same place). To remove an extension icon (without uninstalling the extension), right-click on it and choose Unpin.
The revamped toolbar customization pane.
Click the three dots up in the top right corner of any browser window and then Settings > Appearance > Customize your toolbar to get to the main toolbar customization panel, which has recently been revamped. Straight away you'll see toggle switches that let you show or hide certain buttons on the toolbar.
These buttons include Home, the Forward button, the Bookmarks button (the double star) that's visible by default, and a quick shortcut for opening up a new incognito window. You can also include quick links for the Reading list (pages you've saved to read later) and the browser History (websites you've recently visited).
There are certain features that you might not have come across before, including the ability to Search with Google Lens (a visual search based on anything on screen) and the Create QR Code feature (which creates a QR code you can use to share the webpage you're currently viewing).
The toolbar can give you quick access to the Task Manager.
These features are all available through the Chrome settings and menus, but having them on the toolbar means you're able to access them much more quickly. The Reading mode button quickly reformats the current web page to cut out distractions, for example, while the Copy link button instantly sends the current page URL to the system clipboard.
The Task Manager is one of the buttons that's most useful to have on your toolbar. Click on it and it brings up a new dialog showing the open tabs and processes that Chrome is managing, together with how much memory and processor time they're taking up—very useful for finding the tabs and web apps slowing down your browser (or using up all of your battery life).
Again, you can reorganize the order of these buttons on the toolbar, up to a point: Just click and drag them into position. To hide the buttons again, right-click and choose Unpin (or choose Customize toolbar for more options). To go right back to the beginning, click Reset to default in the toolbar customization pane.
You can significantly change the look of Chrome with themes.
There's another way to customize the toolbar, which applies to the whole of Chrome, and that's to change up the theme and colors used by the browser. You most likely spend a lot of time staring at your browser, so you may as well get it looking the way you want.
Open a new tab inside Chrome, then choose Customize Chrome (bottom left). If you then click Change theme, you'll be taken to a gallery of different looks for Chrome, which will modify a variety of elements all in one go: the new tab background, the look of the toolbar, and the colors of menus and dialogs.
For less drastic changes, you can pick one of the color combinations further down, below the Change theme button. As you select from the different options, you'll see the appearance of the browser change in response. To go back to the original look of Google Chrome, pick Change theme > Default Chrome.
In your inbox: Maxwell Zeff's dispatch from the heart of AI
ICE is expanding at breakneck speed—here's where it's going next
Big Story: Inside the gay tech mafia
Big Tech says AI will save the planet—it doesn't offer much proof
Event: Helping small business owners succeed
Squarespace Promo Code: 20% Off Annual Acuity Subscriptions
LG Promo Code: 20% Off Your First Order
10% Off Dell Coupon Code for New Customers
30% Samsung Coupon - Offer Program 2026
Up to $500 Off Canon Cameras
50% Off Doordash Promo Code For New & Existing Users
© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices
Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps.I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity.So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity.So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.
reply
"tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room"In the same text, he follows with:"Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu'à divertir le roi, et à l'empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense."The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
In the same text, he follows with:"Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu'à divertir le roi, et à l'empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense."The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
"Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu'à divertir le roi, et à l'empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu'il est, s'il y pense."The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
"The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."
reply
You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns.World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.
reply
This is no longer necessary to inflict the catastrophic destruction we're really referring to when talking about a hypothetical WWIII
reply
I tend to agree with both of you, and that by extension, we will never see another world war unless society as we know it collapses significantly.
reply
Topical the Israelis just killed Khamenei.
reply
The USSR on the other hand barely had any involvement in the Pacific theatre, entering in August 1945.
reply
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol (that was in 1939).
reply
reply
Russians are not under food rationing yet.
reply
More than the war, they'll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice.This is why Putin can't stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
This is why Putin can't stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.
reply
reply
reply
There was a huge shortage of labor in the countryside after the war.
reply
So while there was less labor, they were far more productive labor thanks to post-revolution, post-WWI measures
reply
reply
Basically, Russia up to WW2 had economic growth because it was "catching up" to the West. Industrialization was one place. Literacy was another. There was a huge effort to improve literacy after the Tsar was killed.Finally, because the Nazis occupied Ukraine during WW2, Russia/the USSR had to develop other places during WW2 just to feed its people, which accelerated growth post-war.These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
Finally, because the Nazis occupied Ukraine during WW2, Russia/the USSR had to develop other places during WW2 just to feed its people, which accelerated growth post-war.These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.
reply
I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation.It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.
reply
How?If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out.
If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ... then I would say it is far beyond the possibility of a basement workshop to remotely design anything like this. I doubt the professional state labs can create something to wipe out humanity. Dramatically disturb? For sure. Covid was not really deadly in comparison, but already problematic.
If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out.
If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ... then I would say it is far beyond the possibility of a basement workshop to remotely design anything like this. I doubt the professional state labs can create something to wipe out humanity. Dramatically disturb? For sure. Covid was not really deadly in comparison, but already problematic.
reply
reply
reply
Thanks for putting it the way you did. I didn't knew it was meant be that way, but it sort of confirms my suspicion that people who use the term 'rational' and 'logic' loosely often to dismiss an opposing view never really seek experimental results before having a point of view.
reply
reply
Yeah IIRC Yudkowski famously said something about a super intelligence could derive the theory of gravity correctly by seeing only three frames of a video depicting an apple falling from a tree. This is the same Less Wrong nonsense, rejecting how vital and irreplaceable experimentation is.There's an infinite number of explanations for the location of an object in three equally time-spaced instances. Not to mention limitations of the measuring equipment itself.
There's an infinite number of explanations for the location of an object in three equally time-spaced instances. Not to mention limitations of the measuring equipment itself.
reply
This is a made up equilibrium that actually does not need to exist in nature.Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
> If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.
reply
Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
reply
I am clearly referring to this specific scenario. There is nothing in chemistry or biology or physics that prevents it.
reply
reply
And what existing virus comes close to this trait?
reply
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren't mutually exclusive.
reply
reply
Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Urgh. "No tests, no prototypes".Imagine trying to write "Hello, World" but there's no programming language. The compilation cycle takes a week. And you can't actually control where the program runs. And also the storage device will be destroyed by light, air, and other programs on your computer if you don't handle it just right.It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
Imagine trying to write "Hello, World" but there's no programming language. The compilation cycle takes a week. And you can't actually control where the program runs. And also the storage device will be destroyed by light, air, and other programs on your computer if you don't handle it just right.It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.
reply
> supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age,or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.It's defintiely gonna be a hard life if WW3 ever happens but I think with hydroponics and other advancement, a localized community can still have chances of making sense of things.It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
It's defintiely gonna be a hard life if WW3 ever happens but I think with hydroponics and other advancement, a localized community can still have chances of making sense of things.It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Thank you
reply
I think he meant one of these:1) Biological agent, but not meant to be a weapon.2) A biological weapon, but one that fails catastrophically.
1) Biological agent, but not meant to be a weapon.2) A biological weapon, but one that fails catastrophically.
2) A biological weapon, but one that fails catastrophically.
reply
https://theconversation.com/an-illegal-bioweapons-lab-was-fo...https://abc30.com/post/illegal-reedley-biolab-connected-lab-...Here's a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17154
https://abc30.com/post/illegal-reedley-biolab-connected-lab-...Here's a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17154
Here's a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17154
reply
- very deadly- asymptomatic spreading for a couple days- spreads easy- no tests/vaccine (early on)It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
- asymptomatic spreading for a couple days- spreads easy- no tests/vaccine (early on)It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
- spreads easy- no tests/vaccine (early on)It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
- no tests/vaccine (early on)It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.
reply
Covid wasn't "very deadly" at all.
reply
Now, if you want something that will keep you up at night:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npf-B5Av7aQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npf-B5Av7aQ
reply
reply
reply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122...Without a vaccination, it killed 12.9% of people who were infected, killing mostly older people and people who had multiple pathologies (eg. hypertension).
Without a vaccination, it killed 12.9% of people who were infected, killing mostly older people and people who had multiple pathologies (eg. hypertension).
reply
what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
reply
reply
reply
reply
I used to believe that, too, until the Russians found a few vials in a random storage cabinet. The fact is we have no idea how many samples exist and where they all are.Fortunately, we already know how to make a smallpox vaccine.
Fortunately, we already know how to make a smallpox vaccine.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK.Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.
Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.
reply
Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor quality, but far from harmless.Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous.
Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous.
reply
reply
But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.
reply
This seems rather optimistic considering an incredibly dense South Korean city of 10M people is 20–30 miles from North Korea.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn...
reply
reply
old men's*
reply
Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome.Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.
reply
reply
If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war.And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now.Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now.Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.
reply
reply
That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)
reply
This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.
reply
reply
US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence.Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this?The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this?The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.
reply
reply
reply
It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television.
reply
reply
reply
While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it.It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes."That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes."That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."
reply
reply
reply
I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow.What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.
What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.
reply
As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now.The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.
reply
Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.
reply
They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades.* WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)
* WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)
reply
It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.
reply
reply
reply
I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.
reply
With Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, the US is bottling up Russian and Chinese global influence into smaller regional influence.
reply
Well, foreign intervention kind of worked in Syria, Libya and Iraq after a few backstops, didn't it? All three countries reduced to rubble and virtually eliminated as threats to the US and Israel. Iran is next on the list, now that they're close to obtaing nukes. Let's not kid ourselves, they're not doing it for the Iranians, the're doing it for themselves. Regime change on their own terms, or if that isn't possible, yet another civil war.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Iran basically has no state allies in the Middle East. Russia and China don't seem any more committed than just arms sales.What potential problem is upsetting the ethnic Apple cart in the region. We know countries like Iraq are a mix of Sunni and Shia with Iran supporting the Shia side quite significantly.If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.
What potential problem is upsetting the ethnic Apple cart in the region. We know countries like Iraq are a mix of Sunni and Shia with Iran supporting the Shia side quite significantly.If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.
If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.
reply
If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.
reply
> That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.
The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.
reply
Eight hours later Iran's navy was at the bottom of the sea.And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.
And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.
reply
Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern.Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.
reply
A more accurate description of the way the world is trending:US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.
reply
reply
I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on Europe in a conflict with China.But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.
reply
It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.
reply
Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other.The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.
The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.
reply
Otherwise you've got some regional issues which is where Iran falls. None of the major players in the region like them, even if they would prefer not to have a conflict they'd be pretty stoked if the volatile regime was gone.Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific Strategy!
Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific Strategy!
reply
Anyway, here's a reminder that two weeks ago the big war on everybody's head was USA against NATO.
reply
Obviously it's not geographic as Australia and New Zealand are in the Eastern Hemisphere but would always be assumed to be part of the "west" when discussing geopolitics.
reply
reply
reply
I doubt NK sent anything to Russia without payment in hard currency (gold).
reply
reply
No way this many rich powerful people would go down without destroying at least half of the world.
reply
reply
reply
reply
It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening.OP is making the same point.
OP is making the same point.
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor...Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
reply
reply
Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War
reply
reply
reply
reply
I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce").prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Including for the U.S. and Israel?
reply
reply
Iran has an unelected supreme leader.Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.The US has a generally democratically elected government.If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.The US has a generally democratically elected government.If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
The US has a generally democratically elected government.If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.
reply
Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%.Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.
reply
reply
Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.
reply
To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world? The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The decisions on building new settlements?Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.
Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.
reply
Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The airspace?Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
Israel> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The ability to import and export goods?The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The roads?In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> The decisions on building new settlements?In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
In area C: Israel.In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.
reply
> We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisementWhat a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.
What a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.
reply
reply
They're arguing that due to the failure/stalling of the two-state solution, the PA is effectively not a national government. It administers local services, like policing, courts, infrastructure. But it doesn't control borders, tarrifs and duties, or airspace. The Israeli military operates a parallel legal system that can detain and prosecute them, all under a legal framework that they have no vote or say in. I think its fair to call this a kind of disenfranchisement?
reply
The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.
reply
At best the Palestinian Territories have “quasi-governmental control.” I'm saying this as someone who isn't particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position.By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.
By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.
reply
If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place that encourages constructive debate?> Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).> Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious positionI already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
> Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).> Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious positionI already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).> Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious positionI already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
> Pretending that Israel isn't de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious positionI already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
I already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.
reply
You're making my point anyway, by conceding that the West Bank is effectively governed without representation in the governments controlling them.
reply
reply
reply
They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli population and there is no expectation (on either side) that they would participate in Israeli elections. That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.> As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.I'm not sure which elections you mean.- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
> As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.I'm not sure which elections you mean.- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
I'm not sure which elections you mean.- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
- Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
- Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
- Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?
reply
A process that's alive and well, just like Yitzhak Rabin.
reply
reply
reply
reply
The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.
reply
reply
reply
Shame on you.
reply
reply
There's not really any point. They are too far gone.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Do we expect occupied peoples to have a vote? sort of depends how you define democracy. Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there's a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.It's never so simple is it
It's never so simple is it
reply
reply
Stop spreading misinformation.
reply
If you can't enter and leave your country freely, you don't that autonomy.I'm not even some Palestinian political advocate. We still cannot pretend that Israel isn't effectively in control of the Palestinian Territories.
I'm not even some Palestinian political advocate. We still cannot pretend that Israel isn't effectively in control of the Palestinian Territories.
reply
Palestinians are not taxed by Israel. They are taxed by the Palestinian Authority, and participate in Palestinian elections. So they do have representation - just not in Israel.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.
reply
reply
I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.
reply
reply
reply
We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it's easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.
reply
I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn't mean it's right.
reply
reply
reply
Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.
reply
reply
reply
In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.
reply
reply
Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah.Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.
Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.
reply
And The Constitution.
reply
reply
Does it?
reply
The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it's trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.
reply
reply
reply
- sovereignty- border- populationIn that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
- border- populationIn that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
- populationIn that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.
reply
Just ask the folks who tried on January 6.> The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
> The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
* https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
And no, stop your American exceptionalism, ICE is not the same.
reply
reply
reply
I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim.
This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim.
reply
You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the world doing these things and worse every day while picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the United States to attack like al la carte menu items. Justifying those attacks is an after thought.
reply
The US per-capita incarceration rate is ~5x that of France.
reply
reply
> The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.To the extent that one is addressing slavery, the point is generally the number of the enslaved and not particularly their conditions (there is not a "good" way to own people).
To the extent that one is addressing slavery, the point is generally the number of the enslaved and not particularly their conditions (there is not a "good" way to own people).
reply
French system is quite different from USA one. And the 70% of the world claim is based on what exactly?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I don't think you intended to use this the way you did
reply
reply
reply
reply
Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands of people?
reply
reply
No. You are saying that these people died because of Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger.
reply
reply
Iran is not a democracy, it is a fake democracy since the supreme leader cannot be voted away.
reply
Trump is the kind of person who would kill protestors to stay in power. We all know it
reply
reply
reply
reply
I'll wait for some non-iranian confirmation.
reply
reply
The US and Israel are involved. The only way it's going to turn out is maximally lethal to all those not involved at all.See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I've seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I've seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I've seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.
reply
reply
reply
This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya.Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.
Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I see two issues with this assessment. First, I am not sure how substantial is the support from the people. And second, Assad also had all this control over the military, the local governments, etc., etc., and then his rule collapsed in a week.While Islamic Republic's repressive machine in the form of IRCG and Basij are in much better shape than Assad's, it is not that great if they had to bus in Iraqi militias to help with the suppression of protests.I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
While Islamic Republic's repressive machine in the form of IRCG and Basij are in much better shape than Assad's, it is not that great if they had to bus in Iraqi militias to help with the suppression of protests.I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.
reply
reply
This reductionist narrative is absolutely ridiculous and does not at all reflect reality.
reply
I don't think any of these were short.
reply
reply
That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here.Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.
reply
This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we've had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.
reply
reply
Both regimes were deeply racist.Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.
Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
My biggest concern has always been that US military action against Iran would undermine domestic factions pushing for democratic reforms, at best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests, at worst leading to a wellspring of support for the existing regime both internally, and externally in the form of alliances with other nations who stand to benefit from a reshuffling of the existing world order.
reply
An autocrat regime friendly to US interests, who we could do business with, who won't pursue nuclear weapons, and who won't imperil US allies or the Strait of Hormuz would be a drastic improvement over the current state of affairs.We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.
We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.
reply
An improvement over the current regime isn't exactly a high bar.Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
“Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80 people”https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...Welp, better luck next time
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...Welp, better luck next time
Welp, better luck next time
reply
Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
[1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
[3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...
reply
reply
reply
> Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forcesIt was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.> with grave civilian casualtiesHamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
It was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.> with grave civilian casualtiesHamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
> with grave civilian casualtiesHamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
Hamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
> and no Hamas tunnels ever foundAl-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
Al-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?
reply
In other words, the new "established facts" about Al-Ahli are also questionable, and part of Israeli propaganda. It remains to be seen what the truth is in either case.The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.[1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.[1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
[1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
reply
reply
reply
reply
That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything.Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.
reply
reply
True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.
reply
I imagine that's the strategy, anyway.
reply
reply
[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-attac...
reply
reply
And how exactly would Iran be 'ours' without boots on the ground in this scenario?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
"Now the rovin' gambler he was very bored /
He was tryin' to create a next world war /
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor /
He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before /
But yes I think it can be very easily done /
We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun /
And have it on Highway 61"
reply
reply
You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice.The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.
reply
reply
This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3][1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m][2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s][3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m][2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s][3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s][3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering.It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.
It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.
reply
Tehran isn't calculating missile ranges based on sutras. Washington doesn't position carrier groups because of metaphysics. Israel's security doctrine isn't a meditation retreat.Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology.Wake up to the real world.Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It's harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it's strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't dissolve geopolitics.
Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology.Wake up to the real world.Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It's harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it's strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't dissolve geopolitics.
Wake up to the real world.Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It's harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it's strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't dissolve geopolitics.
Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It's harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it's strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't dissolve geopolitics.
Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn't dissolve geopolitics.
reply
reply
Yeah. Because people believe in in and leaders take advantage. DUH. Its not so peaceful religion all the way.
reply
But religion, and not pure materialism, is absolutely at the center of the motivation of these people, the leaders and the population alike. It's not just, as you say, a sham that the leaders use to control and mobilise the masses. Religious fanaticism is at the source of the actions and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. Just as religious fanaticism is at the heart of the worst excesses of Zionism and the at-worst-genocidal, at-best-apartheid policies of Israel. It's not just materialism! It's not just prosaic greed! These people are moved by a holy fervour.Like, this is the central mistake of Marxism, for all its merits in analysing the "capitalist mode of production", it is absolutely false that material conditions and class struggle are the engine of history.
Like, this is the central mistake of Marxism, for all its merits in analysing the "capitalist mode of production", it is absolutely false that material conditions and class struggle are the engine of history.
reply
"Security doctrine" is quite a euphemism for aggressive territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing, which is tightly wrapped in religious rhetoric.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
(Of course some Israel politicians are religious; that's true of any country.)
reply
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does what a duck does, it is a duck.
reply
There is "religion" in the broader sense which can be any set of beliefs but Netanyahu is as secular and logical as can be. He may be overly logical in the sense of advancing his personal agenda (avoiding standing trial) over the interests of his country but he's still very different than the religious crazies in Tehran where logic plays no role and g-d is everything.
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...
reply
reply
reply
The region will have chance at peace once the regime of Iran is removed.
reply
Sure, but it's even simpler.. The Ayatollah Regime funds regional terrorism. It destabilizes the region, gets people killed, and holds back progress.Also, they are always seemingly always almost done building a nuke.. Which frankly nobody wants(not even them because they know they'd be obliterated the instant the world thought they actually had one or were about to for-reals have one).They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
Also, they are always seemingly always almost done building a nuke.. Which frankly nobody wants(not even them because they know they'd be obliterated the instant the world thought they actually had one or were about to for-reals have one).They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.
reply
Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart, opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring losses to most chimps on both sides.
reply
reply
Can you provide an example of this in 2026?It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don't hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.
It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don't hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.
And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.
reply
The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).
reply
reply
reply
If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.
reply
And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service.Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.
Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.
reply
reply
Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according to the Book.
reply
(Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)
reply
reply
reply
The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation, and they consider the Golan settled and annexed. Religiously, the same principle that justifies them holding Golan applies to these territories.Here are some recent statements from political leaders:Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Here are some recent statements from political leaders:Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."
reply
I would say a lot of Jewish people and Israelis get upset at what you're saying and so maybe our reply will be a bit adversarial. Here's trying to be more factual (I used Gemini to research though I'm personally familiar with these figures as well).Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013): The highly influential former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the sanctity of life over holding territory.Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013): The highly influential former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the sanctity of life over holding territory.Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that.
reply
The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated, and in general don't want all the promised land (they believe that the state established militarily/politically isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition with the nationalist right, and their communities increasingly overlap geographically with settlements.
reply
Bennet is dati leumi and represents a big chunk of the mainstream/modern dati leumis. Any signs he's after conquering Saudi Arabai and Egypt ? Not really. Even Smotrich "only" wants the West Bank.
reply
More examples are:- Rabbi Yehuda Amital and the Meimad Party- Rabbi Aharon LichtensteinYou are confusing politics and religion.
- Rabbi Yehuda Amital and the Meimad Party- Rabbi Aharon LichtensteinYou are confusing politics and religion.
- Rabbi Aharon LichtensteinYou are confusing politics and religion.
You are confusing politics and religion.
reply
Religious Zionism is a religious denomination.National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is a political party.It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.
National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is a political party.It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.
It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.
reply
I feel like I lost track of the discussion. At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't argue on this point.It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't argue on this point.It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
[EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)
reply
I just meant that there's a part of the religious spectrum prone to that interpretation, and it mixes very well with nationalism, and expansionism. And that it isn't a meaningless fringe, but has a significant political representation. What I wrote was a reasonable way the scripture can be interpreted by someone who believes it's a true word of God.If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says publicly this isn't the case...
If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says publicly this isn't the case...
reply
Smotrich, e.g., says and does lot of things. Some of them resonate with some members of his party, others don't.As to the party's platform you can read it here: https://zionutdatit.org.il/en/party-platform/I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.
As to the party's platform you can read it here: https://zionutdatit.org.il/en/party-platform/I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.
I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.
reply
Consider that we haven't had a Sanhedrin (supreme Jewish council) for a while, which makes a bunch of Jewish law unenforceable. While there's some fringe interest in reinstituting the classical system, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.Similarly while there's some fringe interest in recapturing all historic Jewish lands, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.
Similarly while there's some fringe interest in recapturing all historic Jewish lands, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.
You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.
reply
reply
Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world.Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.
Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.
Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.
reply
I would say this is generally false.There are many religious Jews who believe there should be no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very open to interpretations and certainly within the question of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you seem to think it does.There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
There are many religious Jews who believe there should be no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very open to interpretations and certainly within the question of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you seem to think it does.There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.
reply
Will you grant me this: religious motivations for violence exist within Israel, including the ruling political class?
reply
reply
https://x.com/chrisbrunet/status/2027665287982502195
reply
reply
reply
Correlation is not causation, and the article does not even claim causation.
reply
reply
reply
Project 2025, a christian nationalist policy advisement widely followed by the current regime, prescribes supporting isreal
reply
reply
reply
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/29/us/iran-israel-evangelicals-p...https://archive.ph/Pz81THuckabee one week ago:"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here today.”https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
https://archive.ph/Pz81THuckabee one week ago:"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here today.”https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
Huckabee one week ago:"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here today.”https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
"Citing the book of Genesis, Carlson asked whether the modern state of Israel had a right to the lands promised in the Bible by God to Abraham, stretching from the Euphrates River to the Nile, covering much of the Middle East. In response, Huckabee said: “It would be fine if they took it all. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here today.”https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/mike-huckabee-claims-israel-...
reply
reply
Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means, and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they have their passages and the others are simply you misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor.That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage.
That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage.
reply
1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.
reply
"Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture. Reasonable–that is, human–men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
reply
The fallacy of reification is treating something emergent as a thing-unto-itself rather than a process or interaction born from constituents at a lower stratum. A reified thing can be recognized and changed for this reason. A mental concept needs only a change of mind to mutate, or to be destroyed.Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot reduce that which is real and not real to only those things that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.
Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot reduce that which is real and not real to only those things that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.
reply
reply
There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps, than a realmythos (akin to realpolitik).Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.)
reply
And the fact you feel a hole that religion fills for you doesn't mean it's there in everyone. Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.
reply
It is obviously a deeply complicated and complex phenomenon. Even the Dennett/Dawkins model of selfish replicators aren't necessarily sufficient, in addition to my claim that the relationship between genes and memes can sometimes be mutually symbiotic (and I'm aware of the great many counter-examples).To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't, or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who don't.> Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't, or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who don't.> Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
> Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4
reply
What a time to be alive, again!
And please, downvote me, comment that US is fighting for some country's civilians freedom. It's fun too.
reply
reply
reply
No one lives up to their ideals on a day-to-day basis:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
reply
(Wrong) Knife fight: a fight between people about knives(Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives
(Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives
reply
reply
reply
reply
This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into dying in a conflict.The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
> Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
> [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
[1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
[2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
[3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
reply
Since the beginning of the Green Revolution¹, no. The source of these conflicts are always ideological. Always. Ideology may come through religion or some other medium.Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.
reply
reply
reply
Airstrip one is disappointed.
reply
reply
Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs.The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that
The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that
reply
This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries).
reply
reply
reply
reply
But their goal is targeted and precise attacks, that effectively destroy targets based on specific, and high quality intelligence.The other part is that defense against missiles is significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles. Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part of its economy for missile development and production.
The other part is that defense against missiles is significantly harder and more expensive than sending missiles. Iran, while relatively poor, has dedicated a significant part of its economy for missile development and production.
reply
Day one and they've already bombed a school and killed dozens of children. The goals, strategy and tactics have not been clearly communicated. You can pray they are using high quality intelligence, but history tells us they are not at all concerned with collateral damage. They likely want to degrade Iran's military capabilities, but they also want them cowed and bleeding.
reply
Based on this cold calculation, bombing a school full of children would be counter productive, even if you believe the Israelis are just collecting children's blood to make matzahs (passover is just around the corner!).On a more serious note, do you know the actual source for this claim? I don't mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
On a more serious note, do you know the actual source for this claim? I don't mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/iran-sch...
reply
reply
I personally don't believe in such appeals to rationality of parties waging wars. The issue is: if you wage a war, you can't control precisely what is going on. No one can. Like MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists: who was interested in it? No one was, but still MH17 was shot down.Israel bombed schools, it probably did it without clear intent to bomb them, but at the same time it means it is not very concerned about a couple of hundred of underage causalities. Like it was (and it is) not at all concerned about Palestinian causalities in Gaza. Moreover to my mind, it is the strategic stance of Israel: to be as brutal as possible to make neighbors to fear Israel. Israel does it for decades, it does it every time it wages a war. It means that now it just cannot wage a war without demonstrations of brutality. Even if it wanted to it just cannot, because on all levels of command people were taught to demonstrate brutality, and they were not taught how to wage war surgically. You can't overcome such a training on so many levels with a carefully crafted prompt.> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don't mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-..."Mizan News Agency, the judiciary's official news agency, reported the death toll..."Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
Israel bombed schools, it probably did it without clear intent to bomb them, but at the same time it means it is not very concerned about a couple of hundred of underage causalities. Like it was (and it is) not at all concerned about Palestinian causalities in Gaza. Moreover to my mind, it is the strategic stance of Israel: to be as brutal as possible to make neighbors to fear Israel. Israel does it for decades, it does it every time it wages a war. It means that now it just cannot wage a war without demonstrations of brutality. Even if it wanted to it just cannot, because on all levels of command people were taught to demonstrate brutality, and they were not taught how to wage war surgically. You can't overcome such a training on so many levels with a carefully crafted prompt.> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don't mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-..."Mizan News Agency, the judiciary's official news agency, reported the death toll..."Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don't mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-..."Mizan News Agency, the judiciary's official news agency, reported the death toll..."Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-two-..."Mizan News Agency, the judiciary's official news agency, reported the death toll..."Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
"Mizan News Agency, the judiciary's official news agency, reported the death toll..."Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
"Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared a photo of the attack, which..."
reply
Seems like we're on such polar ends, there's no hope in discussion.
reply
I question everything, and in this case I'm choosing to believe it. Such fakes are hard to forge, and as recent history shows such news are not fakes. Look at Russia which claimed that it did nothing wrong for how many times? Russia all the time tried to declare that everything is a fake forged by Ukraine. And if we look at what Ukraine did to Russia, we can't find a single example of a fake news forged by Russia.A priori probability of this being a fake is low, and if you look into it, it is a pretty good "fake". No one still questioned it, while you can see some news from Iran that are clearly anti-regime news.So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
A priori probability of this being a fake is low, and if you look into it, it is a pretty good "fake". No one still questioned it, while you can see some news from Iran that are clearly anti-regime news.So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
reply
https://www.reddit.com/r/war/comments/1rh2f41/the_residence_...
reply
reply
That photo is taken directly from AP news reporting, taken by Airbus.
reply
Reddit is a shithole, even more so after it went public a year ago..Anyway, I don't think the AP pictures are too convincing. Sure it might look like smoke in there, but it looks more like the entire right side of the image was carpetbombed - not just the building complex in the middle
Anyway, I don't think the AP pictures are too convincing. Sure it might look like smoke in there, but it looks more like the entire right side of the image was carpetbombed - not just the building complex in the middle
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
http://lifegoesonintehran.com/
reply
Because America and Israel.
reply
What topsy-turvy land have I wandered into?They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
The sanctions aren't about race. They're about behaviour.
reply
Nobody said that. But they are a sovereign country that did not attack America. Bombing them because you find their internal politics distasteful is appalling, to say the least.
reply
you call their official slogan "Death to America, Death to Israel" - distasteful internal politics?
reply
P.S. downplaying their behavior to “distasteful”, is, well, distasteful.
reply
reply
reply
The US doesn't need an interventionist policy with Iran any more than we need to invade North Korea. Israel needs it though, and their entire strategy is to risk American lives for their meaningless expansion campaign.
reply
reply
reply
reply
No. But they are a sovereign nation who didn't directly bomb the US or its allies.>They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know who Israel has funded?I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
>They've funded Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for decades. They've assassinated dissidents on foreign soil. They sentence people to death for apostasy and flog women for not wearing hijab correctly.You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know who Israel has funded?I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
You want to know who the US has funded? You want to know who Israel has funded?I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
I mean, shit, the US took out Iran's democratically elected government in the 1970s and was a huge fan of the Mullahs because they let us steal Iranian oil. The same secular Iranian government that was quite literally the first middle eastern country to recognize the existence of Israel, and was a leading secular state in a region of ass-backwards religious nutcases.Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
Israel has refused to acknowledge the obvious existence of its nuclear weapons program while Iran is a full member of the IAEA and allows for full international inspection of its uranium facilities.Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
Fuck, the Israelis engage in massive blackmailing operations of their own "allies" (see Epstien, Jeffrey) , attack their own "allies" (see USS Liberty attack), and have tried to goad its "allies" into carrying out attacks on their behalf. They are a tiny bully that starts shit they cannot handle themselves, and American lives are sacrificed because of it.
reply
How can you even make this comparison?
reply
Oh man, are you gonna get a shock when you look at the news from the past 3 years.
reply
It gives us a regional coalition partner. That's never a bad thing, regardless of circumstances.
reply
reply
For what it's worth, I think the American activists on this issue bungled the messaging to disastrous effect (in the same way we bungled criminal-justice reform). It's a saturated issue with low political salience outside a specific (and increasingly constrained) demographic.A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising prices.
A win in Iran will be a short-term boost, in America and in Israel. Then we'll go back to being pissed about rising prices.
reply
reply
Israel chose to trade popularity for having real geopolitical gains on the ground. Popularity could be won back later, but removing the Iranian ring of fire around it is a real and tangible achievement that would last decades and change the Middle East.
reply
This is not salvageable without justice and accountability.
reply
> This is not salvageable without justice and accountability.Do Palestinians have to be held accountable for their actions?
Do Palestinians have to be held accountable for their actions?
reply
reply
This is an actual question. It seems to me that you only care about Arabs dying. Jews can die left and right in the hands of Arabs and you won't blink an eye. Am I correct?I just want to clarify it for others who reads your comments to see.
I just want to clarify it for others who reads your comments to see.
reply
reply
reply
ORViolent resistance to said plan.Idk, I wouldn't judge Palestine either, especially if Israel is immune to any kind of repercussions.
Violent resistance to said plan.Idk, I wouldn't judge Palestine either, especially if Israel is immune to any kind of repercussions.
Idk, I wouldn't judge Palestine either, especially if Israel is immune to any kind of repercussions.
reply
reply
reply
We've all seen videos of Israeli soldiers shooting kids that are running away from them in the back.Yes, murder cases for each act of crime against humanity. Yes, Nuremberg style trials for the leaders of the genocide.
Yes, murder cases for each act of crime against humanity. Yes, Nuremberg style trials for the leaders of the genocide.
reply
reply
reply
Even pro-Israel media outlets such as these are reporting it.
reply
reply
reply
Perhaps a good thought experiment would be to swap out Israel and Palestine with some other similar (real or fictional) conflict to help you think through your apparent confusion.
reply
It remains to be seen what impact this will have, but it will certainly impact the ability for everyone to claim that criticism of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians is motivated by antisemitism.The democrats lost the last election in part because of their stance on Israel.With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
The democrats lost the last election in part because of their stance on Israel.With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
With a bit of luck this could lead to a shift in policy within a generation.
reply
reply
reply
reply
All the things you described are indeed horrifying on their own, and I believe there are cases where Israeli forces did some of these things unjustifiably.You must be asking yourself what the hell could be justified. Well, I've heard first accounts of kids being sent first as scouts in the battlefield, into a kill box, trying to pinpoint Israeli forces. Once the scout goes back and reports on the force's location, an accurate barrage of RPGs will be shot at them. You can't go into the kill box to stop them by arresting them. What would you have done? I do not envy the person that has to make that call, they are now scarred for life.Justified? No? You pick between the life of that kid and the lives of the people under your command. Both choices are bad, this isn't Hollywood.Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn't give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It's working amazingly.
You must be asking yourself what the hell could be justified. Well, I've heard first accounts of kids being sent first as scouts in the battlefield, into a kill box, trying to pinpoint Israeli forces. Once the scout goes back and reports on the force's location, an accurate barrage of RPGs will be shot at them. You can't go into the kill box to stop them by arresting them. What would you have done? I do not envy the person that has to make that call, they are now scarred for life.Justified? No? You pick between the life of that kid and the lives of the people under your command. Both choices are bad, this isn't Hollywood.Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn't give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It's working amazingly.
Justified? No? You pick between the life of that kid and the lives of the people under your command. Both choices are bad, this isn't Hollywood.Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn't give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It's working amazingly.
Most of what you watch is edited purposefully and doesn't give you any context for the purpose of recruiting the public opinion. It's working amazingly.
reply
And what you watch is unabridged truth?The American/Israeli media empire is 100x larger than anything Hamas can disseminate. The "media is dishonest" excuse doesn't apply to Hamas any more than it does to the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
The American/Israeli media empire is 100x larger than anything Hamas can disseminate. The "media is dishonest" excuse doesn't apply to Hamas any more than it does to the Israeli Military Censor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Military_Censor
reply
You missed the point. The fact that it requires two of them to gang up on Iran says something about how capable Iran is in defending itself.
reply
reply
reply
There was a study showing almost every revolution happened not because of ideology but over the price of bread.
reply
His name was Marx. ;)Yeah. We'll see. Under what conditions will you consider yourself right or wrong? My prediction is after killing a few more heads of state, disabling some more striking capability that they'll back off under pressure from the Arab states. Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens and everyone will forget about it. Iran will eventually rebuild itself as it just did, but this time it will take longer (Trump even said that himself, contradicting himself earlier).
Yeah. We'll see. Under what conditions will you consider yourself right or wrong? My prediction is after killing a few more heads of state, disabling some more striking capability that they'll back off under pressure from the Arab states. Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens and everyone will forget about it. Iran will eventually rebuild itself as it just did, but this time it will take longer (Trump even said that himself, contradicting himself earlier).
reply
No, my worry is whether it will be a regime change that benefits the Iranian people or some kind of sick puppet state. But of course:> Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens...This goes without saying.Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
> Trump will declare it as a victory regardless of what happens...This goes without saying.Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
...This goes without saying.Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
Edit: worth noting the Arab states tend to hate Iran as well, and Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this war. They're not going to speak up for Iran unless they think the escalation is getting too dangerous for themselves.
reply
It doesn't matter. There are zero cases in history of successful regime change by air only. Iran, of all countries, has an extremely robust succession plan and at a last resort the IRGC itself will take over.> Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this warI can see you're not following this too seriously.You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
> Iran has already sprinkled some ballistic missiles on them just in this warI can see you're not following this too seriously.You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
I can see you're not following this too seriously.You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
You didn't give objective criteria for how to judge whether you're right or wrong yet.
reply
Obviously it's not going to be done 100% from the air. The Iranian people will have to play a big role. I just hope they manage to seize initiative from Trump and Netanyahu as far as how their government is run.I do note that we've strayed a bit from the thesis of "Iran is so powerful Israel and the US have to gang up on it". :D
I do note that we've strayed a bit from the thesis of "Iran is so powerful Israel and the US have to gang up on it". :D
reply
Eh, shit happens.
I lots of relatively new accounts coming with what seems to me extreme, but altogether pop-culture acceptable opinions
reply
reply
I think that's called "disagreeing".
reply
reply
reply
reply
This has felt like a super postmodern interaction
reply
reply
reply
What I'm trying to say is that this is an intentional part of their strategy. They know what they're doing.They probably have a small detachment assigned to every popular-ish website. For the long tail, they have bot farms.
They probably have a small detachment assigned to every popular-ish website. For the long tail, they have bot farms.
reply
reply
reply
reply
They're totally fine treating gentile women, men and children as cattle. Slaughtered and imprisoned at will.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Your loss.
reply
Over the past year or two I reported a number of accounts that are basically pro-Israel-only, they post a ton of comments to any Israel-related thread and either nothing else or very little of anything else. Mods refuse to ban or even warn them, apparently because emotions run high, there are too many of them and there's priority in punishing the most egregious content so relatively mild ones get a pass, and if mods are being accused of being-antisemitic and they ban a bunch of these they would reinforce the image, etc. These are from memory and not exact quotes.I don't buy it, and I've stopped reporting things to mods. (To be abundantly clear, anti-Israel-only accounts should 100% be banned too, but at least I haven't noticed as many as them. Any other kind of politics-only account should be purged too if the rules are to be believed.)
I don't buy it, and I've stopped reporting things to mods. (To be abundantly clear, anti-Israel-only accounts should 100% be banned too, but at least I haven't noticed as many as them. Any other kind of politics-only account should be purged too if the rules are to be believed.)
reply
reply
Could be that these are being farmed but at a state level it might be easier to outright purchase aged accounts
reply
reply
reply
It's already common practice to buy aged accounts with good reputations, so even that doesn't mean much.
reply
reply
Happens all day every day. There are many AI agents starting discussions and replying to comments. This is how The Crappening started on 4chan. Some of them are just future grifters. Some are training AI (I have replied to a few for fun). Some are propaganda bots. Those running the bots will reply with something equiv to Errrm Proof?? when called out. Without root I can not empirically prove it and the botters know that.I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation.
I predict about 2 years before the site will have more AI noise than real people. I have no idea what can be done about it aside from tracking the bots and reporting them via email to Daniel and I don't know what he could or would do. HN has always been very hands off which is mostly good but not for this scenario. If nothing is done it will just be bots grifting and AstroTurfing one another to the benefit of Google SEO and most of the humans would eventually go elsewhere with exception of some die-hards that refuse to recognize the situation.
reply
The only solutions are (1) private forums, (2) strict verification or maybe (3) some sort of "web of trust" thing, if someone manages to make it user friendly and not suck.
reply
reply
reply
My nickname on here would at least suggest so. I think Grok is the closest option since they were working on making a snarky insulting version of their bot. Tame that down a bit and one could get the personality of Bender. [1][1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNGFC7-t68 [video][16s]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNGFC7-t68 [video][16s]
reply
reply
In my opinion it would be mostly a ghost town if it requires money for something that was free. It would probably have to be more like a n invite-only semi-private forum. An example would be lobsters. [1] Not sayin' that's perfect, just an example. One can always try it and see what comes of it.[1] - https://lobste.rs/
[1] - https://lobste.rs/
reply
reply
I mean I'm sure it can be done but if you ask an LLM to produce comment reply without more instruction it's going to write something a lot more thoughtful, respectful, and substantive than a forum user would.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
At this point, lines have been drawn. In conservative land, everything conservative is good, everything liberal is bad. So the only sane position to take is the complete opposite.For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or its a conservative bot.
For example, if you see someone self proclaimed liberal being critical of liberals, that person is probably a conservative or its a conservative bot.
reply
reply
So if you are a democrat, and you want to make change, you need to behave exactly like conservatives do. Elections are decided by vibes, he who can attract the biggest social following through whatever means, wins.
reply
reply
Its a propaganda machine that works very well to target the very impressionable people out there. I mean, students are going to protests and destroying their futures by getting arrested to show support of Palestinians, who would absolutely stone them to death if they found out that any of them smoked weed, and even more so for the lbgtq students for simply being gay.So really, Israel vs Palestine shouldn't be an issue at all if you believe in actual change.
So really, Israel vs Palestine shouldn't be an issue at all if you believe in actual change.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
At the very least by Chinese agents or useful idi*ts. The amount (or, alternatively, visibility) of Chinese apologists in this website is totally disproportionate)
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Before you ask "how's that going", remember that doing nothing wouldn't result in a satisfactory answer to that question either.The idea that "killing the enemies turns the rest of the world into enemies" is absurd. Other countries wouldn't follow the Iranian regime into martyrdom. What would be the reason: "we don't like war"?Nobody likes war, but also nobody likes evil dictators emerging on this planet and repressing 90 million of its inhabitants, and waging industrial scale terrorism offensives beyond its borders.
The idea that "killing the enemies turns the rest of the world into enemies" is absurd. Other countries wouldn't follow the Iranian regime into martyrdom. What would be the reason: "we don't like war"?Nobody likes war, but also nobody likes evil dictators emerging on this planet and repressing 90 million of its inhabitants, and waging industrial scale terrorism offensives beyond its borders.
Nobody likes war, but also nobody likes evil dictators emerging on this planet and repressing 90 million of its inhabitants, and waging industrial scale terrorism offensives beyond its borders.
reply
She sat they killed some of those rebels, it would have sparked more rebellions. The difference was political power, even in defeat. Mercy is a big part of survival.It's a bit like law enforcement. If there's no police, criminals are everywhere. If there's too many police, corruption becomes the standard, along with police brutality and profiling. You can never get it down to zero, just low enough.
It's a bit like law enforcement. If there's no police, criminals are everywhere. If there's too many police, corruption becomes the standard, along with police brutality and profiling. You can never get it down to zero, just low enough.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Putting it lightly, many Iranian (within Iran) do not support the current regime. Especially not the educated.
reply
reply
And yeah Iranians out of Iran definitely hate it too.
reply
No, support will never falther.
reply
It was the Druze and they were actually being killed."The friend of my enemy deserves to die" is not an attitude you have to adopt, even if you disagree with the Israeli response to the killings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...
"The friend of my enemy deserves to die" is not an attitude you have to adopt, even if you disagree with the Israeli response to the killings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...
reply
Israel has enough genocide at home, no need to invade other countries
reply
reply
reply
reply
How exactly attacking Iran make their country great? Murdered million children in Iraq and now they started their terrorism in Iran.
reply
reply
English is not my first language. If you got a better word other than American terrorists and American terrorism, then suggest me one.
reply
It is, because it might impact normal citizens. Nobody has ever invaded the US so coensequences of real war are unknown to most.
reply
That's not technically true, seeing as how Washington DC was captured and burned in 1814. But it's at least true for modern times.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Congrats America!
reply
reply
I bet this story is a fabrication as well.[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47199047
reply
And you already bet this story is a fabrication as well.This is exactly who media takes advantage of not the one who waits for investigation and acts rationally.If going by your recent comments, I can say I bet you're just an Israeli propagandist. Would you be happy with that assesment?
This is exactly who media takes advantage of not the one who waits for investigation and acts rationally.If going by your recent comments, I can say I bet you're just an Israeli propagandist. Would you be happy with that assesment?
If going by your recent comments, I can say I bet you're just an Israeli propagandist. Would you be happy with that assesment?
reply
reply
You can't be serious about that statement. At best it reflects overwhelming naivete about how governments (let alone those engaged in war) work. At worst, its a deliberate attempt at misinformation.
reply
reply
reply
reply
They left because they were unhappy with things. The former British folks are enraged about human rights abuses and societal collapse in Britain. The ex-Christians will rarely praise the Bible.Not that there's zero weight, it's still a perspective to consider. But it has to be fact checked thoroughly.
Not that there's zero weight, it's still a perspective to consider. But it has to be fact checked thoroughly.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Are you claiming that Iran (or Hamas) site their military bases away from schools (or hospitals)?
reply
reply
Maybe they do, but this is also fairly common and cannot be ruled out at this early stage: https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FHCQpcrMbkAAz6Vw.jpgThe problem you have when you try to shield your armed forces with civilians is that you then place those civilians in danger.What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
The problem you have when you try to shield your armed forces with civilians is that you then place those civilians in danger.What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
What do you expect will happen when an armed force uses civilians as shields? It's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know what you expect an attacking force to do. Stop attacking?
reply
reply
Yeah, so much propaganda. We can see it with our own eyes.
reply
reply
https://apnews.com/live/us-israel-strikes-iran-khamenei-03-0...
reply
That said, if the US/Israel didn't do it, we'd have heard a denial by now. Perhaps the target was a nearby military site. Placing military sites next to schools sounds like a tactic from the Hamas Resistance handbook.
reply
reply
Without some confirmation, everything is propaganda, isn't it? Jeez... there is no greater force that that to have one's bias confirmed, is there. That is going to destroy us.
reply
reply
reply
How is the Epstein Regime going to survive this politically? How is the Senate (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, etc.) going to survive this politically?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
All the people who huffed about Kamala and Trump being sides of the same coin have brought us to this stage. You think Kamala's admin would be anywhere as venal, corrupt, blatantly unlawful as this?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Some people are getting killed so more people should be killed?
reply
reply
Feel free to disagree with the death tolls and the demographics of the victims, but the bombings are very much real...
reply
Did you see non-stop coverage about it from NYT, WaPo or others? No.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Would you consider blowing up a bus with civilians a crime?
reply
reply
reply
For more than four decades, the Islamic Republic has been one of the primary state sponsors of terror. Hezbollah is not an organic Lebanese movement — it is an Iranian creation. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are sustained by Iranian money and weapons. The Houthis' missile and drone capabilities exist because Tehran supplied and trained them. Shi'a militias in Iraq killed hundreds of Americans with Iranian-provided EFPs. Today, Iranian Shahed drones are striking Ukrainian apartment buildings.This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia's ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China's energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran's funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel's 2007 strike on Syria's Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
This is not passive instability. It is deliberate, systematic export of violence as state policy.At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia's ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China's energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran's funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel's 2007 strike on Syria's Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
At the same time, the regime has consistently pursued a nuclear capability while publicly calling for the destruction of Israel and “death to America.” Even if one assumes deterrence logic would hold, a nuclear umbrella for Iran would dramatically increase its freedom to escalate proxy warfare across the region.The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia's ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China's energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran's funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel's 2007 strike on Syria's Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
The downstream geopolitical effects are not hypothetical. Without Iranian drone and missile transfers, Russia's ability to sustain certain strike campaigns in Ukraine would be materially degraded. Without heavily discounted Iranian oil shipments, China's energy calculus shifts, particularly under sanctions pressure. Without Tehran's funding pipelines, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis become far more constrained actors rather than semi-state militaries.There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel's 2007 strike on Syria's Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
There is also precedent for preventive action against nuclear programs. Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Operation Opera) was widely condemned at the time; decades later, most analysts agree it delayed Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Likewise, Israel's 2007 strike on Syria's Al-Kibar reactor (Operation Orchard) prevented the Assad regime from developing a covert nuclear capability. Both operations were controversial in the moment and regarded as stabilizing in retrospect.Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
Preventing a hostile regime from acquiring nuclear capability has historically proven wiser than managing it after the fact.Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
Yes, regime change carries risk. So does allowing the world's most aggressive revolutionary theocracy to entrench itself indefinitely while arming proxies from Beirut to Sana'a to Moscow. The status quo is not stable. It is violent by design.If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
If a regime that funds terrorism on three continents, arms Russia during a European war, and openly seeks nuclear weapons is dismantled, history is unlikely to judge that harshly.It will likely judge it as overdue.
It will likely judge it as overdue.
reply
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/27/pakistan-...
reply
reply
If he pulls off a regime change, even a Delcy-style swaparoo, he'll get it, and arguably not undeservedly. It will ultimately come down to Iran's capacity to inflict casualties on American forces.
reply
reply
reply
reply
> Many conservatives voted for trump because they thought he wasn't a "war hawk"I doubt their honesty. Considering they blamed Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and October 7 with the galaxybrain reasoning of "It didn't happen while Trump was in office", I am convinced the isolationism thing is just an unserious talking point.Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried on social media about how they were about to be drafted after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
I doubt their honesty. Considering they blamed Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and October 7 with the galaxybrain reasoning of "It didn't happen while Trump was in office", I am convinced the isolationism thing is just an unserious talking point.Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried on social media about how they were about to be drafted after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
Even the Joe Rogan MAGAs should remember when they cried on social media about how they were about to be drafted after the Soleimani thing under Trump.
reply
I don't think this means the GOP keeps the House. But Trump got a bump from Venezuela, particularly within his party.
reply
reply
reply
reply
This is nonsense. If you actually believe this, spend some time around your elected representatives and in Washington.
reply
reply
I think IRGCs are much more robust and zealous than whatever Maduro had.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I agree. But to be fair, I would have said the same thing about Venezuela a year ago. Maybe the term should be a regime slip.
reply
No one's thinking America cant succeed at the killing partz. It's what comes after that people are worried about.
reply
Practically speaking, we changed it. The foreign and energy policies we care about changed. The notion that you need to wholesale clean shop to qualify as regime change is misguided and counterproductive [1].(On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we kept the Japanese Emperor on his throne doesn't mean we didn't change the Japanese regime.)[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
(On the other end of the spectrum, the fact that we kept the Japanese Emperor on his throne doesn't mean we didn't change the Japanese regime.)[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification
reply
reply
Lots of factions in Iran, including within the IRGC. Khamenei's bunker gets hit, oh no, new dude knives the competition and then makes a call to the White House.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
As a life long D voter, I am personally going to vote R every election now because I want US to sink into the ground so low that people like you experience actual pain and suffering.
reply
reply
The same sentiment that cause Nazi party to rise in power has never been eliminated, its just resurfaced itself years later. USA is not the only one with conservative problem, multiple countries in Europe have signs that right wing populism is on the rise.And in order to be eliminated, we have to be able to get to extreme levels of social policing. And the only way to get there is through a social reset where people forgo all the comforts in life and are forced to confront the things that are actually important.
And in order to be eliminated, we have to be able to get to extreme levels of social policing. And the only way to get there is through a social reset where people forgo all the comforts in life and are forced to confront the things that are actually important.
reply
Fuck. That. That is not the world I am fighting for. Go live in North Korea if you want that.> its a symptom.We have very different ideas of what Trump is a symptom of.
> its a symptom.We have very different ideas of what Trump is a symptom of.
We have very different ideas of what Trump is a symptom of.
reply
reply
This statement shows that the person has voted Trump in the past election, not sure how thats a presumption.
reply
reply
He wasn't even smart enough to leave America open to attack, manufacture a pretext, and rally people around the flag like 9/11Heck, there was even a better case in Korea & Vietnam. Even Venezuela. What's the case this is America's problem?
Heck, there was even a better case in Korea & Vietnam. Even Venezuela. What's the case this is America's problem?
reply
reply
reply
reply
The racists love it when Muslims get killed
reply
Bigotry has been a big part of the Moral Majority's platform for decades for a reason - it works on that demographicI have an armchair theory about one possible contributing factorThese are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent peopleThis creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
I have an armchair theory about one possible contributing factorThese are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent peopleThis creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
These are two of the most fundamental beliefs of evangelicals and they don't make much sense when you put them side-by-side:1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent peopleThis creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
1. God is the ultimate progenitor and prototype of love2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent peopleThis creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
2. God wants to torture a LOT of people forever, some of whom you may know personally and may be all appearances be decent peopleThis creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
This creates a certain amount of cognitive dissonanceRather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
Rather than reconsider those beliefs (which may result in your own everlasting torment), it's far easier to resolve that discomfort by dehumanizing non-Christians. Maybe they're actually really rotten people that deserve to be tortured
reply
The remaining neocons who have surprisingly managed to weasel their way back into influence.
reply
To be clear, I don't think the chances of that happening are high.
reply
Congress will not let him have a third term regardless of what he says or thinks.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Lol, 'let'. Whose going to stop him?
reply
reply
I can see JD being a figurehead with very public Trump support.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I'm interested in what makes empires tick, what their basis of power is.Spain in the colonial era was propped up by looting silver from Central and South America, for example.The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco are complete BS (eg [3]).Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
Spain in the colonial era was propped up by looting silver from Central and South America, for example.The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco are complete BS (eg [3]).Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
The British Empire is what many (including me) like to call the "drug dealer empire". First tobacco then later opium. Any claims that we didn't know about the health risks of tobacco are complete BS (eg [3]).Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
Circling back to your point, the US is what I like to call the "arms dealer empire". WW1 and WW2 massively enriched the United States. NATO is essentially a protection racket for Europe and the price is, you guessed it, buying arms from the United States.And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
And the next Budget has proposed increasing "defense" spending from an already eye-popping $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion [4]. Where does that money go? Arms, weapons programs, defense contractors, the ultra-wealthy.War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
War is good for business even though it's unpopular.[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
[1]: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
[2]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15198996/[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
[4]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-proposes-massive...
reply
Trump can literally do all the things that the epstein files accuse him of doing, right on camera in front of everyone, and Americans will still vote for him all because he isn't a "woke" black woman.
reply
because it's more comfortable than admitting they were wrong.
reply
reply
reply
https://polymarket.com/event/us-strikes-iran-by
reply
I think they don't have an argument because technically the missile can be de-activated up until the last seconds before it reaches its intended targetStill it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs dropped on the other side of the worldI guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it's uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
Still it feels surreal to argue about these things , bomb dropping on humans and other humans attacking each other for the privilege to have their bet honored on when said bombs dropped on the other side of the worldI guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it's uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
I guess people in intelligence communities had these sort of bets going on ever since WW2 and Vietnam , but still it's uncanny to see it widespread to potentially the whole population of the internet
reply
reply
You can get an edge here by moving your ass somewhere where you can see the planes take off, maybe a team with people at multiple locations - boats near the aircraft carrier, near military bases in Israel, ...
reply
reply
reply
It would benefit the entire world to see Iran integrated and engaged internationally.
reply
Furthermore if Reza Pahlavi does manage to integrate into the society, he will most certainly use his business and political ties here in the US to westernize the society. He's said as much. Some of the more well known Iranian-American business leaders here in the US (CEO of Uber, CEO of intuit, founder of eBay for example) I'm sure would contribute to work towards this also.There will be push-back from rural areas (just like anywhere else) and the regime will not go away overnight, but the possibility does exist for this outcome. I think the biggest roadblock would be America and Israel intentionally preventing this outcome for the reasons that suit them geopolitically.EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic processes where their votes and voices matter
There will be push-back from rural areas (just like anywhere else) and the regime will not go away overnight, but the possibility does exist for this outcome. I think the biggest roadblock would be America and Israel intentionally preventing this outcome for the reasons that suit them geopolitically.EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic processes where their votes and voices matter
EDIT: should have mentioned that after decades of widely known voter manipulation and more or less "mock" elections, Iranians would be happy to finally participate in actual democratic processes where their votes and voices matter
reply
reply
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
reply
Democracy in the middle-east does not result in Israel or US aligned governments, but the monarchies have proven more interested in preserving their autocratic dynasties and quite easy and eager to work with Israel and the US to preserve themselves.
reply
reply
They replaced the last democratic choice in Egypt with another military dictator, they keep the widely unpopular autocrat in Jordan on his throne with military and intelligence subsidies, have established and propped up a network of autocratic Gulf states that toe the line...So yeah, I would not be surprised that Israel and the US would be more than happy to but a scion of the previous Iranian autocratic dynasty back on the throne there.
So yeah, I would not be surprised that Israel and the US would be more than happy to but a scion of the previous Iranian autocratic dynasty back on the throne there.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Anyway, democracy is not a binary. You'd be unlikely to call ancient Athens a democracy by modern standards and yet...
reply
reply
If by that you mean that Iran will become a toothless vassal state of the U.S.-Americans, then God forbid.
reply
I was thinking more along the lines of Japan or South Korea. Militarily restrained, but prosperous and strong.I understand that recent military actions have often made things worse, not better. I am just trying to stay optimistic. From what I know, many Iranians are not enthusiastic about religion controlling law and politics.
I understand that recent military actions have often made things worse, not better. I am just trying to stay optimistic. From what I know, many Iranians are not enthusiastic about religion controlling law and politics.
reply
reply
reply
We saw significant success with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in the past. But more recently, similar efforts seem to have ended in failure.
reply
reply
They're also nice countries, with governments and organisation. Places like Afghanistan have nothing. You have to try and start civilisation from scratch, in a hostile land.
reply
Iran has a lot though so it could work there.
reply
Even accepting this, how exactly are these peaceful, western friendly civilians going to withstand a war better than their country's army?It's very depressing to see this playbook credulously trotted out yet again. When has this worked?
It's very depressing to see this playbook credulously trotted out yet again. When has this worked?
reply
reply
reply
reply
>White House officials believe ‘the politics are a lot better' if Israel strikes Iran first>As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it'd be best if Israel makes the first move.https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politic...
>As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it'd be best if Israel makes the first move.https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politic...
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/25/white-house-politic...
reply
reply
reply
I'm not sure what's the logic behind that PR-wise, but regardless, it didn't happen.
reply
reply
Part of it is the stated idea that Israel still has public support. That such an exchange, even if Israel launches the first strike, would get more support. This is probably misjudging the actual public support for Israel, which is much lower amongst the general public than amongst (esp. Republican) political circles.The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle about their desires to harm jews.> but regardless, it didn't happen.That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
The other part of it is that Trump has surrounded himself with card-carrying nazis, who have not at all been subtle about their desires to harm jews.> but regardless, it didn't happen.That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
> but regardless, it didn't happen.That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
That Israel didn't launch the first strike and instead insisting on a joint strike (despite otherwise being constantly warmongering), suggests to me that it's the latter 'part' of the reason that had a lot of weight here.
reply
Trump: "The lives of American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties - that often happens in war."Another republican president starting a war in the middle east, once again sacrificing American lives.
Another republican president starting a war in the middle east, once again sacrificing American lives.
reply
I think the only way to get away from the warmongering is to go for a third party. But even they would likely be corrupted by the excessive influence of the military industrial complex. Eisenhower was not only right, but plainly prophetic.[1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-c...
[1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/list-of-c...
reply
Trump this time around didn't inherit a major us deployment in a conflict area. No Iraq, no Afghanistan. Also, he's doing military strikes by himself, no Congress involved.Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical weapons.Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title?
Syrian and Libia were both essentially civil wars with an oppressive regime with Syria using allegedly chemical weapons.Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title?
Your source is a very weird site. Countries Obama bombed 2026??? What does that even mean. Is it just a typo in the main heading and the title?
reply
And places being in a state of internal conflict, conflict which is itself often backed and fomented by US intelligence agencies and backed proxy forces, is hardly some reason to go bomb them. Even moreso when you look at results. See what Libya turned into, and what Syria is now turning into. It turns out that Al Qaeda in a suit is still Al Qaeda, to literally nobody's surprise if you're even vaguely familiar with our history of backing extremists and putting them in power, something which we have done repeatedly.This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even that might not end up being the case, as Iran's retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of longer term consequences.[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside...
This war, if it escalates, is not going to be good for Iran, the people of Iran, or likely even the US. The only country that might come out a winner is Israel, but even that might not end up being the case, as Iran's retaliation will likely focus on them. To say nothing of longer term consequences.[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside...
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-preside...
reply
Agreed with most of the rest you said though
reply
Sure, if the choice is between drone bombings and conventional bombings.But no, not expected if the choice is between bombing and not bombing.
But no, not expected if the choice is between bombing and not bombing.
reply
This isn't true. Small-scale targeted raids, not B52s recreating Dresden.
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
reply
That nuclear threat was contained under a plan backed by US, EU, Russia, China and Iran, in which Iran would not pursue nuclear expansion and let a team of international experts in to verify this on a continuous basis, in exchange for some sanction relief. A solution Trump threw in the trash, reinstating the sanctions, pressuring Iran to pursue nuclear again as one of its few levers of power it can pull on.In other words he created the necessity for violence by throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as things to be broken even irrationally?)Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat.
In other words he created the necessity for violence by throwing away a unique solution that the entire world got behind including US allies & enemies, throwing away goodwill and trust in future deals (why would Iran negotiate now if it's clear how Trump views deals, as things to be broken even irrationally?)Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat.
Those who claim this is an anti-war president have no clue, even in the context of a 'just war' argument it simply falls flat.
reply
It does seem that military action is correlated with increased coverage in the media of the Trump/Epstein files.
reply
reply
Even now most experts agree the chance of success is extremely small, every time this was tried you got shit returns (think Libya, still a failed state after Ghadaffi fell, and Iraq is reasonably stable now but we're 2 decades in and +1m dead Iraqis).So it's certainly a useful distraction for Trump. It's also certainly true Trump would want to pursue this objective (despite it being a stupid move to reach it) regardless of the Epstein files.
So it's certainly a useful distraction for Trump. It's also certainly true Trump would want to pursue this objective (despite it being a stupid move to reach it) regardless of the Epstein files.
reply
And he went quite quickly from being called a "critical partner in the fight against terror" to being overthrown and summarily murdered by US backed extremists, leaving Libya in a complete state of turmoil and deterioration, and even seeing the rise of organized slavery. [1] 'Regime change' in a nutshell.[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Libya#Slavery_in_th...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Libya#Slavery_in_th...
reply
reply
reply
I find it astounding that the U.S. population aren't storming Washington and demanding his removal. Other countries are removing people from positions who were involved with Epstein due to the massive corruption and yet the USA seems fine with allowing Trump to continue destroying everything he touches.
reply
Regarding politicians: Gustavo Petro was the most vocal protester; now that Trump told him in the White house to shut up, he is wagging his tail happily.
reply
reply
reply
That said the justification for it made no sense to me and many others. Trump accused Maduro of narcoterrorism - profiting from the drug trade and violence. Where's the evidence? And the whole bit about the oil ... Usually that's the critique of US actions, not the reason we give; we should be moving full speed towards adopting renewables so an oil grab really doesn't make sense. Though Trump's energy policy has always been entirely backwards.And we should probably also worry about the example we've set - that we'll just intervene when it suits us with a cooked up justification certainly incentivizes dangerous behavior - how many countries are now thinking about the deterrents they could acquire? But most Americans don't think about unintended consequences of laws or government actions.One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US doesn't actually have the demand for it.
And we should probably also worry about the example we've set - that we'll just intervene when it suits us with a cooked up justification certainly incentivizes dangerous behavior - how many countries are now thinking about the deterrents they could acquire? But most Americans don't think about unintended consequences of laws or government actions.One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US doesn't actually have the demand for it.
One last thought re oil - the smart move would probably be to invest in Venezuelan oil not for sale in the US but for export to India and maybe Europe - try to use it as a replacement for Russian oil. That would in turn hurt Russia's economy and thereby reduce their efforts to wage war in Ukraine. But if that's the plan, Trump has never said that. And it also doesn't really fit his worldview that the Ukraine war should be Europe's problem and not the US's problem. But maybe it'll end up happening anyway, if Venezuela's oil production picks up and the US doesn't actually have the demand for it.
reply
reply
reply
reply
* Only verified number with real losses dead higher and even more crippled.https://en.zona.media/article/2026/02/24/mapofwar
https://en.zona.media/article/2026/02/24/mapofwar
reply
reply
reply
But the reasons wars existed didn't go away, so this just resulted in more and more people getting killed in "special military operations" or similar things. See e.g. "Why States No Longer Declare War"[0].[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228896825_Why_State...
[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228896825_Why_State...
reply
Not declaring war provides a workaround, allowing the states to do whatever they desire, without constraints, while avoiding being accused that they do not observe their obligations assumed internationally.Seems plausible.
Seems plausible.
reply
reply
In fact, after Vietnam war congress specifically created a law to restrict hostilities without congress approval to up to 60 days, which is what the current (and prior) administrations are acting on.
reply
reply
reply
reply
(2) It's only the constitution that requires an act of congress, and that document is not considered applicable by the current king.
reply
reply
reply
But yes, poor American soldiers.
reply
reply
Americans really have to be among the most gullible people on the planet.Not to mention that Trump is a paedophile, the open corruption, attempted coup etc... it's like that Hemingway quote. The decline of the USA has been gradual, and then very sudden.
Not to mention that Trump is a paedophile, the open corruption, attempted coup etc... it's like that Hemingway quote. The decline of the USA has been gradual, and then very sudden.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Coming from President Bone Spurs ...
reply
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/john-kelly-con...
reply
reply
reply
reply
I noticed that you somehow failed to mention 9/11, Colin Powell, George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, nor the fact that the Invasion has bipartisan support and was overwhelming popular with the American public.
reply
You ARE aware of the Heritage foundation, right?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Honinbo-sensei, you seem to have failed to recognize puppy-go for what it is and also to identify the player.
reply
reply
* the weapons can annihilate the world and extinguish civilization in a few hours* a massive asymmetry between the enemies in any metric is evident* the strikes and battles are surprisingly of small scale, targeted and not decisiveWhy on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
* a massive asymmetry between the enemies in any metric is evident* the strikes and battles are surprisingly of small scale, targeted and not decisiveWhy on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
* the strikes and battles are surprisingly of small scale, targeted and not decisiveWhy on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
Why on earth isn't the diplomacy used to solve the status after an imminent warning to make Iran an extension of Indian ocean with weapons of mass destruction?
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Btw. They ARE not that far away from the bomb, after they enriched uranium as a consequence of Trump (in his first term) cancelling the Obama treaty.But they ARE a theocracy and Ajatollah Chamenei released an order (fatwa) forbidding Iran from obtaining and using an a-bomb. The new religious leader might change the religious law tho. I mean the one that comes after Chamenei becomes a martyr.Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
But they ARE a theocracy and Ajatollah Chamenei released an order (fatwa) forbidding Iran from obtaining and using an a-bomb. The new religious leader might change the religious law tho. I mean the one that comes after Chamenei becomes a martyr.Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
Funny how, knowing just a little bit more, it all really looks like nonsense created for illiterate, just to take their attention off of Epstein Pedophile Scandal.
reply
reply
If that was true, obviously they would have built one buy now. Being one year away from building would be non-urgency inducing.The constant lying about timelines does not imply Iran does not enrich uranium, but, as you remember, after the last bombing the leaders of the USA and Israel said they had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Except, apparently After six months they are one week away from a nuke again.This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next time.Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
The constant lying about timelines does not imply Iran does not enrich uranium, but, as you remember, after the last bombing the leaders of the USA and Israel said they had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear program. Except, apparently After six months they are one week away from a nuke again.This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next time.Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
This seems to indicate the USA should be bombing Iran every few weeks, forever, just in case they get a bit faster next time.Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
Except, when we don't have any scandal or other crisis going on, then Iran does not seem to be getting a nuke quickly. I wonder why.
reply
Reread your parent comment, the concept of a threshold nuclear state is that they are constantly a month away, for years.
That's the entire point, being effectively a nuclear state without holding a nuclear weapon
reply
The problem I have with this doctrine is that if it's supposed to deter an opponent who already has a nuclear deterrent, they may decide their deterrent is not so deterring anymore and actively go and use it against you.The whole idea of nuclear deterrence relies on all parties being rational and sensible about nuclear weapons use, but I don't see a lot of rationality in the current eventuality.
The whole idea of nuclear deterrence relies on all parties being rational and sensible about nuclear weapons use, but I don't see a lot of rationality in the current eventuality.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
In the Middle-east theatre, no telling what will happen in East Asia.
reply
reply
reply
"In order to get elected Barack Obama will start a war with Iran"—Donald Trump, Nov 29, 2011"Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected."—Trump, Jan 17, 2012"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
—Donald Trump, Nov 29, 2011"Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected."—Trump, Jan 17, 2012"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
"Barack Obama will attack Iran to get re-elected."—Trump, Jan 17, 2012"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
—Trump, Jan 17, 2012"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin watch for him to launch a strike on Libya or Iran. He is desperate."—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
—Trump, Oct 9, 2012
reply
reply
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2026/02/28/k...
reply
reply
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0pnnj8xyo
reply
reply
reply
The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved.I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
reply
They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn't something they - as a regional power - have the firepower or diplomatic “street cred” for.They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors right.The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors right.The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
reply
It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically.> I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th.Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
> I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th.Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
reply
They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
reply
Well i think this is true in the present moment, i think its also important to recognize that we got to this point by a series of decisions that Iran made. They boxed themselves into this corner via long term strategic blunders.E.g. if they threatened US & israeli interests less (i.e. did not support proxy groups), US and Israel probably wouldnt find it worth it to go this far. Alternatively if they paid more attention to the home front and kept their people happy, there would be less pressure for them to not lose face during negotiations which might allow them to make concessions they cant currently.
E.g. if they threatened US & israeli interests less (i.e. did not support proxy groups), US and Israel probably wouldnt find it worth it to go this far. Alternatively if they paid more attention to the home front and kept their people happy, there would be less pressure for them to not lose face during negotiations which might allow them to make concessions they cant currently.
reply
Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity.The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
reply
reply
My country and my Government, sent people from my generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that sacrifice.I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
reply
As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like (there were rumours about turning a blind eye to moral impropriety because it was politically expediant).The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
reply
From what I've read it's not that simple. The American system was more well liked in the cities than the alternatives. Outside the big cities, which is most of Afghanistan, the government really didn't matter much. They were still dominated by local malitias, "elders", and gangs.To add insult to injury, the US led effort to build up an internal defense force in the country found that the only people willing to fight for the country were the very same people who had fought for the Taliban only years before.The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
To add insult to injury, the US led effort to build up an internal defense force in the country found that the only people willing to fight for the country were the very same people who had fought for the Taliban only years before.The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
The question left unsaid of course is if all of these problems could have been solved by a more competent actor. I would argue they couldn't have, that you can't bring peace through war, but reasonable minds can disagree.
reply
The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually. That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
reply
Ultimately? If the people who are going to kill you were elected into power by those "innocent people", why would you not lash out at them too? Some twisted sense of morality or taking the high road?
reply
I was speaking of the Gazans who originally elected Hamas to protect them but where Hamas eventually decided to sacrifice masses of them to achieve some of their goals. They knew what would happen and did it anyway, without the people's consent.
reply
Better to play the long game, corrupt them from within and wait for them to destroy themselves.
reply
The world in which America is a military superpower.> if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the USThey have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
> if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the USThey have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
reply
No, you missed my point. Iran dies no matter what happens. Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans. Instead they were extremely restrained, squandering their capacities.> They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.Incorrect.
> They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.Incorrect.
Incorrect.
reply
One, they tried. They don't have the capability. Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.> IncorrectWhich part, why and based on whom?
> IncorrectWhich part, why and based on whom?
Which part, why and based on whom?
reply
No, they didn't, not at the peak of their power. They waited until many of their tools were hit and THEN responded. Everything they've done is unfortunately in self-defense after their capabilities have been extremely degraded. They sat around and waited for Israel to strike first every time.> Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.Again, you're missing the point. They are going to be weeded out no matter what.
> Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.Again, you're missing the point. They are going to be weeded out no matter what.
Again, you're missing the point. They are going to be weeded out no matter what.
reply
But that's hard to grok without corroborating evidence. Like maybe an analogous social dynamic where the American mainstream maintains a hostile posture towards a particular ethnic group, stereotyping them as violent and irrational and criminals and parasites, and doing things to them that have triggered sustained, armed uprisings in other times and places, but who, in fact, have historically and in-aggregate been steadfast in a commitment to non-violent resistance, integration, and endurance of oppression.Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
reply
If you have been following Iran over the past two years (and even before), you would know that this is empirically true and not just a hypothetical. American propag- sorry, media does its job well.
reply
reply
Hezbollah did. They did it before and they were predicted by all analysts to be able to do it again, which is why Israel took the route they did with the espionage, assassinations and terrorism instead of confronting them on the battlefields.The Houthis also are doing that right now.
The Houthis also are doing that right now.
reply
Iran decided to play stupid games and found out.
reply
If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
reply
reply
reply
2. There's a lot of domestic political/information suppression in Ukraine but I consider this somewhat normal for a nation in a pretty existential conflict.3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.
3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.
reply
reply
Why is that unthinkable? I can understand people in the US being unable to process such a scenario, but here in Europe, there's not a single nation that wasn't off the map for some time.I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
reply
Because it's unthinkably stupid.> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.And you imagine they won't die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.And you imagine they won't die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
And you imagine they won't die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
reply
reply
It's a desperate measure, but so is snatching people from the street to bus them off to trenches.Personally, I think people can live through almost any hell (and can make a comeback later) - unless they die, in which case they can't do anything anymore. Decades of hard times, in this view, are preferable to tens of thousands of excess deaths per year over a decade.I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
Personally, I think people can live through almost any hell (and can make a comeback later) - unless they die, in which case they can't do anything anymore. Decades of hard times, in this view, are preferable to tens of thousands of excess deaths per year over a decade.I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
I understand why people are reluctant to consider this - I'm just trying to show that there are alternatives to the current situation; not strictly better, but at least presenting different trade-offs. In a situation of "existential defensive war," we should discuss all plausible options, even the most controversial ones.
reply
Every country with conscription will do this if you refuse to show up.> Both the west and the east have been pressuring them to hold elections to no avail.Their own constitution and laws forbids it during martial law.“Both Putin and Trump want Zelensky to violate the Ukrainian Constitution” is not the grand slam take you imagine it to be.
> Both the west and the east have been pressuring them to hold elections to no avail.Their own constitution and laws forbids it during martial law.“Both Putin and Trump want Zelensky to violate the Ukrainian Constitution” is not the grand slam take you imagine it to be.
Their own constitution and laws forbids it during martial law.“Both Putin and Trump want Zelensky to violate the Ukrainian Constitution” is not the grand slam take you imagine it to be.
“Both Putin and Trump want Zelensky to violate the Ukrainian Constitution” is not the grand slam take you imagine it to be.
reply
Was that MP a draft dodger? The issue isn't them picking draft dodgers, it's them picking up anybody that looks like they might be a draft dodger and the tactics they employ to do it.
reply
reply
Because that's what their constitution says. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-presidential...> routinely force unwilling conscripts into vansCan you clarify what you understand conscription to be?
> routinely force unwilling conscripts into vansCan you clarify what you understand conscription to be?
Can you clarify what you understand conscription to be?
reply
“They have People's Republic right there in the name, what are you people not getting about this?”> Can you clarify what you understand conscription to be?A violation of human dignity.
> Can you clarify what you understand conscription to be?A violation of human dignity.
A violation of human dignity.
reply
A dodge, but we can work with that.A yes or no question, now:Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
A yes or no question, now:Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
Would the citizens of a sovereign nation being forced to violate their Constitution by Putin and Trump be a “violation of human dignity” too?
reply
reply
reply
reply
America managed it in 1864.
reply
They have long lost the ability to claim that any of their actions are in good faith.
reply
...we are? Totally insufficiently. And immaterially, now [1]. But we're still providing intelligence support.[1] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-t...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-t...
reply
Russia is already a nuclear power. They are also diminishing as a nation almost as fast as China.
reply
reply
To be more specific, since 2025, selling weapons."And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trumphttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-trumps-full-2026-...https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...
"And everything we send over to Ukraine is sent through NATO and they pay us in full." - Trumphttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-trumps-full-2026-...https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-trumps-full-2026-...https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...
https://app.23degrees.io/embed/j4luMuv8fnpO2frL-bar-grouped-...
reply
reply
reply
Which the US actively funds…so after a $66 billion advance now the costs are being shared by other vested countries.
reply
in general, "protestors" that are armed by foreigners and actively killing police officers and other government officials aren't "protestors".And can you tell us where this 30k came from?
And can you tell us where this 30k came from?
reply
reply
reply
You might think Iran isn't owed the courtesy of fair negotiation but that's very shortsighted. Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first.
reply
Then they get levelled. Forgetting that America is a superpower is one way that Iran's negotiators, if they were engaging in good faith, fucked up on.
reply
reply
People die in the streets.Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
reply
reply
Yes. Without those sanctions + instigations the crack downs would not be needed. That's beyond obvious to me.
reply
Side question what's your opinion on the war in Ukraine
reply
I'm not in favor of one or the other: I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia+Iran have been much less aggressive than the "allied western forces" for the last 60 years, while they have a lot of reasons to dig in and toughen up not to become the next Libya/Iraq/Syria/etc.
reply
Now do Georgia and the DRC.
reply
But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
reply
These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
reply
I don't like the mullah's in Iran anymore than the next person but no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”
reply
Taken as a whole, Trump has not been negotiating with Iran in good faith. That does not mean that Iran has been negotiating in good faith.
reply
If someone takes the first underhanded step, it's not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
reply
Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
reply
reply
reply
I mean, the JCPOA verify seemed pretty well thought out.
reply
reply
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
reply
reply
Nobody has done this since before WWII.> it always wants the ability to backstabYes. Geopolitics is anarchic. Pretty much every country has "backstabbed", and has legitimate claims to having been "backstabbed".
> it always wants the ability to backstabYes. Geopolitics is anarchic. Pretty much every country has "backstabbed", and has legitimate claims to having been "backstabbed".
Yes. Geopolitics is anarchic. Pretty much every country has "backstabbed", and has legitimate claims to having been "backstabbed".
reply
As we have now learnt, this statement is utterly invalid.Oman's top diplomat reported that negotiations were progressing quite well. They were dismayed at the American strikes. I am guessing Trump really wanted the negotiations to fail and was pissed off when Iran actually agreed to his major terms. So he launched the strikes, before the news could spread.“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
Oman's top diplomat reported that negotiations were progressing quite well. They were dismayed at the American strikes. I am guessing Trump really wanted the negotiations to fail and was pissed off when Iran actually agreed to his major terms. So he launched the strikes, before the news could spread.“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
reply
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
reply
Of course they are not. But then you know what happens: it's on every front page.
reply
reply
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic trackWell sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred paceWar is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic trackWell sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred paceWar is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred paceWar is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred paceWar is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
reply
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faithOnly according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my pointnot really, please answer the initial question I asked.> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faithOnly according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my pointnot really, please answer the initial question I asked.> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my pointnot really, please answer the initial question I asked.> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my pointnot really, please answer the initial question I asked.> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
reply
I literally opened the top comment asking for any credible analysis that said the Iranians were negotiating in good faith. I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)> please answer the initial question I askedRead past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.> Exactly why?Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)> please answer the initial question I askedRead past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.> Exactly why?Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> please answer the initial question I askedRead past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.> Exactly why?Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.> Exactly why?Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> Exactly why?Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
reply
ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.too bad, get better with search> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.too bad, get better with search> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
too bad, get better with search> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
reply
Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.> get better with search...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
> get better with search...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
reply
ok, let's see> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
reply
I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
reply
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sourcesCorrection: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sourcesCorrection: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American sideBy the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
reply
Not the other side that literally assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery.Not the other side that had agreed on the attacks weeks ago, but carried on with the sham negotiations so this attack would coincide with Purim.And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
Not the other side that had agreed on the attacks weeks ago, but carried on with the sham negotiations so this attack would coincide with Purim.And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
reply
Which negotiators have been assasinated? (They're in Geneva.)
reply
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-neg...Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
reply
My pet war is Ukraine. I get your frustration and appreciate your patience.And I'll admit I wasn't thinking of Israel when I made that statement since Israel wasn't directly negotiating with Iran this round.
And I'll admit I wasn't thinking of Israel when I made that statement since Israel wasn't directly negotiating with Iran this round.
reply
Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story.---Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.---Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
---Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.---Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.---Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
---Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
reply
If America and Israel are interchangeable, so are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That–I believe–is an overly simplistic approach, particularly when treating even Iran as a cohesive political entity is theoretically fraught.
reply
Not sure it affects the outcome.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
The anti-US spiel is just rhetoric. It helps save face when dealing with China, which it still utterly depends on, and it goes along with decades of internal propaganda lionizing China to its own people. Indeed North Korea wants heavy US military presence in the region, maintaining its status with regards to China as a strategically important buffer state which can act with plausible deniability instead of a resource rich neighbor with uncooperative leadership.If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats to South Korea would only further alienate the regime, China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK military would have no effective means to retaliate and would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a credible defense, and North Korea's own people would probably welcome the change which would dramatically reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
If North Korea only had conventional forces, what would stop China from installing a loyal puppet? The international community wouldn't lift a finger, threats to South Korea would only further alienate the regime, China could bring its full might to bear, the DPRK military would have no effective means to retaliate and would be more likely to turn on the regime than mount a credible defense, and North Korea's own people would probably welcome the change which would dramatically reduce oppression and increase prosperity. Nukes are the only way for a small number of regime loyalists to make such an operation too costly for Beijing to justify.This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
This is also why talks with the US have utterly "failed" for decades - there is nothing the US can offer that would provide the same security guarantee for the regime and the status quo is advantageous to the US for multiple reasons: justifying its large military presence in the region, justifying its efforts to develop and deploy ever more capable ballistic missile defense systems, and North Korea not being completely under China's control.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
"safety" for whom? Definitely not the people. They starve.
reply
reply
Better to have privation than to get bombed and massacred in large numbers.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they still had their nuclear weapons and Iran wouldn't be under attack now if they had them too.I'm not saying whether it's goods or bad that any or specific countries have nuclear weapons, that's beside the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have them.
I'm not saying whether it's goods or bad that any or specific countries have nuclear weapons, that's beside the point. The point is that this attack sends the signal that the only way to guarantee your safety is to have them.
reply
reply
I don't believe any country having nuclear weapons is good.
reply
reply
reply
Syria is the prime example of this. A major reason for the civilian slaughter was foreign intervention trying regime change.
reply
It's a macabre study. But one could honestly argue that several countries in the latter category's populations are better off than North Korea's.
reply
But I'd also point out that a lot of what makes it really suck to live in the worst places in the world isn't often the government but rather the international relationships. Turkey has a particularly brutal government, but it's Nato and EU ally status means that the civilians enjoy modern trade and travel.The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
The worst times to be in NK was the 90s when there was an ongoing famine and the US refused to lift sanctions thinking it'd spark a civil war that overthrew the regime. It didn't.
reply
You can live a perfectly normal life in Kiev. It's not exactly an active war zone, you see luxury cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on every corner. You can buy bottles of Petrus in 24 hour supermarkets and eat decent food at countless fancy restaurants.Goodwine in Kiev will also put US luxury grocers to shame. Ukraine might be at war, but the quality of life is hardly bad.
Goodwine in Kiev will also put US luxury grocers to shame. Ukraine might be at war, but the quality of life is hardly bad.
reply
To each their own. I wouldn't. In part because once you're in North Korea, you're not getting out. That isn't the case for Ukraine, Syria or any of the other war-torn countries.
reply
reply
NK does actually allow people to leave, mostly to china and mostly after they attain a high social class. A decent number of tourists, including US citizens, go on tours of NK.
reply
I didn't know this. Source? I thought Pyongyang controls its elites' movement even more strictly than its commoners'.
reply
I guess I shouldn't have written leave, but to visit other countries. I don't think you can change your citizenship.[1] https://www.youngpioneertours.com/can-north-koreans-travel/
[1] https://www.youngpioneertours.com/can-north-koreans-travel/
reply
reply
Me as me? Gaza. Because I'd get out. That's a bullshit answer, though, so I'll answer as a local. And there, it's honestly a coin toss because Gaza is possibly the shittiest war zone outside Africa right now. But if you said North Korea or Syria during its civil war? North Korea or Myanmar? I'm going with not Pyongyang.The only one where I'd honestly choose North Korea hands down is Sudan, because that's the one nobody really gives a shit about which means it's going to go on forever.
The only one where I'd honestly choose North Korea hands down is Sudan, because that's the one nobody really gives a shit about which means it's going to go on forever.
reply
reply
Of course it isn't, it's entirely porous to the IDF. I'm an American citizen. If I were teleported to Gaza I'd probably be fine. At material risk of being fucked up. But I'd take my chances there over being an American teleported to North Korea.
reply
reply
Sure. And yes, it's risky. But there are two million people in Gaza and half a dozen to a dozen, on average, being killed each day. If I, literally I, were teleported into Gaza, my primary operational concern would be avoiding Hamas. (My primary operational goal, getting to an internet-connected device.)> no one is launching rockets onto North KoreaCorrect, their security forces are undisrupted.
> no one is launching rockets onto North KoreaCorrect, their security forces are undisrupted.
Correct, their security forces are undisrupted.
reply
reply
reply
...nobody argued the proxy wars were good for those countries. Just that if you're turned into a random local in one of those theatres, chances are you're better off a decade or two later than if you're turned into a random North Korean.
reply
Are you sure about this part?
reply
War isn't glamorous. It's mechanized death and torture destroying communities, families, and loved ones. And when it's powered by foreign governments, it's worse. Because the two colliding sides are armed to the gills with the best weapons in murder along with mercenaries and no oversight.Living in a dictatorship is hard but doable, There are literally generations of people that have survived and thrived in that sort of an environment. It's not preferable, for sure, but you still have your family, friends, and neighbors. None of them are trying to actively kill you. So long as you follow the rules, life in a dictatorship is generally predicable and the odds of the state making you specifically an example are low.
Living in a dictatorship is hard but doable, There are literally generations of people that have survived and thrived in that sort of an environment. It's not preferable, for sure, but you still have your family, friends, and neighbors. None of them are trying to actively kill you. So long as you follow the rules, life in a dictatorship is generally predicable and the odds of the state making you specifically an example are low.
reply
And also your neighbors absolutely will sell you out.
reply
Thriving in a dictatorship, even not as an enforcer, is possible. It's a worse life in general but still a life you can live.Generally speaking, the only life that truly sucks in a dictatorship is if you become an enemy of the state. That doesn't generally apply to all citizens because, if it did, a dicatorship would quickly end in revolt. That is the theory behind strong sanctions. It's believed that if you starve a nation eventually the citizens revolt. The problem is it takes little resources to keep people happy, ultimately.
Generally speaking, the only life that truly sucks in a dictatorship is if you become an enemy of the state. That doesn't generally apply to all citizens because, if it did, a dicatorship would quickly end in revolt. That is the theory behind strong sanctions. It's believed that if you starve a nation eventually the citizens revolt. The problem is it takes little resources to keep people happy, ultimately.
reply
reply
Iran has had civil unrest over the last year, they weren't in the position politically to be doing much of anything to the "democracy" of Israel.The entire reason for the US Israel attack on Iran is because of that civil unrest, not because Iran was a threat, but because both nations see an opportunity to install a puppet government that does their bidding.What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
The entire reason for the US Israel attack on Iran is because of that civil unrest, not because Iran was a threat, but because both nations see an opportunity to install a puppet government that does their bidding.What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
What remains to be seen is if Russia sees a similar opportunity and we end up with another Syria.
reply
It's because your logic is flawed. It doesn't hold up a very simple scrutiny test.
reply
> the people there should not fight and let them take over, because war is worse than dictatorship, right?No, I think the people should fight back, obviously. A country being actively invaded has a right to fight back. The war isn't their choosing and laying down arms is a mistake because captured civilians are rarely treated well after a war.I'm specifically talking about an established dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and active civil war.
No, I think the people should fight back, obviously. A country being actively invaded has a right to fight back. The war isn't their choosing and laying down arms is a mistake because captured civilians are rarely treated well after a war.I'm specifically talking about an established dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and active civil war.
I'm specifically talking about an established dictatorship vs war. Specifically, as I said, a civil war which is a proxy war for foreign agents. Starting a war to end a dictatorship is bad. A dictatorship starting a war is bad. However, a dictatorship not starting wars is ultimately a better place to live vs anywhere under and active civil war.
reply
reply
If you're trying to say that had NK not had nukes we would bomb it for 'humanitarian purposes' or 'on behalf of its people' then I have a couple of bridges for sale.
reply
You think the US would just leave them alone as a communist, sovereign country without nukes, bordering china???
reply
reply
Now if they didnt have the bomb, i dont think they would have lasted this long. I think the US would have gone and "democratized" them to smithereens a while ago.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Gaza was not occupied. There was zero military presence in Gaza prior to October 7th.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Israeli neighbors that are at peace with Israel are safe as well, e.g., Egypt and Jordan.
reply
reply
As far as I know they do not have peace treaties with Israel, so they are less safe by definition, no?Also, Iraq and Iran are not neighbors of Israel, only Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are.
Also, Iraq and Iran are not neighbors of Israel, only Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are.
reply
Iraq and Iran are both in the region, if not directly sharing borders with Israel.So to answer the question I originally responded do, "did nuclear weapons make Israel safer", the answer is evidently yes.
So to answer the question I originally responded do, "did nuclear weapons make Israel safer", the answer is evidently yes.
reply
reply
reply
One of the recommended solutions was to bring tactical nuclear weapons back into the dialectic of deterrence extended to allied territories, so as to give US decision makers a range of options between Armageddon and defeat without a war. Global deterrence was ‘restored' by creating additional rungs on the ladder of escalation, which were supposed to enable a sub-apocalyptic deterrence dialogue — before one major adversary or the other felt its key interests were threatened and resorted to extreme measures. Many theorists in the 1970s took this logic further, in particular Colin Gray in a 1979 article, now back in fashion, titled ‘Nuclear Strategy: the case for a theory of victory'....In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the new strategic era, which has begun with Russia's invasion: ‘A number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear weapons after the cold war'" [1].I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
...In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the new strategic era, which has begun with Russia's invasion: ‘A number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear weapons after the cold war'" [1].I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
In 2018 Admiral Pierre Vandier, now chief of staff of the French navy, offered a precise definition of this shift to the new strategic era, which has begun with Russia's invasion: ‘A number of indicators suggest that we are entering a new era, a Third Nuclear Age, following the first, defined by mutual deterrence between the two superpowers, and the second, which raised hopes of a total and definitive elimination of nuclear weapons after the cold war'" [1].I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
I think the chances we see a tactial nuclear exchange in our lifetimes has gone from distant to almost certain.[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
The spring to a nuke is riskier than ever. That doesn't change that nuclear sovereignty is a tier above the regular kind, this is something every one of the global powers (China, Russia and America) and most regional powers (Israel) have explicilty endorsed.
reply
reply
1. According to the US and Israel, Iran has been a week away from having nuclear weapons for at least 34 years [1];2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...
reply
I think you'll have to be more specific.Or I guess to compare with your other observation: ""Even with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences"" -- It's not a binary of "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for missiles to successfully hit a target.Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
Or I guess to compare with your other observation: ""Even with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences"" -- It's not a binary of "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for missiles to successfully hit a target.Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).
reply
1. Routinely calling for death to Israel and America, turning it into part of the national curriculum and sowing hate2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 20196. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 20196. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 20196. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 20196. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 20196. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
6. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructureNow we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.
reply
And where are they wrong?
reply
Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.
reply
The point of having nuclear capabilities is to make the risk calculation more difficult. It doesn't mean you need to have state of the art capabilities.
reply
Someone in the Middle East gets hit.> would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter.(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
> would the risk calculation for an attack on Iran be as easy as it is right now?The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter.(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
The risk calculation isn't easy today. Nukes would make it harder. But I'm pushing back on the notion that it would make it a non-starter.(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
(MAD arsenals and long-range ICBMs, on the other hand, make it a non-starter.)
reply
Wow so no big deal then right?Jesus Christ dude
Jesus Christ dude
reply
Are you arguing it would be in this White House?
reply
reply
If they're using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely. (You would get fallout instead.)
reply
If they're using a novel, supercritical core mechanism, maybe. Otherwise, unlikely.
reply
Why would Iran attack Argentina? There's plenty of Jewish Iranian citizens. Did they run out of people to attack?
reply
There is a hardline element in the IRGC that personally profits from autarky. If the Iranian markets opened to the world, it would decimate their incomes.
reply
reply
reply
In the first Gulf War, we placed the Patriot batteries around Israel, as they said that if an Iraqi biological or chemical SCUD attack hit Tel Aviv, they would vitrify Baghdad.Having nukes doesn't prevent _anyone_ from attacking you, but it does constrain those attacks to conventional means. And what if you pulled off a decapitation attack against Tel Aviv? Well their fleet of nuclear capable subs would make you pay.
Having nukes doesn't prevent _anyone_ from attacking you, but it does constrain those attacks to conventional means. And what if you pulled off a decapitation attack against Tel Aviv? Well their fleet of nuclear capable subs would make you pay.
reply
reply
reply
reply
It ain't Iran.
reply
reply
reply
reply
Maybe Nukes do not prevent terrorism, or gorilla warfare.Having Nukes would prevent a large strike from another state, like what US just did.Nobody is doing this large scale of bombing on any of the nuclear powers.
Having Nukes would prevent a large strike from another state, like what US just did.Nobody is doing this large scale of bombing on any of the nuclear powers.
Nobody is doing this large scale of bombing on any of the nuclear powers.
reply
reply
reply
More than taking control of Iranian petrol, this is probably more an attempt at cutting off China access to it (and also generally eliminating one of their allies), same as for the Venezuelan invasion.
reply
reply
reply
I say "public case" specifically here, I don't buy that justification but it is still the one being used.
reply
If Iran had deployable nukes, would they get invaded?Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukes. I'll wait.
Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukes. I'll wait.
reply
I could be wrong, but I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change. You don't topple a government with air superiority alone, and you don't do it in a matter of days. I also don't expect the US would be okay letting the Iranian people pick who comes next. We have a history of installing puppets and that similarly doesn't happen only via bombing runs.
reply
So all it stops is kinetic attacks? Do you not think that's a big deal? I'm pretty sure Iran and Khamenei think that's a big deal.What do you mean by "How does that factor in here right now?"?It pretty obviously does. How does it NOT?> I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change.They had Khamenei killed.But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
What do you mean by "How does that factor in here right now?"?It pretty obviously does. How does it NOT?> I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change.They had Khamenei killed.But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
It pretty obviously does. How does it NOT?> I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change.They had Khamenei killed.But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
> I don't buy the public story that this is about regime change.They had Khamenei killed.But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
They had Khamenei killed.But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
But this is also a topic very different from the nukes one.
reply
Honestly, maybe? Like if we had high confidence we knew where they were, and Israel consented to the attack, I could absolutely see the U.S. trying to take it out in storage.If Iran had a nuke that could hit the U.S., I'd say no. But that's a stretch from "deployable nukes."> Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukesPedantically, Ukraine.
If Iran had a nuke that could hit the U.S., I'd say no. But that's a stretch from "deployable nukes."> Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukesPedantically, Ukraine.
> Name a country that got bombed to credibly destroy the government, and had nukesPedantically, Ukraine.
Pedantically, Ukraine.
reply
That's a very big gamble. They only need to have hide one on a cargo ship and the attacker is going to have a Very Bad Day.Nobody's made that gamble yet. Yes, there's been kinetics between India and Pakistan, and Iran sending missiles at Israel, but not a credible threat to the state.> Pedantically, Ukraine.Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
Nobody's made that gamble yet. Yes, there's been kinetics between India and Pakistan, and Iran sending missiles at Israel, but not a credible threat to the state.> Pedantically, Ukraine.Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
> Pedantically, Ukraine.Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
Not sure when you mean. Did they get bombed while they had physical control in the early 90s? They never had operational control, but now that they're being bombed they don't have even physical control of nukes.
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_des...
reply
https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-proliferation-treaty
reply
reply
reply
reply
What even is the plan here if the air assault fails? Boots on the ground? In Iran?
reply
Who say US is not regime? It is the world largest regime in the world, with bidders in every country to do their bidding, mass surveillance including their own country men. People blame only Russia, China, Iran etc when US have been doing the same for years.Watch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6_2Ul3Ght8
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6_2Ul3Ght8
reply
Who says it isn't? Regime literally means a system of government [1].[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime#Usage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime#Usage
reply
Unless they edited, not GP. 2 things can be a regime at the same time.
reply
Trump is democratically elected, for now.I'm not actually sure if this is correct, English is not my native language.
I'm not actually sure if this is correct, English is not my native language.
reply
reply
Which is fine."In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person's own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition" [1].[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/regime
"In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most social scientists use it in a normative and neutral manner. The term, though, can be used in a political context. It is used colloquially by some, such as government officials, media journalists, and policy makers, when referring to governments that they believe are repressive, undemocratic, or illegitimate or simply do not square with the person's own view of the world. Used in this context, the concept of regime communicates a sense of ideological or moral disapproval or political opposition" [1].[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/regime
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/regime
reply
reply
reply
> Trump is democratically elected, for now.He was convicted felon before the election, I cannot believe that he won.
He was convicted felon before the election, I cannot believe that he won.
reply
reply
Other than nukes that would be the only option if they can blast the doors to the underground military cities. They will have to do it fast as the ships will not sustain combat for more than 5 days with their current ammo per the pentagon.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
After this, Israel, being the only nuclear power in the region and having massive funding from the American taxpayer, will dominate the entire region. This has always been the goal.
reply
One hopes, anyway. That's the best chance we have to remove the Nazis currently in power here.
reply
>In August 2025, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with i24NEWS that he was on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.>Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that Israel is destined to expand to include Jordan, and even beyond, to parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_IsraelIt is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
>Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has suggested that Israel is destined to expand to include Jordan, and even beyond, to parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and even Iraq.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_IsraelIt is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_IsraelIt is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
It is absolutely not a coincidence that most of the places mentioned in that list are also places that the US has been waging war for the past generation: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq.>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
>Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[44][45][46] Francesca Albanese and Amos Goldberg have said that an aim towards a Greater Israel is a factor during the Gaza genocide.[47][48] According to Yoav Di-Capua, one of the beliefs of the Hardal movement is "the obligation to retrieve the biblical land of Israel in its entirety as a pre-requisite for collective redemption which heralds the arrival of the Messiah"They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
They are driven to continue taking land in the middle east because they have a religious belief that their Messiah will arrive when they fulfill the prophecy.
reply
reply
The Iraqi government was a lot more stable.What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government that is worse?
What exactly do you imagine will replace the Iranian government that is worse?
reply
Iran has shown that it is remarkably sane actually, given the aggression shown towards it by Israel and the US and has made a lot of efforts to reach a deal.Remember, it was the US that exited the JCPOA and now it wants Iran to give up all its misses so that they would be defenseless.I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which we're buddy buddy with.Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
Remember, it was the US that exited the JCPOA and now it wants Iran to give up all its misses so that they would be defenseless.I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which we're buddy buddy with.Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
I have no love for theocracies, but I do think the Iranian system is a lot better than the likes of Saudi Arabia, which we're buddy buddy with.Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
Oh and I guess the founder of Syrian branch of AQ and deputy head of ISIS running Syria is better that what was before too, in your book?
reply
reply
Iran's funding for these groups is a part of its 'defense in depth' strategy since it doesn't have the capability to project power otherwise. I am not saying that it is the right thing to do, but I am also not that surprised that backed into a corner, they're trying to build regional proxies. It's not like the US and Israel are not doing the same in and around Iran.But I like how these statements, like yours, are always made with zero context and hope for an uninformed audience to upvote them.
But I like how these statements, like yours, are always made with zero context and hope for an uninformed audience to upvote them.
reply
That's the rationalisation. Not a justification. Defence in depth was Hitler's rationale for invading Russia, is Israel's strategy for pacifying neighbors, and is Russia's excuse for invading Ukraine.Creating weak neighbors is checklist-item one for any classical aspiring land empire. It's also tremendously destabilising to its neighbourhood. (It's not a coincidence that China and Russia are bordered by (a) shitshows or (b) countries militarily posturing against them.)
Creating weak neighbors is checklist-item one for any classical aspiring land empire. It's also tremendously destabilising to its neighbourhood. (It's not a coincidence that China and Russia are bordered by (a) shitshows or (b) countries militarily posturing against them.)
reply
Ah yes, give any discussion enough time and Hitler inevitably gets to be whoever your opponent is.Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked.Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs.Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attacked.Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs.Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffs.Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
Western governments provide funding and shelter for extremist Iranian groups like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran and various separatists movements inside the country, so please spare me this Hitler nonsense.
reply
Because it fits. Nazi Germany was an aspiring land power. You can see the same effect in Imperial Rome and the Persian empires. (And, while America was conquering its own continent, on the peripheries of Manifest-Destiny America.)> Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attackedOf course they have. Its proxies are constantly proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffsEveryone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
> Unlike Hitler, unlike Israel and unlike the US, Iran has not proactively attackedOf course they have. Its proxies are constantly proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffsEveryone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
Of course they have. Its proxies are constantly proactively attacking everyone in their neighbourhood.> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffsEveryone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
> Hitler had no reason to fear attack from Russia, Czechoslovakia or France. Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now ffsEveryone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
Everyone has reason to fear attack from everyone. Defence in depth is a regionally-destabilising response to that security imperative. And by the way, Russia and Germany did wind up going to war with each other. Same as Iran and Israel, that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
Arguing Iran has been some peaceful country minding its own business is totally inaccurate.
reply
Compared to Israel and the US, it would be a massive understatement to call Iran peaceful.
reply
Sure. Which makes Iran a decidedly not-peaceful country.
reply
They are practically Gandhi in this story.Looking forward, the problem with being irrationally hateful is that its irrational. What's the plan here? Persia will still exist, and its unlikely any future rulers will like Israel, given what's going on. So what's the win condition?
Looking forward, the problem with being irrationally hateful is that its irrational. What's the plan here? Persia will still exist, and its unlikely any future rulers will like Israel, given what's going on. So what's the win condition?
reply
They've also, simultaneously, tried to escalate.> All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah"Friendly with" in the way America was friendly with South Vietnam and South Korea. (Also, the IRGC has directly sponsored attacks, e.g. Bondi Beach.)> They are practically Gandhi in this storyThis is either stupid or dishonest.> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
> All of these attacks completely unprovoked except for the fact that they are friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah"Friendly with" in the way America was friendly with South Vietnam and South Korea. (Also, the IRGC has directly sponsored attacks, e.g. Bondi Beach.)> They are practically Gandhi in this storyThis is either stupid or dishonest.> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
"Friendly with" in the way America was friendly with South Vietnam and South Korea. (Also, the IRGC has directly sponsored attacks, e.g. Bondi Beach.)> They are practically Gandhi in this storyThis is either stupid or dishonest.> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
> They are practically Gandhi in this storyThis is either stupid or dishonest.> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
This is either stupid or dishonest.> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
> What's the plan here?Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
Don't confuse specific criticism with endorsement of the war.
reply
Look at the mass murder by Israel in Gaza. Or how the US just overthrew Venezuela and seized their resources, threatened to take Greenland, taunts Canada and suggests more countries are in their sights.And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran, unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy" as their citizens run for cover.And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
And now the two of them teamed up to bomb Iran, unprovoked, saying it's going to "annihilate their Navy" as their citizens run for cover.And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
And your conclusion is Iran is the one that resembles Nazi Germany?
reply
In this strategic aspect, yes. So does Israel. So do Russia and China. They're all acting like land empires. And they're all pursuing a strategy that seeks weak, unstable neighbours.It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it less shitty.
It's a shitty strategy that does't earn one friends. The fact that it's theoretically coherent doesn't make it less shitty.
reply
The issue is that you seem to be ignoring the context and using this (weak imo) comparison to defend the US and Israel's decision to attack them.
reply
Are you seriously arguing that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked but in fact started defending itself?
And are you arguing that Israel doing the same is rational because AFTER Israel attacked Iran, Iran launched some missiles towards Israel IN RESPONSE TO THE ISRAELI ATTACK, therefore proving Israel right that Iran is going to attack them?> that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
> that same one whose anihiliation the former has been chanting for since its revolution.Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
The reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle East.
reply
No. I'm saying Hitler's theory of attacking Russia was the same as Iran's simultaneous proxy wars with its entire neighbourhood. It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)And I'm drawing analogy between (a) "Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now" and (b) the nonsense argument "that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked." In both cases, retaliation is being used to justify the preceding (note: not initial) aggression.> Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle EastIran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
And I'm drawing analogy between (a) "Iran has every reason to fear an attack from the US and Israel, look at what is happening right now" and (b) the nonsense argument "that Hitler was rational for preemptively attacking Russia because AFTER Hitler attacked Russia, Russia did not simply sit back and let itself be attacked." In both cases, retaliation is being used to justify the preceding (note: not initial) aggression.> Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle EastIran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
> Oh and Israel has been nothing but wishing them happy Ramadan?If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle EastIran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked."> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle EastIran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
> reason Israel does not want the current Iranian system to survive is because it sees it as the only possible threat to its eternal domination of the Palestinians and its ability to dictate its borders in the Middle EastIran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank. Its ballistic missiles and nuclear programme, on the other hand, are an existential threat to Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. And yes, it's a regional competitor to Israeli (and Saudi and Emirati) hegemony.
reply
Except that's not happening and is complete BS. It also assumes these proxies have no agency and would not have acted on their own.> It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that occupation is because it would loose the moral high ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause) is also part of its power projection strategy.> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
> It's not theoretically wrong. Just antiquated, destructive and–in the trade-based modern world–increasingly counterproductive. (You're trashing and alienating your natural trading partners.)Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that occupation is because it would loose the moral high ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause) is also part of its power projection strategy.> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
Guess what would allow Iran to peacefully trade with Israel. The end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The reason Iran cannot simply ignore that occupation is because it would loose the moral high ground in the Shia/Muslim world. And having that moral high ground (i.e. its support for the Palestinian cause) is also part of its power projection strategy.> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
> If your neighbour is developing ballistic missiles and explicitly calling for your anihilation, you're not going to "simply sit back and let [your]self be attacked.Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
Given that Israel does indeed have ballistic missiles and is explicitly calling for for the annihilation of Palestinians, or even 'Arabs' in general, does that in your mind justify October 7th?> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
> Iran isn't a material threat to Israel's power projection into Gaza and the West Bank.Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
Not Iran itself, but Israel insists that Iran support for 'proxies' is. Maybe not to Israeli power projection, but to its security at least.
reply
I believe there's a much better change of democracy / sane regime in Iran, than there ever was in Iraq and other Arab states.
reply
reply
Same as the Gaza and Lebanon ceasefires where one side stops attacking and the other (Israel) keeps bombing?I see how this works.
I see how this works.
reply
Nonsense. Iran has been stirring up trouble in the region for a long time.
reply
Perhaps you forgot that it was Iraq who attacked Iran and Kuwait while Iran attacked no country but hey.
reply
So I have hope that they'll find a way to organize when the current regime falls.
reply
We have Ramadan here now. No one cares. Arab influencer come and make videos and are shockedEveryone eats and drinks during the days we don't care
Everyone eats and drinks during the days we don't care
reply
Anyway, best of luck in this. Your people deserve better.
reply
Yes, it's complex. Firstly, the regime isn't truly theocratic.There are many online videos of regime family members enjoying parties and alcohol.The second piece: I assume 10-20% of people were participating in the exploitation of our country. They kept the other 80% in control for a long time.
There are many online videos of regime family members enjoying parties and alcohol.The second piece: I assume 10-20% of people were participating in the exploitation of our country. They kept the other 80% in control for a long time.
The second piece: I assume 10-20% of people were participating in the exploitation of our country. They kept the other 80% in control for a long time.
reply
Many countries have hardcore conservative rulers AND population, but in Iran the problem is mostly just the rulers. With better government, Iran would have so much potential.
reply
reply
reply
I'm pretty sure there are also a lot of people on this site that anecdotally know this from their contact with Iranian diaspora.
reply
reply
A regime that only controls the capital, leaving the rest of the country in a power vacuum leading to internal conflicts and sectarian violence that will eventually spill over the borders into Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq etc...
reply
One of the issues with Iraq was that Rumsfeld didn't want to acknowledge that it takes more personnel post-toppling (to rebuild infrastructure and institutions) than during invasion. It seems like the current government could be prone to make the same mistake.I recommend anyone interested in this to read Cobra II. It's an excellent book.
I recommend anyone interested in this to read Cobra II. It's an excellent book.
reply
reply
What are you talking about?Iraq is >95% Muslim, but there are a few different sub groups. With those numbers there were few in government then and now who are not Muslim.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
Iraq is >95% Muslim, but there are a few different sub groups. With those numbers there were few in government then and now who are not Muslim.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
reply
IT was a dictatorship, of course, but not a theocratic one.
reply
reply
Are the Americans going to bomb the Saudis next? or only if Israel ask for it?
reply
reply
reply
What is the goal, to overthrow the regime, so success would mean a change of government?(sorry, I haven't followed)
(sorry, I haven't followed)
reply
reply
You mean in 10 years, when the US is a stable and high-functioning democracy with independent media, a universally liked, charming, and polite president, supported by both the right and the left, who finally manage to overcome their minor differences? Is... is this the direction this is all heading?
reply
reply
This is a very optimistic outlook, to the point of naivete, though I really hope you are right. In reality, neither Trump nor his cronies are acting like people who imagine they will be out of power anytime soon. In 10 years the world will likely still be dealing with the fallout of this administration, if not still dealing with the administration itself.
reply
reply
reply
Trump is a coward. He knows that boots on the ground will mean massive losses.The only way he does that is if someone convinces him that they can go in and out very quickly.Unlike Venezuela I doubt there are people in the right place to oust Khamenei.
The only way he does that is if someone convinces him that they can go in and out very quickly.Unlike Venezuela I doubt there are people in the right place to oust Khamenei.
Unlike Venezuela I doubt there are people in the right place to oust Khamenei.
reply
Turns out they bombed him
reply
But liberals will be quick to tell them they don't know best, better to just keep the oppressive ayatollah in power.
reply
So like, I think this is the right choice, but Trump was elected by MAGA to avoid these kind of entanglements even when it was the right thing to do. In fact, I think “liberals” (not progressive) support this action more than many on the right.Traditional left/right is not useful to understanding people's support of our foreign policy in 2026 America. Tucker Carlson will hate this way more than Chuck Schumer.
Traditional left/right is not useful to understanding people's support of our foreign policy in 2026 America. Tucker Carlson will hate this way more than Chuck Schumer.
reply
Besides, after this the collective west has no moral high-ground anymore, the global south will resent us more than ever. If other countries go to aggressive wars, our condemnation is worthless.Trump is completely compromised and it was probably the powers that be who told them that this is how it is going to be.
Trump is completely compromised and it was probably the powers that be who told them that this is how it is going to be.
reply
They never had any morals, all for their business gains look at Middle East, Africa and Asian countries where they were involved. Europe always looked other way when US does something and vise versa.
reply
reply
reply
As for moral high ground. Compared to whom? China? Russia? Myanmar?
reply
reply
Sounds like a good idea
reply
reply
reply
Calling for the people to rise up. You can't bomb your way into regime change. Are we supplying arms to groups?Is there a plan beyond pointless death and regional chaos the president would like to share?
Is there a plan beyond pointless death and regional chaos the president would like to share?
reply
Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are.Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.
reply
reply
reply
The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran.We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Of course Trump and the GOP can try all sorts of voter suppression, which is what they're doing now.
reply
reply
Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.
reply
Claiming this strike on Iran is an attempt to suspend US elections is exactly as ridiculous as claiming the last round of strikes on Iran, or the Maduro raid, or any of Trump's other previous military boondoggles were attempts to suspend US elections.
reply
Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan).Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon
reply
reply
To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new in this.
reply
reply
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-...I don't think it matters.
I don't think it matters.
reply
reply
reply
I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress from the AUMF.
reply
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
reply
reply
Israel did not mass bomb civilians, and Iranian agents did not commit sabotage against infrastructure on US soil.I hope this pattern persists.A hand full of determined Ukrainians managed to blow up North Stream, some people plunged part of Berlin into darkness for 2 weeks.Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
I hope this pattern persists.A hand full of determined Ukrainians managed to blow up North Stream, some people plunged part of Berlin into darkness for 2 weeks.Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
A hand full of determined Ukrainians managed to blow up North Stream, some people plunged part of Berlin into darkness for 2 weeks.Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
Power and data cables as well as pipelines are as vulnerable in the US, as they are here. Maybe even more so.A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
A regime that truly feared for its existence, might decide to escalate, since there is nothing to loose.
reply
The US is aware of this, that's why they evacuated all their bases etc within range
reply
I missed that press release. Where is it?
reply
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/us-and-israel-launch-a-ma...
reply
Thanks.
reply
reply
So that's why said Iranians chant Javid Shah?
reply
Iran is a big complex country and is more diverse than people think.
reply
reply
Why do you say it's customary?
reply
I quipped that it is 'customary' based only on a few previous instances I noticed on HN. They drew my attention because with ME issues, I feel like most takes here (including my own) are based on received ideas, rather than first-hand experience.
reply
The whole reason the 1979 revolution happened in the first place was because the Shah was a blatant US/Israeli puppet
reply
unpopular shah -> 1979 revolution -> islamists take control, prison and kill the leftists of 1979 revolution.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Within an hour Israel blew up an elementary school, killing 80 civilians.
reply
reply
> All we know is that they did launch a missile that blew up a school. That's it. Just a little woopsies!Ignore what schools are for and who are in them and what communities exist around them. Ignore that a school is clearly not a fucking military target. Ignore the workers digging through rubble and the reported deaths.No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's governments are not only trustworthy, but the only source of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were nuclear missiles hidden in that school!And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
Ignore what schools are for and who are in them and what communities exist around them. Ignore that a school is clearly not a fucking military target. Ignore the workers digging through rubble and the reported deaths.No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's governments are not only trustworthy, but the only source of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were nuclear missiles hidden in that school!And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
No, despite the past 25 years, the US and Israel's governments are not only trustworthy, but the only source of truth. There are no deaths in Ba Sing Se. There were nuclear missiles hidden in that school!And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
And, of course, I'm sure we'll hear next that any deaths were terrorists. And if any photos of lifeless kids come up, clearly they're some kind of pinatas or AI! And if their names and life stories come out and there are funerals - duh, state actors!My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
My country has completely lost its fucking mind. Which I guess makes sense enough after spending my entire adult life watching people basically shrug over little kids being gunned down at school.Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
Which, dang, that reminds me how Sandy Hook was also a conspiracy and I've had to suffer listening to the same exact "state actor" thing with that.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
I was in a major car accident, I cannot walk.Oh the car accident was years ago, I was fine. I cannot walk because I'm seatbelted into a car driving down the road at the moment. Why would you have ever thought there was a connection?
Oh the car accident was years ago, I was fine. I cannot walk because I'm seatbelted into a car driving down the road at the moment. Why would you have ever thought there was a connection?
reply
But afaik both are related to the same conflict.The current hypothesis is that a left wing group triggered the outage in “protest” against Germanys involvement in the war.
The current hypothesis is that a left wing group triggered the outage in “protest” against Germanys involvement in the war.
reply
I've always felt the US won trust and respect with these characteristics. It looks like we are now shifting strategy and I wonder where this will lead to.
reply
Not in the sense of "I don't ideologically agree with our decision to do this," but in the sense of, "I do not see how this accomplishes any ideological or practical goal."What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran? No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before. Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
What are they trying for? Regime change in Iran? No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before. Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
A US president who vocally and repeatedly promised he would not start new conflicts keeps starting them, and there's not even a reason. It's infuriating. I have my partisan opinions, but that should not be a partisan statement! It's just disturbing!
reply
Iran has negotiated like no one will ever attack it, and that was a correct assumption for decadesHowever, due to Iran's overly aggressive use of questionably rational proxies, Hamas has dragged it into a regional conflict where it lost most of its proxies power.After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
However, due to Iran's overly aggressive use of questionably rational proxies, Hamas has dragged it into a regional conflict where it lost most of its proxies power.After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold state, so the only leverage they had left was ballistic missiles, which were also handled quite reasonably by Israeli air defense.In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear deal that heavily restricts Iran's ability to enrich as well as ICBM, trigger with existing uranium stockpiles removed.As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
As Iran due to ideological reasons refused, and IMO had miscalculated this will be a win-win, as losing will quell the protests, the only thing really left is the metaphorical stick
reply
> The point is preventing another North Korea style nuclear blackmail stateThe US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states. The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea.> In this situation it is a fair request by the USFair if you're the US, sure.
The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states. The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea.> In this situation it is a fair request by the USFair if you're the US, sure.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the USFair if you're the US, sure.
Fair if you're the US, sure.
reply
Especially not when they're mass murdering protestors and funding islamic extremism left and right
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
What recent months show us, is that it's a rough world - there are no friends. I'm rooting for European countries to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. In an ideal world, of course I would be against. But the world is far from ideal. The current alternative is being dictated the rules by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Thanks, but no.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Neither of these states have at any point said anything on the modern era that can be implied to be a threat to nuke anybody.Part of that is because it would be a bad strategy for them, but nonetheless "nuclear blackmail state" and "nuclear state" is not the same thing.
Part of that is because it would be a bad strategy for them, but nonetheless "nuclear blackmail state" and "nuclear state" is not the same thing.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.
Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)
reply
North Korea invaded South Korea, stole a US Navy ship (the Pueblo, which they still proudly exhibit), dug large infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapped hundreds, or even thousands people from SK (and Japan, to a lesser extent), and have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate, multiple SK heads of state, and perpetrated acts of terror like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear program that constituted "bullying?"
What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear program that constituted "bullying?"
reply
Perhaps you will argue that the US or Israel or Pakistan or North Korea have conducted themselves in a way where they do not have that moral right either, but that is a different debate, and either way it is moot because they do have them.
reply
Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
In many ways I think it would be better than the world controlled by the US axis.Then again, I am not from the US nor Israel nor any muslim country. I just hope the countries I care about stay out of this Iran deal.This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.
Then again, I am not from the US nor Israel nor any muslim country. I just hope the countries I care about stay out of this Iran deal.This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.
This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.
reply
Automatically presuming that the weak side is the morally right is such a skewed an naive world view.
reply
However, in this case, the US-Israel axis is undoubtedly the agressor, and morally indefensible.In the Russian invasion against Ukraine, I can hope Ukraine succeedes without ascribing morality to the Ukrainian government.
In the Russian invasion against Ukraine, I can hope Ukraine succeedes without ascribing morality to the Ukrainian government.
reply
reply
Hell, the US ambassator to Israel basically admitted to it in an recent interview with Tucker Carlson.Also, lest we forget, the US has a huge laundry list of supporting insurgencies and actively sponsoring coups everywhere. Especially in Latin America.To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.So.... Go Persia?
Also, lest we forget, the US has a huge laundry list of supporting insurgencies and actively sponsoring coups everywhere. Especially in Latin America.To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.So.... Go Persia?
To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.So.... Go Persia?
So.... Go Persia?
reply
Let's perform a thought experiment. Israel is 8 million Jews, half of the country is an unpopulated desert, our largest border is with Jordan which is barely defensible. And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq? With what army? How can we support such a conquest? How will we defend that border? Sharing a border with Iran? How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered? This makes so little sense that believing it just exposes your radical bias.
reply
I hope you are counting the current prime minister with your fingers.> And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq?I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
> And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq?I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.
reply
reply
Desire? Absolutely. That's what they have been doing with the Palestinians after all.As I said before, I have no dog in this race. I personally prefer the countries I care about to not get involved in this conflict, and hope the US-Israel axis lose somehow.I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.
As I said before, I have no dog in this race. I personally prefer the countries I care about to not get involved in this conflict, and hope the US-Israel axis lose somehow.I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.
I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.
reply
Do you think all people in your country should get the same rights?
reply
reply
reply
And I'm not entirely sure what point are you trying to make, that terror countries like the houthis should have nuclear weapons, or that people in a country should not have equal rights.
reply
reply
reply
reply
When someone is attacking me obviously I want the bigger and stronger weapon.
reply
No. If they wanted self-defense and sovereignty they should have become stronger not weaker after the revolution.
reply
> After the last war, it also is no longer a threshold stateThat's also wrong. Trump claimed Iran's enrichment capabilities were totally destroyed, but they weren't.> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear dealAmerica already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
That's also wrong. Trump claimed Iran's enrichment capabilities were totally destroyed, but they weren't.> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear dealAmerica already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
> In this situation it is a fair request by the US to sign a nuclear dealAmerica already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
America already had a good deal. Trump got rid of it.
reply
reply
Iran had a signed agreement, trump cancelled it. Israel literally killed Irans negotiators just a few months ago. What is this nuclear level ignorance.
reply
You can bomb the leadership all day long.Without boots on the ground the regime will probably continue.I don't see how this stops Iran from building nukes. Sure they may have a temporary set back.But do you think this will change their minds?Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
Without boots on the ground the regime will probably continue.I don't see how this stops Iran from building nukes. Sure they may have a temporary set back.But do you think this will change their minds?Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
I don't see how this stops Iran from building nukes. Sure they may have a temporary set back.But do you think this will change their minds?Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
But do you think this will change their minds?Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
Can they even negotiate a resolution with the US. Given that the current administration won't honor its own agreements.Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
Did Trump issue an ultimatum here? And demand something?
reply
North Korea aspires be to be a Israel-style nuclear blackmail state.
reply
reply
Didn't we have one of those a few years ago? I wonder what happened to it /sSeriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?
reply
- Military - their regional proxies destroyed, missile and drone stocks low, provably weak air defences.- Economically - the currency is worthless, extreme inflation for seven years and hyper inflation for a few months, the economy is currently producing nothing due to unrest, they have a massive water shortage of their own making. They have no goods worth exporting. Their oil is sanctioned, meaning only China will buy from them and at a steep discount. And oil is extremely cheap at this minute.- Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn't care about anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running the government. They're hanging on by killing tens of thousands of protestors.Trump bets that Iran's leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full attention.Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
- Economically - the currency is worthless, extreme inflation for seven years and hyper inflation for a few months, the economy is currently producing nothing due to unrest, they have a massive water shortage of their own making. They have no goods worth exporting. Their oil is sanctioned, meaning only China will buy from them and at a steep discount. And oil is extremely cheap at this minute.- Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn't care about anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running the government. They're hanging on by killing tens of thousands of protestors.Trump bets that Iran's leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full attention.Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
- Politically - they have no friends willing to bail them out. Russia has no money to spare. China doesn't care about anyone outside of China. North Korea is even poorer. All sections within Iranian society detest the mullahs running the government. They're hanging on by killing tens of thousands of protestors.Trump bets that Iran's leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full attention.Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
Trump bets that Iran's leaders are at their weakest since their war with Saddam ended in 1988. Meaning now is the best time to negotiate a deal where they hand over their fissile material and uranium enrichment equipment. In return they could get a heavy water reactor(s) that produces energy but no fissile material.If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full attention.Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
If he lets this opportunity slip Iran could fix all of their many problems in a year or three. Manufacture more missiles and drones. Build up their proxies once more. Maybe the price of oil recovers. Russia's war ends and they aid Iran best they can. The economy recovers and the Iranian people stop trying to overthrow the government. Maybe a conflict starts elsewhere that draws America's full attention.Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
Will Trump get that deal? Probably not. That fissile material is the only leverage the mullahs have. If they give it up they'll be toppled like the other dictators who gave up their weapons programs - Gaddafi and Saddam.But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
But if you don't ask you don't get, right?
reply
It was one of the primary triggers for the protests. People are very upset about the economy and willing to protest and die for it.
reply
Yes, although it had merit it was far worse than what can be signed now, especially the sunset clause was problematic> Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and yet you can create epic destruction> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
> Seriously, though: how can Iran both be so powerful we must avoid it becoming a blackmail state, and so weak and feckless it's not a threat to anyone?that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and yet you can create epic destruction> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
that's the nature of nuclear weapons, your conventional force can be abysmal (pretty much NK situation vs US) and yet you can create epic destruction> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
> And didn't we already attack them to stop them from getting nuclear capabilities?Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
Yes, the thing here is the long term goal of signing a deal, whose main goal is removing the existing highly enriched uranium from Iran and restricting their ability to redevelop nuclear capabilities. Essentially this is the part where "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means" (to highly paraphrase), because the alternative to a deal is maintenance attacks such as these every two years
reply
Iran is a bad guy state ... but the "fair" atgunent hwre dont apply.
reply
reply
reply
No. There's a number of reasons for this. #1 is Israel's policy of "strategic ambiguity" and #2 is that it might be illegal to even mention it in Israel. Israel prosecuted a whistleblower nuclear scientist for leaking state secrets, for example.> And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?The US, for one:"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
> And who have they blackmailed with the nukes?The US, for one:"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
The US, for one:"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
"Similarly, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, IDF was again outnumbered by the invading Arab armies. Then Israeli PM Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered that nuclear warheads be readied for launch from missiles and aircraft. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Simcha Dinitz, met with Henry Kissinger to inform President Nixon of “Very serious conclusions” if the US did not airlift arms supplies to the IDF. Nixon complied with this demand due to the threat of the use of nuclear forces. This was the first successful use of the Samson option as a threat and tantamount to nuclear blackmail."from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
from: https://thesvi.org/deconstructing-israels-samson-option/I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
I also recommend: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
The Samson Option enables Israel to blackmail the entire Middle East, and do so silently. Turkey or Egypt can't afford for Hezbollah to overrun Israel, because Ankara and Cairo might get nuked, even if they had nothing to do with contributing to Israel's existential crisis. It basically forces the whole neighborhood to keep each other in check out of sheer self-preservation. Credit given where credit due, it's a smart approach on Israel's part.
reply
reply
reply
Possibly wishful thinking, but that's the only way I can make it make sense in my head.
reply
reply
reply
I can't make up a story that will be good for iranian people in the end. Is there even an example in last 100 years that started out like this thing is starting out and ended well for the people?
reply
What hasn't come up enough in this thread is the currency crisis that triggered the protests. The economy is in shambles and they're still simmering anger about the Mahsa Amini killing.There Iranian people are tired of being under the thumb of the mullahs. They don't want to live under an Islamic theocracy.Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran are cheering us on. They're done. Yes, they're scared and they don't know what will come next, but they know what they have now is intolerable.it's possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I've met is hopeful something better will come.
There Iranian people are tired of being under the thumb of the mullahs. They don't want to live under an Islamic theocracy.Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran are cheering us on. They're done. Yes, they're scared and they don't know what will come next, but they know what they have now is intolerable.it's possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I've met is hopeful something better will come.
Millions of Iranians all over the world and inside Iran are cheering us on. They're done. Yes, they're scared and they don't know what will come next, but they know what they have now is intolerable.it's possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I've met is hopeful something better will come.
it's possible this could all go badly, but what the Iranian people have now is worse. We have to try. Every Iranian person I've met is hopeful something better will come.
reply
What happened afterwards in reality was 20+ years of escalating corruption and sale and systemic destruction of any valuable assets - culminating in the government of Aleksandar Vucic, member of Milosevic's regime, who in the recent years pumped out absolutely incredible amounts of money out of the country and is a de-facto dictator.If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this, and that he was a "little kitten" compared to the current fully criminal organisation.
If you ask people who remember living under Milosevic about how it was, they all say the same thing - bad in some ways, but certainly better than this, and that he was a "little kitten" compared to the current fully criminal organisation.
reply
reply
I believe the calculation is this is Israel's last best window of opportunity to leverage the declining American empire with a compromised asset in the White House. The time to strike is now, since in 10 years US military power and US political will in support of Israel will likely be diminished.
reply
reply
What are the strikes even against?Do they seriously think that after Iran shot all the street revolutionaries, another group will come forward and collapse the government?Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different situation!Or is this just for the Posting?
Do they seriously think that after Iran shot all the street revolutionaries, another group will come forward and collapse the government?Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different situation!Or is this just for the Posting?
Are they treating Iran as Big Serbia? It's a very different situation!Or is this just for the Posting?
Or is this just for the Posting?
reply
Wesley Clark: "We're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts
reply
Seems like it. I can't imagine what else they might try for.I suppose USA might think some shock and awe will result in iran making concessions at the bargaining table, but that seems unrealistic to me.> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.That seems very debatable.> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
I suppose USA might think some shock and awe will result in iran making concessions at the bargaining table, but that seems unrealistic to me.> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.That seems very debatable.> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
> No more Iranian nuclear program? There barely was one before.That seems very debatable.> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
That seems very debatable.> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
> Keeping Israel safe? It's been an open secret for years that Iran is not a real threat to Israel, because any action it took against Israel would be existential for Iran and its leadership.Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
Well they did take action against israel (you could say they were indirectly responsible for oct 7). Now they are facing said existential threat.---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
---Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
Ultimately though. Iran has been a major threat to both israeli and US interests, largely by funding proxy groups that take violent action against those interests. That's your motive for a war.Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
Iran is currently weak, facing multiple internal and eexternal crisises.A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
A war is happening because there is a limited window where iran is weak but the window potentially won't remain. That's the reason behind a lot of wars in history.
reply
reply
reply
Decoupling from China while taking out China's allies is the overarching foreign policy.
reply
reply
reply
[0] https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians
reply
So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.As for the depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves.
Doesn't defend what happened to Jewish people in Egypt and Lebanon, but certainly puts some context around it.As for the depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves.
As for the depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves.
reply
Which context? That zionism is right and it's great that Jews had a backup safe land to go?> depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Pe...> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_AdenArabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
> depopulation of Jews from Yemen and Iraq, that was Israeli policy and they managed it by themselves> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Pe...> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_AdenArabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Pe...> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_AdenArabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_AdenArabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
Arabs started to bully Jews, and thus prove that the idea of a safe homeland for Jews is the right idea. For generations. What a smartasses.
reply
>So we agree that the first move in this conflict was a 20th century European nationalist group setting up a new state by force in the middle of an inhabited nation? With the blessing of the colonial power in charge.
reply
> The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.Which is why there are plenty of racist laws like thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
Which is why there are plenty of racist laws like thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_the_Galilee
reply
You can view it as racist, you can hate it, you can want to see Israel destroyed in favor of yet another 100% Arab country, it really doesn't matter, because the fact is you're all hypocrites who only have the safety that you have because of genocides, brutal wars, land capture, regime toppling and forced conversions. That's the only thing we learned from the rest of the enlightened world. Kill, destroy, erase, force convert, and somehow be deemed a beacon of freedom and democracy.In real life, Israel is more ethnically and religiously varied than all its surrounding countries, and non-Jews in Israel have rights that even I, as a Jew, don't have (such as freedom of religion). Jews are a minority in the Galilee, and there's no law for the Judaization of the Galilee.
In real life, Israel is more ethnically and religiously varied than all its surrounding countries, and non-Jews in Israel have rights that even I, as a Jew, don't have (such as freedom of religion). Jews are a minority in the Galilee, and there's no law for the Judaization of the Galilee.
reply
Ethnic Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula. Islam's expansion started a slow process of Arabization whereby indigenous people in lands that ended up under the control of the Muslim caliphate/empire started speaking Arabic (mixed with their local dialects) and adopting aspects of Arabic culture, not dissimilar to the previous process of Romanization and Hellenization from the Greeks and Romans.TL;DR People who today call themselves Palestinians are biological descendants of ancient Jews and other peoples local to the region of Palestine who eventually converted to Christianity and/or Islam, some remained Jewish, started speaking Arabic, and never left the land.That's what genetic studies and history converge on, and what the early zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion also happened to believe in (Ben-Gurion wrote a thesis on this subject), until it became inconvenient for Zionism to continue to do so.
TL;DR People who today call themselves Palestinians are biological descendants of ancient Jews and other peoples local to the region of Palestine who eventually converted to Christianity and/or Islam, some remained Jewish, started speaking Arabic, and never left the land.That's what genetic studies and history converge on, and what the early zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion also happened to believe in (Ben-Gurion wrote a thesis on this subject), until it became inconvenient for Zionism to continue to do so.
That's what genetic studies and history converge on, and what the early zionist leaders including Ben-Gurion also happened to believe in (Ben-Gurion wrote a thesis on this subject), until it became inconvenient for Zionism to continue to do so.
reply
Syria: 90% ArabJordan: 95% ArabSoudi-Arabia: 90% ArabEgypt: 99.7% EgyptianI love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
Jordan: 95% ArabSoudi-Arabia: 90% ArabEgypt: 99.7% EgyptianI love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
Soudi-Arabia: 90% ArabEgypt: 99.7% EgyptianI love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
Egypt: 99.7% EgyptianI love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
But go ahead, tell me how Israel is an ethnic supremacist state and how the Palestinians are the REAL Jews.
reply
>Ben-Gurion, along with Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (the second President of Israel), argued in a 1918 booklet (written in Yiddish) that the Arab peasants of Palestine were not descendants of the Arab conquests, but rather the "remnant of the ancient Hebrew agriculturalists".If you'd rather modern science, then there are genetic studies out of Israeli universities leading weight to this hypothesis (they tend to not get much attention among modern zionists as you can imagine). It's also the general consensus among historians of the region, inside and outside Israel. It's not really a contested position amongst academic historians.>I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArabizationIt was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
If you'd rather modern science, then there are genetic studies out of Israeli universities leading weight to this hypothesis (they tend to not get much attention among modern zionists as you can imagine). It's also the general consensus among historians of the region, inside and outside Israel. It's not really a contested position amongst academic historians.>I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArabizationIt was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
>I love how you turned the elimination of hundreds of religions and ethnic groups into some beautiful cultural influence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArabizationIt was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArabizationIt was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
It was not always a clean process, varied a lot by century and location, but on the whole did not involve ethnic cleansing or massacres of ethnicities. The percentages of Arabs you quote above are, again, people who started calling themselves Arabs after cultural shifts, and not, as you seem to believe, a result of mass migration of ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to replace the local populations.I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
I don't think we have much else to exchange in good faith on this topic, so I'll leave you here.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
The protests in Iran today are almost certainly being extensively backed by the CIA and other US organizations. Do not mistake a minority as necessarily representing much more than themselves. Of course they might (I certainly don't have any particular insight in the "real" Iran), but you could certainly see something similar happening in the US with extreme groups, left or right wing, becoming visibly active if they were able to find a strong backing/organizing power that made them believe that they could genuinely overthrow the government. The point being that the actions and claims of those groups would not necessarily represent the US at large.
reply
It's bound to be incredibly successful at accomplishing that goal.Similarly, wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were very successful in diverting attention away from 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, and later on from the funding provided to one or more of the hijackers by Saudi officials. With a certain Ms. Maxwell being asked to join the investigatory committee on the event in question.
Similarly, wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were very successful in diverting attention away from 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, and later on from the funding provided to one or more of the hijackers by Saudi officials. With a certain Ms. Maxwell being asked to join the investigatory committee on the event in question.
reply
reply
Some people here might not be American or were too young to remember the lead up to the Iraq War, but it was transparently bullshit. Many people knew this. But if you dared say that, supporters would actively ruin your life. The Dixie Chicks were one of the most popular music acts in the US at the time, a country band that broke out of country and was getting huge appeal across the US. They dared to say they opposed the war. Their careers never returned.Now with social media that isn't completely locked down, some voice of opposition can slip through and assure people that, yes, this is crazy. No, we don't need to blow the shit out of towns across the world. But these social media sites are all owned by government-aligned mega billionaires. They're rolling out AI that can comment and act very, very human and endorse everything the government does. They can auto-police opinions and spit out thousands of arguments and messages of harassment against them in seconds. Soon they'll be autoblocking any sense of disagreement.It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this situation.This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
Now with social media that isn't completely locked down, some voice of opposition can slip through and assure people that, yes, this is crazy. No, we don't need to blow the shit out of towns across the world. But these social media sites are all owned by government-aligned mega billionaires. They're rolling out AI that can comment and act very, very human and endorse everything the government does. They can auto-police opinions and spit out thousands of arguments and messages of harassment against them in seconds. Soon they'll be autoblocking any sense of disagreement.It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this situation.This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
It's at that point they can say that this is done to defend America. This is done to defend freedom. This desert country that's too screwed up to even manage its own internal affairs is somehow so dangerous that it's going to destroy the whole world with nukes it doesn't even have so we must destroy them all now. Dear leader always has your interests at heart. And you'll have no info to point to saying otherwise. Everyone who dares question it will be mocked, ridiculed, fired. Even if this administration fails, the tools are being built and laid out for the next, and I really don't know how humanity will overcome it. And I hate that I can't have optimism in this situation.This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
This discussion is one where it's worth looking at commenters' histories. Many have several pages where the bulk of their posts are defending Israel, saying war with Iran is necessary, and various related things. It's kind of spooky
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
If something causes harm, I'm allowed to dislike it.“Phobia” is an irrational fear. For the Iranian people, it's perfectly rational.
“Phobia” is an irrational fear. For the Iranian people, it's perfectly rational.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
But I am willing to change my mind about it if I would see a source on that.My low effort search suggests no significant oil export to russia https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/irn/partner/r... (2022 data, maybe something changed)
My low effort search suggests no significant oil export to russia https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-country/irn/partner/r... (2022 data, maybe something changed)
reply
How do you know?
reply
>No other military in the world could have executed an operation of such scale,
complexity, and consequence as Operation MIDNIGHT HAMMER. Yet the Joint Force did so
flawlessly and obliterated Iran's nuclear program.https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/202...
https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/202...
reply
reply
https://youtu.be/SxqipJgtTdk?si=YfWRzjcflhWHR276(Note: Iran did move some stuff away before the attack)
(Note: Iran did move some stuff away before the attack)
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Lets pray for the people of Iran we get rid of the regime this time, and eventually reach peace in the middle east.
reply
reply
reply
I take that back, Trump doesn't believe in anything but himself, but he's surrounded himself in a blanket of Christian nationalists.
reply
reply
Trump has said numerous times he's going to run a third time and there's no indication the Supreme Court has any ability to stop him.We'll see how democracy holds up when people intentionally are derelict in their duties.
We'll see how democracy holds up when people intentionally are derelict in their duties.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Is the translation "Down with....".
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202602280738
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Has this been argued?
reply
reply
reply
reply
There is an absolute moral justification for this war. Saying that US is the aggressor here is an absolute revisionism of history. Let us not pretend that Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inception, and suddenly the US and Israel decided to wage war on it.One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
One example of IR's aggression is Beirut bombing in 1983 sponsored and planned by IR.
reply
> Islamic Republic minded its own business since its inceptionThat's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
Just to anticipate another weak argument that is a non-starter, a war of aggression is also illegal if it is started under the pretense of caring about a human rights situation. This kind of justification is quite common anyway. For the same reason, preventive wars are also prohibited and immoral. Not even you want to live in a world where such wars are common, you're more likely merely arguing from the perspective of someone whose country you believe to be in a position of strength.
reply
Can you clarify the "moral point of view", please?> This is not even worth a discussion.How do you know without a discussion that you are right?> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> This is not even worth a discussion.How do you know without a discussion that you are right?> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
How do you know without a discussion that you are right?> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> The fact that you need cite a terrorist attack from 1983 to justify an illegal war of aggression in 2026 instigated by a US president without Congressional oversight speaks volumes.This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
> That's a straw man argument since nobody claimed that.Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?
reply
The moral point of view is that a war of aggression violates the sovereignty of the people in the attacked country. The aggressor country's officials are not elected by the people of the defending country, nor do they in any other way represent the people of that country. They have no right to decide the fate of the people in another country.> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> How do you know without a discussion that you are right?I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
I'm reasonably certain about that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> This is a straw man you just made. The 1983 event is to show that Iran was in forever war with the US through either 3rd parties or directly on the territories of other states.No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
No it's not a straw man. You came up with the 1983 event, not me. It would have been a straw man argument if I suddenly had come up with that. My reply to your position is that there are no "forever wars" - this category does not exist in international right and obviously makes no sense. Once you start justifying your attacks with a "forever war" you're in the realm of historical justifications, and these are principally wrong. Why? Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> Now it seems we are in a strange situation. If it is a war of aggression by the US, the implication is that Iran was not aggressive towards US. But we know it is not true. So, which is it?I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
I believe you're trolling. In any case, that is not the implication. Not every act of aggression is an act of war. However, the US military has just started a widespread bombing campaign, and that is an act of war. The US is the aggressor not just from an international rights point of view, they're the aggressor as evidenced by the speech of the US President.> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
> Also, how would congress authorization make US non-aggressor here?Not at all, and I didn't say that.
Not at all, and I didn't say that.
reply
Interesting. So, US intervention in WW2 was not moral? Germans did not consent.> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.And? So, you cannot be mistaken?> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
> I know that because I've studied philosophy and worked in ethics, though not specifically on any issues concerning international rights. I'm also overall a well-educated person with an intact sense of justice.And? So, you cannot be mistaken?> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
And? So, you cannot be mistaken?> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
> Because you can find some historical justification for just about any war you want to start. The whole world would be constantly at war if historical justifications were used and deemed acceptable. They are not acceptable.Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
Great. Then no war is acceptable. Any action that is not yet take is in the past, and thus historical. Why respond?You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
You see, thinking in absolutes will take you only this far. The hardest issues to reason about are in the gray area, where you have to make a judgement call because it is not a clear cut issue. Unlike you, I realize that it's not a simple "aggression" but rather way more complicated issue.> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
> I believe you're trolling.I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
I am not. I am having an opposing point of view to yours. However, I am not basing my argument on my personal qualities as the most moral person in the world. I am trying to use universal values and reasoning.
reply
1. The US "intervention" in WW2 was fully justified because the US was attacked. It's also justified to help another country that is attacked, for example the US campaign against Iraq during the First Gulf war was justified. Both were defensive actions, not wars of aggression. Preventive wars are also wars of aggression, though, and classified as such by international law. There are fairly direct equivalents of all of this in regular penal law.2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.> Great. Then no war is acceptable.War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
2. I never claimed I cannot be mistaken. It's best to focus on arguments, not persons.> Great. Then no war is acceptable.War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
> Great. Then no war is acceptable.War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
War has at least two sides (often more). A war of aggression is never acceptable. You've got that right. That's also how it's viewed in international law. Defending against a war of aggression is always acceptable. Helping someone defend against a war of aggression is also acceptable. There is a third category, a military intervention by a broad alliance legitimized by some international body. That is in the "it depends" category but plays no role here. Now countries that start wars of aggression know all that and therefore often argue they're just defending themselves. I'm stating that this is a pretense and not a correct justification in this particular case of the US attacking Iran. I'm not planning to go into the details why this is the case, it is obvious enough anyway. Just to make this clear.I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
I have no comments about the rest of your comment, which, frankly speaking, to me mostly sounds like self-aggrandizing remarks. I was mostly referring to how established international law looks at the matter and your personal views interest me less. Have a good day!
reply
reply
reply
Now I really wonder if those protests were indeed fueled and funded by Israel, because we have seen videos of mosques being burned down by protestors, which is strange for Shia Muslim country, even if they don't like their government
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Iran
reply
How biased is the press? Iran slaughters 36k people in a week and...
crickets. Israel refuses to let its hostages die while Hamas hides out in hospitals and schools and the world is against Israel not Iran.
reply
reply
>Trump urges Iranians to keep protesting, saying 'help is on its way'stuff if pretty relevant.
stuff if pretty relevant.
reply
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
reply
https://youtu.be/ZmtRhiI9uWU
reply
Does anybody can trust andnegotiate with USA?
reply
I knew it was foolish, but I really was somewhat hopeful that the American regime's stated doctrinal shift was true and they really were going to fuck right off from the world stage, even just a little. Naturally, we suffer the opposite.
reply
reply
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-nears-deal-buy-supe...Also, the US News media silence on this is noteworthy.https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=reuters+cm-302+missile&ia=w...
Also, the US News media silence on this is noteworthy.https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=reuters+cm-302+missile&ia=w...
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=reuters+cm-302+missile&ia=w...
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
1. an under-reported fact pertaining to matters of military strategy.
2. The lack of coverage in the US News MediaBTW, you're also presumptuous AND mistaken about my nationality. As if nationality is a indicator or in your case a guarantee of a person's ideology.
BTW, you're also presumptuous AND mistaken about my nationality. As if nationality is a indicator or in your case a guarantee of a person's ideology.
reply
reply
reply
reply
"Khamenei's body has been found and he is confirmed dead, Israeli official says"
Need more information?
Let us help you with your inquiries, brochures and pricing requirements
The NanoPick 1000 was designed to provide an even better user experience. It can be an excellent addition to any laboratory due to its tiny size, the precision of the Piezo Head, and the fact that it is entirely automated. There is no requirement for microscopy or microfluidics skills.
After sorting, one viable cell is delivered to each PCR tube.
Compact design for a more organized working environment.
Typical scanning speeds range from 100 to 1,000 cells per second, with cell picking speeds ranging from 3 to 4 single cells per minute. The sorting speed while collecting many cells is one cell per second.
Computer vision can distinguish between unlabeled and fluorescent cells. Sort cells that have been tagged with fluorescent probes or markers.
Completely automated with an easy-to-use interface.
Excellent liquid handling precision: 0.1 nanoliter, with a single cell isolation efficiency of >90%.
Cellsorter offers user-friendly software with an easy UI and free software upgrades for all instruments.
Image Credit: CELLSORTER Biotechnology Innovations
Image Credit: CELLSORTER Biotechnology Innovations
Image Credit: CELLSORTER Biotechnology Innovations
NanoPick Full System for research laboratories
NanoPick-Extension Device
QuickPick Full System - Proven solution for automated single cell picking
QuickPick-Extension Device
These products and services are provided for your convenience.
News-Medical.Net in no way endorses any of these products
and services.
Last Updated: Sunday 1 Mar 2026
News-Medical.net - An AZoNetwork Site
Owned and operated by AZoNetwork, © 2000-2026
Your AI Powered Scientific Assistant
Hi, I'm Azthena, you can trust me to find commercial scientific answers from News-Medical.net.
To start a conversation, please log into your AZoProfile account first, or create a new account.
Registered members can chat with Azthena, request quotations, download pdf's, brochures and subscribe to our related newsletter content.
A few things you need to know before we start. Please read and accept to continue.
Please check the box above to proceed.
Great. Ask your question.
Azthena may occasionally provide inaccurate responses.
Read the full terms.
Terms
While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena
answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses.
Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or
authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for
medical information you must always consult a medical
professional before acting on any information provided.
Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with
OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their
privacy principles.
Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential
information.
Read the full Terms & Conditions.
Provide Feedback
Blood sugar management, or glycemic control, is a central component of diabetes care. The primary goal is to maintain blood glucose (sugar) levels within a recommended, personalized target range to prevent complications.
It is a comprehensive, daily effort that combines monitoring, lifestyle adjustments, and when necessary, medication.
Physical activity can be a useful strategy to manage blood glucose levels. It works by increasing insulin sensitivity, allowing cells to use available insulin to take up glucose in the bloodstream during and after activity.
Similarly, some diabetes medications help to manage blood glucose levels by improving insulin sensitivity, or increasing insulin production.
Now, research is suggesting that another component present in the blood my also play a role in regulating blood sugar levels, by acting as a “glucose sponge” and soaking up sugar from the bloodstream.
A recent study, published in Cell Metabolism, reports that red blood cells can dramatically increase their uptake of glucose in low-oxygen environments, which may offer a potential explanation for the reduced diabetes risk seen at high elevations.
Previous observational research has shown that individuals living at higher elevations typically have a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.
The biological mechanism behind this protective effect was unclear, but the study led by scientists from the Gladstone Institutes may offer an answer.
Previous research led by the team found that mice breathing low-oxygen air had dramatically lower blood glucose levels than normal.
Exploring this observation further, the researchers identified that when oxygen is scarce, red blood cells adapt by pulling more glucose out of the bloodstream.
This “glucose sink” effect not only fuels the cells' own energy needs, but also reduces circulating blood sugar levels.
Senior author of the study, Isha Jain, PhD, an associate investigator at Gladstone Institutes, and an associate [rofessor at UCSF highlighted the findings from the study to Medical News Today.
“We identified two mechanisms. First, red blood cell numbers increase in chronic hypoxia, thereby increasing total glucose-consuming capacity. Second, individual RBCs from hypoxic environments take up more glucose per cell due to higher glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT1) transporter levels,” said Jain.
“We identified two mechanisms. First, red blood cell numbers increase in chronic hypoxia, thereby increasing total glucose-consuming capacity. Second, individual RBCs from hypoxic environments take up more glucose per cell due to higher glucose transporter type 1 (GLUT1) transporter levels.”– Isha Jain, PhD
“We also found that hypoxic red blood cells metabolize glucose faster to produce 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG), a molecule that helps hemoglobin release oxygen to tissues,” she added.
“The mechanism involves deoxygenated hemoglobin displacing glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) from the cell membrane, removing a brake on glycolysis,” the researcher detailed.
In the study, the researchers exposed mice to conditions that mimicked high-altitude hypoxia. This describes when body tissues are deprived of adequate oxygen.
The team observed that blood glucose levels dropped rapidly, better glucose tolerance developed, and traditional glucose-consuming tissues, such as muscles, the brain, and the liver, did not fully explain where the sugar was going.
Using advanced imaging techniques, the researchers found that red blood cells were absorbing a significant amount of sugar from the blood circulation.
Under the low-oxygen conditions, the mice were not only producing more red blood cells, but each cell was absorbing more glucose than under normal oxygen levels.
The researchers propose that red blood cells support oxygen delivery while reducing blood sugar, by shunting glucose into pathways that help generate molecules necessary for efficient oxygen release to tissues.
“While we showed that hypoxia reversed hyperglycemia in mouse diabetes models, we do not know how these findings translate to human physiology or what duration and intensity of exposure would be needed,” Jain said.
“The epidemiological associations are intriguing and consistent with our findings, but many factors differ between high and low altitude populations beyond oxygen levels, including diet, activity patterns, genetics, healthcare access,” she told us.
“For people with diabetes considering high-altitude activities, safety should remain the primary consideration,” added the study author.
“While we showed that hypoxia reversed hyperglycemia in mouse diabetes models, we do not know how these findings translate to human physiology or what duration and intensity of exposure would be needed,” Jain said.
“The epidemiological associations are intriguing and consistent with our findings, but many factors differ between high and low altitude populations beyond oxygen levels, including diet, activity patterns, genetics, healthcare access,” she told us.
“For people with diabetes considering high-altitude activities, safety should remain the primary consideration,” added the study author.
However, this potentially beneficial effect may not be suitable for all individuals living with diabetes.
People living with type 1 diabetes are more likely to experience hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, than those with type 2 diabetes. Previous research has highlighted that higher altitudes may increase the risk of hypoglycemia in those with type 1 diabetes, particularly when exercising.
This is likely due to a combination of factors, such as the role of red blood cells at higher altitudes, as well as a loss of a counterregulatory hormonal response in those living with type 1 diabetes.
Jain noted that the study examined chronic adaptation to hypoxia in mice without diabetes medications, so it is not yet known how it could affect those living with type 1 diabetes.
“People with type 1 diabetes on insulin therapy face a completely different physiological context. People with diabetes planning high-altitude activities should work closely with their healthcare providers,” she told us.
In addition to understanding altitude physiology, the study suggests potential therapeutic avenues for managing blood sugar levels.
The scientists tested a small molecule, called HypoxyStat, which was recently developed in Jain's lab. This drug mimics the effects of low oxygen by altering how hemoglobin binds oxygen. By grabbing onto oxygen more tightly, it prevents it from reaching tissues.
In the study, HypoxyStat was able to reverse hyperglycemia, or high blood sugar levels, in mouse models of diabetes, working even better than some existing medications.
When asked which populations may benefit the most from these findings, Jain commented:
“We would need carefully controlled human studies before recommending altitude-based or hypoxia-based therapies for specific patient populations, but the mechanisms we identified could someday inspire therapeutic strategies that do not require altitude exposure.”
“We showed that HypoxyStat, a small molecule our lab developed, reversed hyperglycemia in diabetic mice by mimicking hypoxia effects. This suggests potential pharmacological approaches without the risks of actual hypoxia exposure,” she explained.
Although these findings are still early and in mouse models, they raise intriguing questions about the body's response to oxygen levels and whether diabetes treatments could one day harness these mechanisms in humans.
“We are not able to suggest that this work supports specific interventions like hypoxic training or hypobaric chambers at this stage. Those would require rigorous clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy,” Jain said.
“Our work provides a previously unrecognized mechanism linking oxygen levels to glucose homeostasis through red blood cells. The more immediate impact might be understanding glucose dynamics in people who already live at altitude or have conditions affecting RBC counts,” noted the researcher.
Share this article
To reverse prediabetes, it is important to act in the first 2 years from diagnosis, a study from India suggests.
Where fat is stored in the body may be more important than excess weight when it comes to diabetes risk, a new study suggests.
Following a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, plus moderate exercise and following a weight-loss program is a more effective way of…
Even occasional rounds of 30-minute exercise could help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, as well as help people with this condition better maintain…
Researchers have found that delaying the development of type 2 diabetes by at least 4 years through lifestyle interventions can have an important…
OUR BRANDS
Log in
Subscribe Now
Region
Search
Top News
Podcasts
Connections: Sports Edition
Combine Updates
Arsenal vs. Chelsea
NFL
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Fantasy
NFL Odds
NFL Picks
NFL Draft
Podcasts
Scoop City Newsletter
Top 150 Free Agents
Top 100 Draft Prospects
NBA
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
The Bounce Newsletter
NBA Draft
Podcasts
Fantasy
NBA Odds
NBA Picks
Latest Awards Watch
Our Ideas To Fix Tanking
How The NBA, Hip-Hop Inspire Each Other
MLB
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
The Windup Newsletter
Fantasy
MLB Prospects
MLB Odds
MLB Picks
Top Prospects
Trade Grades
Top 50 Free Agents
NHL
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
Fantasy
NHL Odds
NHL Picks
Olympic Men's Lookback
Olympic Women's Lookback
Red Light Newsletter
Trade Deadline News
NCAAM
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Bracket
Standings
Podcasts
NCAAW
Home
Scores & Schedule
Bracket
Standings
Podcasts
NCAAF
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
Newsletter
Recruiting
Odds
Picks
Best Portal Classes
2026 CFB Predictions
Early Top 25
Transfer QB Rankings
Winter Olympics
Home
Medal Table
Men's Olympic Ice Hockey
Women's Olympic Ice Hockey
Tennis
Home
WNBA
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
2026 Men's World Cup
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Premier League
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Fantasy
The Athletic FC Newsletter
Podcasts
Football's Law Changes
The PL's Most Chaotic Game This Season
Golf
Home
Coming Soon to Your Inbox
Global Sports
College Sports
MLS
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
NWSL
Home
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Full Time newsletter
Podcasts
Soccer
Women's Soccer
Home
NWSL Schedule
Full Time Newsletter
Podcasts
NWSL
Women's World Cup
USWNT
College Sports
Fantasy Baseball
Home
MLB Home
Rates & Barrels
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Hockey
Draft Kit
Customizable Cheat Sheet
Downloadable Draft Sheet
Top 600 Hitters and Pitchers
Top 300 Hitters
SP Rankings
RP Rankings
Terminology
Fantasy Football
Home
NFL Home
Scoop City
Betting
2026 Fantasy Football Rankings
2026 Dynasty Rankings
Discord
Peak
Formula 1
Home
Prime Tire newsletter
Schedule
Alpine
Aston Martin
Audi
Cadillac
Ferrari
Haas
McLaren
Mercedes
Racing Bulls
Red Bull
Williams
Sports Business
Home
MoneyCall Newsletter
Sailing
Opinion
Home
Betting
Home
Fantasy Football
Odds
NFL Picks
UK Betting
Memorabilia and Collectibles
Culture
Home
Motorsports
Home
Podcasts
NASCAR
Women's Hockey
Home
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Teams
MMA
Home
Boxing
Home
The Pulse Newsletter
Cities
SailGP Sydney
Connections: Sports Edition
Today's Pulse Newsletter
NBA
The planned slate of qualifying games included Iraq-Jordan, Iran-Syria, Lebanon-India and Qatar-Saudi Arabia. Borja B. Hojas / Getty Images
FIBA postponed four 2027 World Cup qualifying games that were set for early next week in Lebanon and Qatar, the international basketball federation announced Saturday.
The decision came hours after the United States and Israel launched military airstrikes on major cities in Iran, including the nation's capital, Tehran. President Donald Trump announced on social media that heavy bombing in Iran would continue “uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective.”
Advertisement
The Iranian government confirmed Sunday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader since 1989, was killed in the attack. Iran launched retaliatory airstrikes Saturday at Israel and U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf region, including in Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
“In light of the developments today in the region, FIBA has decided to postpone all games in groups C and D of the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2027 Asian Qualifiers that were scheduled for Monday, March 2,” the organization said in a statement.
Monday's planned slate of qualifiers included Iraq-Jordan, Iran-Syria and Lebanon-India, which were to be held in Zouk Mikael, Lebanon, and Qatar-Saudi Arabia, which was to be held in Doha, Qatar. FIBA said the games will be rescheduled for the same locations in late June, at the start of the next World Cup qualifying window.
“FIBA remains in close contact with the national federations concerned,” according to the statement, “and is taking necessary measures with respect to the safety and security of teams, officials and staff involved in those games.”
Monday's postponed games were part of the second qualifying window for the 2027 FIBA World Cup. Over six qualifying windows between November 2025 and March 2027, 80 national teams from Africa, the Americas, Asia/Oceania and Europe will compete for 32 berths in the final tournament, which Qatar will host in late summer 2027.
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms
Find the hidden link between sports terms
Play today's puzzle
Devon Henderson is a staff writer for The Athletic. He has covered the Summer Olympics, College Football Playoffs, and the Men's Final Four while at Arizona State University and was an intern at the Southern California News Group, where he covered the Los Angeles Rams, Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Sparks, and LAFC. Follow Devon on Twitter @HendersonDevon_
US President Donald Trump and Fifa counterpart Gianni Infantino have forged a close relationship
In little over 100 days, the United States will co-host a football World Cup that Iran have qualified for.
On Saturday, the US attacked Iran as part of a joint operation with Israel, sparking retaliatory strikes across the Middle East.
So what could the conflict mean for Iran, for the US, and for what was already set to be a highly politicised World Cup?
BBC Sport takes a closer look.
Iran's group matches in what would be their fourth consecutive World Cup are against New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles, then Egypt in Seattle.
The team were not withdrawn from the competition last summer when the US bombed three nuclear facilities in the country, but the head of its football federation has now reportedly cast doubt on their participation.
"With what happened... and with that attack by the United States, it is unlikely that we can look forward to the World Cup, but the sports chiefs are the ones who must decide on that," Mehdi Taj is reported to have told Iranian television., external
But in the aftermath of the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and amid huge uncertainty over the future political landscape in the country, predicting such a decision - or even who would make it - is impossible.
"For Tehran, this is not a short 12-day war or a contained round of escalation that can be paused and reset," said Dr Sanam Vakil - director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at international affairs think-tank Chatham House.
"This new stage of conflict is existential and clearly about regime survival. It is also unlikely to end quickly."
Fifa - football's world governing body - has said it is monitoring developments but, at this stage, officials are privately saying they expect Iran to be at the World Cup. On Saturday, Fifa's general secretary Mattias Grafstrom said "our focus is to have a safe World Cup with everybody participating."
If Iran were to boycott the tournament, Fifa rules dictate they could be replaced with an alternative team from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC). Iraq, who could qualify anyway via a continental play-off at the end of the month, or the UAE, who missed out on qualification, would be favourites to step in.
Iran's women's team, meanwhile, are preparing for their first match of the Asia Cup in Australia. The squad trained as planned on the Gold Coast on Sunday.
The AFC said in a statement it continued to "closely monitor the recent developments in the Middle East during this challenging period".
It added: "The AFC's foremost priority remains the welfare, safety and security of all players, coaches, officials, and fans. In this regard, we are in close and regular contact with the Iran women's national team and officials on the Gold Coast and are offering our full support and assistance."
At a pre-match news conference on Sunday, Iran coach Marziyeh Jafari stuck to football, saying the tournament was a chance to show "the potential of Iranian women".
Iran's men's football team celebrated qualifying for the 2026 World Cup after a draw with Uzbekistan in March
US President Donald Trump last year signed an executive order banning nationals from 12 countries - including Iran - from entering the US, citing an effort to manage security threats. World Cup players and coaching staff are exempt.
But if Iran do play, there is now likely to be even more scrutiny on safety around the team's matches, and the squad's planned training base in Arizona.
Security had to be increased at the 2022 World Cup when the country's matches in Qatar - including against the US - took place against a backdrop of mass anti-government protests in Iran.
During their second match against Wales, there were even confrontations between fans with opposing views about Iran's government, and given Trump's hopes for regime change there, it is possible a similar scenario could play out this summer.
"We are in uncharted territory in that we are just over three months away from the start of the World Cup and the hosts have just launched a war of aggression against a participating country," says Nick McGeehan of human rights advocacy group FairSquare.
"If Iran withdraws its team - an outcome that seems entirely plausible - Fifa is likely to breathe a sigh of relief given the scope for protest and unrest."
But even if Iran are absent, security will be even more of a focus, especially given the event will also be used to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, and Trump is expected to be a highly visible presence, as he was at the Club World Cup and Ryder Cup last year.
The conflict began just days after US government officials were warned there could be "catastrophic" security consequences if the 11 US cities hosting matches do not receive funding that has been frozen amid a partial government shutdown, with preparations said to be behind schedule.
There has also been mounting concern over the use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency at the tournament, and an outbreak of cartel violence in neighbours and co-hosts Mexico.
Over the weekend, Andrew Giuliani - head of the White House's World Cup taskforce - praised Trump's strikes on Iran, posting on social media it would "make the world a safe place".
"We'll deal with soccer games tomorrow," he added. "Tonight we celebrate [the Iranian people's] opportunity for freedom."
However, the conflict in the Middle East is also likely to lead to added scrutiny of Fifa president Gianni Infantino over the close relationship he has forged with Trump.
This video can not be played
Donald Trump receives inaugural Fifa Peace Prize
In December, Fifa awarded Trump its inaugural 'Peace Prize' at the 2026 World Cup draw ceremony, saying he had "played a pivotal role" in establishing a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians, and that he had sought to end other conflicts.
In the few weeks since, the US has taken military action in Venezuela, Nigeria and Iran, and has hinted at possible further operations in Greenland, fellow World Cup co-host Mexico, and Colombia - another participant in the tournament. In January, Trump also told Cuba to "make a deal" or face consequences.
Trump has fiercely defended his foreign policy, insisting he is acting in the United States' interests.
Last month, Infantino defended the awarding of the 'Peace Prize', even appearing at the first meeting of the US President's Board of Peace while wearing a Trump-themed 'USA' cap branded with '45-47' in reference to his terms of office.
Trump's decision to attack Iran has received both support and condemnation, but what is certain is it will lead to more scrutiny of Fifa's decision to align itself with him, with critics arguing it undermined the governing body's political neutrality.
In January, 27 politicians from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Plaid Cymru signed a motion in parliament calling on international sporting bodies to consider expelling the US from major international competitions, including the World Cup. The motion said such events "should not be used to legitimise or normalise violations of international law by powerful states".
The same month, an official from the German Football Association said it was time to consider a boycott of the 2026 World Cup in the wake of Trump's actions.
Such demands could now be repeated, and there could also be calls by Gulf states for Iran to be punished for its retaliatory attacks on their territory.
Fifa insists as an organiser of football events it has a statutory duty to remain neutral, and this is not the first time it has come under pressure over the political actions of a World Cup host.
In 2018, the tournament went ahead in Russia despite the country annexing Crimea four years earlier. Russia also stood accused of cyber attacks, meddling in western elections and carrying out the Novichok nerve-agent attack in Salisbury.
Russia was eventually banned by Fifa in 2022 over its invasion of Ukraine, after a number of European countries refused to compete against it.
But Infantino has recently said the punishment has not worked, and that he wants it lifted. There is no sign he has any appetite to sanction the US, regardless of how controversial its foreign policy is.
What is clear is that in the past 48 hours, what was an already complicated political landscape for the World Cup has become even more challenging.
Follow your club with BBC Sport
Listen to the latest Football Daily podcast
Get football news sent straight to your phone
Premier League: Arsenal go back in front against Chelsea through Timber header
India set up England semi-final at T20 World Cup
Iran, the US, and a World Cup that starts in three months
Lord Sugar's hopefuls jet off to Hong Kong
Annie and Nick look ahead to the Brit Awards
The making of Charli XCX's fourth album, during the 2020 lockdown
An occult-tinged crime shakes a Welsh village to its core
Iran, the US, and a World Cup that starts in three months
'Hearts & Motherwell the winners after damaging Old Firm stalemate'
'Out of absolutely nothing' - Lamine Yamal's solo stunner. Video'Out of absolutely nothing' - Lamine Yamal's solo stunner
Predict F1 drivers' and constructors' championships
How do Lionesses solve full-back succession problem?
'Not fair to fans' - how VAR denied Burnley one of greatest comebacks
The moment I told my mum I wanted to stop football - and how life changed
'Borthwick relaxed but defiant amid England Six Nations slide'
Cadillac and Audi - the same ambition but two very different projects
All you need to know about Netball Super League 2026
#DoItLikeHarry - from viral Twickenham mascot to England U18s prospect
The £37m cost of Man Utd's past two managerial changes
'He had it all' - Taylor pays emotional tribute to Virgo. Video'He had it all' - Taylor pays emotional tribute to Virgo
'I had some potential, but my personality was preventing me from reaching it'
The 'rare combination' behind Britain's youngest F1 driver
'Darlings of Italian football' - how Atalanta salvaged national pride
'It would be catastrophic' - are Spurs too big to go down?
'Equal in decay' - Mayweather v Pacquiao is another boxing 'carnival'
How safe is bare-knuckle boxing as it fights for mainstream appeal?
Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Kyle Bonn
Getty
JUMP TO:
Recognized as one of the most prestigious international women's soccer tournaments in the world, the SheBelieves Cup returns in 2026 with matches played in Nashville, Columbus, and New Jersey.
The U.S. women will attempt to return to the top of the competition that has been hosted in the country since 2016.
Three top nations from around the world will join the United States as they begin to gear up for qualification to the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup in a little over a year's time.
The Sporting News brings you an overview of what the tournament will look like, why it sports such a unique name, and more about the participants for the 2026 edition.
MORE: USWNT roster for the 2026 SheBelieves Cup
The SheBelieves Cup is a women's international soccer tournament hosted by the United States, born in 2016 to compete with other prestigious winter international tournaments such as the Algarve Cup and the Tournoi de France.
Every year the four-team tournament has featured a different lineup of women's national teams from around the world.
The success of the SheBelieves Cup has spawned more tournaments hosted by other countries, including the Tournoi in 2020, and the Arnold Clark Cup in England starting in 2022.
The name of the tournament was intended to build on the momentum from the USWNT's 2015 Women's World Cup run, in which the United States won its third World Cup title. The victory was met by a strong response from the USWNT fanbase, and the tournament seeks to inspire the next generation of young women in the sport of soccer.
From the SheBelieves Cup official website:
"Inspired by the U.S. Women's National Team, SheBelieves is a movement to encourage young women and girls to reach their dreams, athletic or otherwise. The campaign was originally launched in the run-up to the 2015 Women's World Cup and has evolved into a special bond between U.S. Soccer and its fans, taking a powerful message of empowerment and that of believing in yourself into communities across the nation.
"As one of the most popular women's teams in the United States, the WNT is the prime example that dreams are attainable if you set your mind to it and go after what you want. Through dedication, teamwork, perseverance and success, the U.S. Women's National team inspires new generations of young girls and women to be better and strive for better. They inspire them to believe."
For the 2026 competition, the United States will once again play host to the SheBelieves Cup. The other competitors are Argentina, Canada, and Colombia.
The participants are all from North America and South America. Previously, more European nations took part, but the rise of Europe-based tournaments in the same international window has seen no teams from that continent play in the SheBelieves Cup since 2022.
The SheBelieves Cup is a four-team round-robin format, with all four participants contesting three matches.
The teams are then sorted into a table and the winner is the team with the most points, with three points for a win and one point for a draw.
The tiebreakers are goal differential, then goals scored, then head-to-head results, and finally fair play rankings.
This has been the SheBelieves Cup format for the entirety of its existence, except for one year in 2024, when the tournament was contested as a four-team mini bracket due to the scheduling of the inaugural CONCACAF W Gold Cup later that year to cut down on matches played.
The U.S. has won every single edition of the SheBelieves Cup except three. They fell short in 2017, 2019, and most recently in 2025.
Kyle Bonn is a Syracuse University broadcast journalism graduate with over a decade of experience covering soccer globally. Kyle specializes in soccer tactics and betting, with a degree in data analytics. Kyle also does TV broadcasts for Wake Forest soccer, and has had previous stops with NBC Soccer and IMG College. When not covering the game, he has long enjoyed loyalty to the New York Giants, Yankees, and Fulham. Kyle enjoys playing racquetball and video games when not watching or covering sports.
The U.S. women's national team will play at the 2026 SheBelieves Cup without its top goal-scorer from last year.
Catarina Macario led the USWNT with eight goals from 10 matches in 2025, including five in her final three appearances.
But Macario has had a difficult start to 2026, as an injury and an uncertain club future have slowed her progress.
The Chelsea forward was left off the USWNT's SheBelieves Cup roster, which head coach Emma Hayes said was due to a heel injury.
“My understanding is that there has been a heel injury that I think she's getting closer and closer with every day, but she's not available for selection yet at Chelsea,” Hayes said after naming her roster last week.
“I don't know when that is going to come. I don't know if it's one week, two, three weeks away, but I know she's not available for selection.”
Macario has earned 29 caps for the USWNT since her debut in 2021, scoring 16 goals.
The 26-year-old forward has not played in 2026 for Chelsea, where her contract is set to expire in the summer.
Macario was left off Chelsea's Champions League squad for the knockout stage, which is likely due to her ongoing heel injury.
The forward has made 12 appearances for Chelsea across all competitions this season, including three in the Champions League, scoring two goals.
A recent report from ESPN suggested Macario is close to joining the San Diego Wave. She has also been linked with Bay FC, with her agent telling the San Francisco Chronicle in December that she was in "preliminary talks" with the NWSL side.
The USWNT will face Argentina on March 1 in Nashville, Tennessee, then take on Canada in Columbus, Ohio on March 4. Hayes side will close the tournament against Colombia on March 7 in Harrison, New Jersey.
The U.S. will be looking to regain the title it lost last year after winning five straight editions of the competition.
The U.S. women's national team will have to wait a little bit longer for the return of Sophia Wilson.
Wilson was not named to the team's roster for the 2026 SheBelieves Cup, which begins on Sunday, March 1 with a match against Argentina.
The Portland Thorns attacker did not play at all in 2025 as she was on maternity leave, giving birth to daughter Gianna in September.
Though USWNT head coach Emma Hayes said in January she was hopeful Wilson would be ready for the SheBelieves Cup, it ultimately wasn't to be for the 25-year-old.
“She's just not ready,” Hayes said after naming her roster. “The return-to-play protocol hadn't given her enough time to be where she wanted to be.
"As much as I want her to be part of this squad, that's the reality — Portland didn't deem her ready.”
Wilson has tallied 24 goals and 11 assists in 58 caps with the USWNT, forming a part of the team's "Triple Espresso" front line along with Trinity Rodman and Mallory Swanson.
The last time all three were on the field together was during the 2024 Olympic gold medal game, but only Rodman made the SheBelieves Cup roster.
With Swanson also still out on maternity leave, Hayes cheekily acknowledged that the trio's return would have to wait.
“First off single shot, for this camp, of coffee,” Hayes said. “I'm afraid I would love to see the Triple Espresso return, but I can't do anything about that. I just have to wait patiently.”
The USWNT will face Argentina on March 1 in Nashville, Tennessee, then take on Canada in Columbus, Ohio on March 4. Hayes' side will close the tournament against Colombia on March 7 in Harrison, New Jersey.
The U.S. will be looking to regain the title it lost last year after winning five straight editions of the competition.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by LSEG.
President Donald Trump blamed Democrats for the partial government shutdown on Tuesday night during his State of the Union address, after Senate Democrats again blocked Republicans' attempt to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The ongoing government shutdown over Homeland Security funding could disrupt security planning for the FIFA World Cup, raising concerns among lawmakers as U.S. cities prepare to host matches this summer.
Congressional Republicans warn that with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shuttered amid the funding lapse, host cities in both blue and red states gearing up for the games later this year could fall behind in planning.
"I think it'll be a concern real fast if we're not able to get [DHS] reopened," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital.
The current DHS shutdown could derail the security build-up for the forthcoming FIFA World Cup matches in the U.S. (Michael Regan/FIFA via Getty Images)
The World Cup kicks off in June and will be held across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Several U.S. cities are set to host matches, including East Rutherford, New Jersey, New York, Boston, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle.
DHS is the chief agency responsible for securing host cities as local officials prepare for an influx of fans from around the world. The agency has been shuttered for two weeks, with negotiations between the White House and Senate Democrats stalled.
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital he frequently discusses World Cup preparations with local officials but has not yet heard concerns about the shutdown's impact.
SCHUMER, DEMS AGAIN BLOCK DHS FUNDING, FORCE STATE OF THE UNION SHOWDOWN
Sen. John Cornyn warned that Democrats' blockade of DHS funding could affect the security build-up heading into the FIFA World Cup in the U.S. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
"I mean, look, if that's the concern that Republican senators have, then have them press the White House to move forward on these negotiations," Kim said. "You know, I just feel like they are not moving forward with the urgency that the American people want to see."
Congressional Democrats have blocked funding for DHS in a bid to enact reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but neither side has reached an agreement on a path forward.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital it was clear to him the shutdown could affect the effort to prepare for the World Cup, though he said he had not yet heard concerns from local officials.
"I think the Democrats took the wrong hostage," Cornyn said. "I mean, they're mad at immigration enforcement, which they don't believe in, but they are taking TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard hostage, and they didn't have anything to do with that."
DEMOCRATS RISK FEMA DISASTER FUNDING COLLAPSE AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS DAY 5
Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, Jan. 14, 2025. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Senate Democrats argue there has been little urgency from the White House to move toward reopening DHS, citing a slowdown in negotiations over the past week.
They have put the responsibility for ending the shutdown on the Trump administration, despite Republicans publicly pushing back against several of their demands, including requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants and refrain from wearing masks, among other changes.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital she had not heard from officials in Boston about possible disruptions to World Cup preparations. She argued Democrats' demands that ICE adhere to the same rules as local police forces were reasonable.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Warren dismissed the criticism as typical political posturing.
"Well, sounds like the usual for the Trump administration," she said. "All talk, no action."
Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and
agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can
opt-out at any time.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2026 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by
Factset. Powered and implemented by
FactSet Digital Solutions.
Legal Statement. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by
LSEG.
Before his death in a military operation in Jalisco, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known as "El Mencho" and identified by authorities as the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), had reportedly secured tickets to several 2026 FIFA World Cup matches in Guadalajara.
According to a column by journalist Óscar Balderas published in Milenio back on December 5, a high-level source said Oseguera had obtained tickets for four matches scheduled at Estadio Akron in Guadalajara.
The tickets, the column said, were not only for personal use but were intended as gifts for "strong and discreet allies in politics and business," reinforcing influence networks ahead of a year of heightened international scrutiny.
The report has resurfaced following Oseguera's death, which triggered episodes of violence in several Mexican states and renewed concerns about security ahead of the tournament, co-hosted by Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Balderas also previously reported that Mexican authorities had asked U.S. officials to avoid any action against Oseguera in 2026 to prevent potential unrest during the World Cup. According to the column, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accepted intensified action against other targets instead. Those claims have not been publicly confirmed by either government.
Guadalajara is scheduled to host four group-stage matches of the tournament, while Mexico City and Monterrey will also hold games. FIFA has reported more than 500 million ticket requests globally and over one million tickets sold in initial phases.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino confirmed the World Cup will go on as planned, adding that the organization has "total confidence in Mexico, in its president (Claudia) Sheinbaum, in the authorities," adding that the situation is being monitored. President Sheinbaum echoed Infantino, adding that there is "no risk" for visitors to Guadalajara. "All guarantees, no risk," she stated during a daily press conference, noting that additional security measures are being implemented.
Authorities have said preparations include enhanced surveillance and coordination with federal forces.
© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
The Qatar football federation postponed all tournaments and matches until further notice on Sunday amid global tensions following the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran.
The QFA did not specifically mention the strikes when it announced the postponements on X, adding only that "new dates for the resumption of competitions will be announced in due course."
There are disruptions at Qatar's Doha airport as the strikes on Iran affected flights across the Middle East and beyond. Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar closed their airspace on Saturday.
Iranian missiles could be seen being intercepted above Doha on Saturday night and into Sunday morning.
There is still no clarity on whether Argentina and Spain's Finalissima will still take place at Doha's Lusail Stadium.
- FIFA to 'monitor developments' in Iran ahead of 2026 World Cup
- Iran women's national team: 'Let's just focus' on Asian Cup
The friendly match is due to take place on March 27 in a fixture that will pit Lamine Yamal against Lionel Messi for the first time.
Spanish publication AS reported the game is "up in the air," but as of Sunday afternoon, a Royal Spanish Football Federation source told ESPN there was no news of a potential suspension.
Earlier on Sunday, Asian football's governing body postponed continental club championship playoffs scheduled in the Middle East this week, saying AFC Champions League Elite round-of-16 games will be rescheduled.
Information from Associated Press and ESPN's Sam Marsden was used in this report.
Log in
Subscribe Now
Region
Search
Top News
Podcasts
Connections: Sports Edition
Combine Updates
Arsenal vs. Chelsea
NFL
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Fantasy
NFL Odds
NFL Picks
NFL Draft
Podcasts
Scoop City Newsletter
Top 150 Free Agents
Top 100 Draft Prospects
NBA
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
The Bounce Newsletter
NBA Draft
Podcasts
Fantasy
NBA Odds
NBA Picks
Latest Awards Watch
Our Ideas To Fix Tanking
How The NBA, Hip-Hop Inspire Each Other
MLB
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
The Windup Newsletter
Fantasy
MLB Prospects
MLB Odds
MLB Picks
Top Prospects
Trade Grades
Top 50 Free Agents
NHL
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
Fantasy
NHL Odds
NHL Picks
Olympic Men's Lookback
Olympic Women's Lookback
Red Light Newsletter
Trade Deadline News
NCAAM
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Bracket
Standings
Podcasts
NCAAW
Home
Scores & Schedule
Bracket
Standings
Podcasts
NCAAF
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
Newsletter
Recruiting
Odds
Picks
Best Portal Classes
2026 CFB Predictions
Early Top 25
Transfer QB Rankings
Winter Olympics
Home
Medal Table
Men's Olympic Ice Hockey
Women's Olympic Ice Hockey
Tennis
Home
WNBA
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
2026 Men's World Cup
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Premier League
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Fantasy
The Athletic FC Newsletter
Podcasts
Arsenal vs. Chelsea Live
Football's Law Changes
The PL's Most Chaotic Game This Season
Golf
Home
Coming Soon to Your Inbox
Global Sports
College Sports
MLS
Home
Teams
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Podcasts
NWSL
Home
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Full Time newsletter
Podcasts
Soccer
Women's Soccer
Home
NWSL Schedule
Full Time Newsletter
Podcasts
NWSL
Women's World Cup
USWNT
College Sports
Fantasy Baseball
Home
MLB Home
Rates & Barrels
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Hockey
Draft Kit
Customizable Cheat Sheet
Downloadable Draft Sheet
Top 600 Hitters and Pitchers
Top 300 Hitters
SP Rankings
RP Rankings
Terminology
Fantasy Football
Home
NFL Home
Scoop City
Betting
2026 Fantasy Football Rankings
2026 Dynasty Rankings
Discord
Peak
Formula 1
Home
Prime Tire newsletter
Schedule
Alpine
Aston Martin
Audi
Cadillac
Ferrari
Haas
McLaren
Mercedes
Racing Bulls
Red Bull
Williams
Sports Business
Home
MoneyCall Newsletter
Sailing
Opinion
Home
Betting
Home
Fantasy Football
Odds
NFL Picks
UK Betting
Memorabilia and Collectibles
Culture
Home
Motorsports
Home
Podcasts
NASCAR
Women's Hockey
Home
Scores & Schedule
Standings
Teams
MMA
Home
Boxing
Home
The Pulse Newsletter
Cities
SailGP Sydney
Connections: Sports Edition
Today's Pulse Newsletter
International Football
Yasser Bakhsh/Getty Images
Four Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Champions League fixtures have been postponed following the U.S. and Israeli military attack on Iran.
The AFC also confirmed fixtures in the federation's Champions League Two and Challenge League, including the tie involving Cristiano Ronaldo's Al Nassr, had been postponed until further notice.
Advertisement
The federation announced on Sunday the AFC Champions League first-leg last-16 ties due to take place in the West Region of the continent between Monday, March 2 and Tuesday, March 3 will be rescheduled.
Monday's matches between Shabab Al Ahli of the United Arab Emirates and Iranian side Tractor FC in Dubai, and Al Duhail of Qatar and Saudi Arabian side Al Ahli in Doha, have both been postponed. Tuesday's games between Al Wahda of the UAE and Saudi Pro League side Al Ittihad in Abu Dhabi, and Qatari club Al Sadd and Saudi side Al Hilal in Doha are both also off.
The AFC Champions League matches in Australia, South Korea and Malaysia will go ahead as planned.
The AFC added that fixtures in the federation's Champions League Two and Challenge League due to take place in the West Region are postponed until further notice. The quarter-final tie between Al Wasl of the UAE and Saudi's Al Nassr, set to take place in Dubai, has been impacted, alongside the match between Qatari side Al Ahli and Al Hussein of Jordan, which was due to be played in Doha.
A number of high-profile international players moved to the Saudi Pro League after the country's Public Investment Fund (PIF) took control of four teams in the division in the summer of 2023. Former Ballon d'Or winner Karim Benzema, ex-Manchester City winger Riyad Mahrez, France international N'Golo Kante, former Liverpool midfielder Fabinho and seven-time England international Ivan Toney are among those who had been due to be involved in the postponed fixtures.
“The AFC will continue to closely monitor this rapidly evolving situation and remains resolute in ensuring the safety and security of all players, teams, officials, and fans,” an AFC statement read.
The Qatar Football Association also confirmed on Sunday that all matches in the country had been postponed “until further notice”.
Advertisement
The U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on major Iranian cities, including the capital Tehran, on Saturday after weeks of mounting diplomatic tension. Iran has retaliated with its own missile attacks on Israel and U.S. air bases in the Gulf region, including in the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain.
The Iranian government said on Sunday that U.S.-Israeli attacks had killed the nation's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran's women's national team begin their AFC Women's Asian Cup group stage campaign against South Korea in Australia on Monday. Australian news agency AAP reported during Sunday's pre-match press conference a question regarding the killing of Khamenei to coach Marziyeh Jafari and captain Zahra Ghanbari was shut down by an AFC media representative.
Iran has qualified for this summer's men's World Cup in the U.S., Mexico and Canada and are due to play group stage matches in Los Angeles and Seattle. FIFA said on Saturday it is focusing on “everybody participating” in the World Cup in the wake of the military attack.
Various media outlets, including Spanish publication Marca, reported the president of the Iranian Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, told Iranian television: “With what happened today and with that attack by the United States, it is unlikely that we can look forward to the World Cup, but the sports chiefs are the ones who must decide on that.” The Athletic has been unable to independently verify the quotes, and has contacted the Iranian Football Federation for comment.
A wide corridor of airspace over the Middle East has been closed following the strikes, with Israel, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Jordan shutting down air traffic.
UK nationals in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey and Oman have been instructed to “remain vigilant” and take shelter if advised to do so. The UK foreign office has warned against travel to parts of the Middle East, including parts of Turkey since Friday, due to the heightened risk of regional tension. England face Ukraine in Turkey on Tuesday in a women's World Cup qualifier. The England squad have been in Antalya in the south west of the country, around 800 kilometres from where travel is specifically advised against (the Syrian border), since Wednesday. The Football Association (FA) remains in contact with the UK government's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regarding travel and security.
Turkey are also due to play Malta in a women's World Cup qualifier on Tuesday. The Athletic has contacted UEFA for comment.
Spot the pattern. Connect the terms
Find the hidden link between sports terms
Play today's puzzle
Ali Rampling is a Deputy Managing Editor at The Athletic. Prior to joining The Athletic, she worked as the Women's Football Editor at 90min. Ali attended Loughborough University, and originates from Ipswich. Follow Ali on Twitter @AliRampling
Explore our soccer expert's Arsenal vs Chelsea predictions, pre Sunday's 11:30am ET Premier League clash (03/01).
Our betting expert expects a cracking London derby this weekend. Arsenal should kick on from last week's victory against Spurs with a win here.
Despite notching up some ‘poor' results in recent weeks, Arsenal remain unbeaten in their last eight games in a row in all competitions. The Gunners are on a five-game undefeated run in the Premier League. They've only lost three league matches all season — and just once at the Emirates Stadium.
Chelsea are on a similar run; they're unbeaten across their last six league outings. However, home stalemates with Leeds and Burnley could be a concern for their travelling supporters. None of the Blues' away victories this season came against teams that are above them in the table ahead of this weekend.
The West Londoners have struggled against the Gunners in recent history. Arteta's men are unbeaten against these opponents across the last 10 head-to-heads, winning seven of them. Arsenal have won both legs of the League Cup semi-finals recently, so you'd expect them to walk away with three points on Sunday.
Arsenal and City are level in terms of goals scored this season, with 56. Chelsea are next in the line, with 48 goals in 27 games. Interestingly, the Blues have scored more goals on the road (25) than at Stamford Bridge (23).
That should give travelling fans confidence. Despite the Gunners boasting the best defence in the league, the visitors are good enough to score here. The Blues have scored in each of their last dozen matches and notched 16 goals across their previous eight league outings.
Chelsea have seen 69% of their away dates in the league produce goals for both teams. Meanwhile, that stat goes down to 49% for Arsenal's home fixtures. However, three of the last five matches for both teams have featured goals at both ends.
Viktor Gyokeres was once labelled a failed Arsenal signing by some pundits. However, as of February 2026, he tops all Premier League players in goals across competitions this year. He'll be eager to continue that form this weekend.
Gyokeres scored a brace last week in the North London derby, but it was his movement and link-up play that stood out. He's now registered 10 Premier League goals in 26 appearances for the club. The forward is only three goals away from being the most prolific striker under Arteta.
Viktor appears to be peaking at a crucial moment for the Gunners. With seven goals in his most recent 10 appearances, he is the man to back this weekend. Also, he found the net in the League Cup semi-final against Chelsea, making him a strong pick this weekend.
After surrendering a 2-0 lead away to Wolves last week and reducing their lead to two points, Arsenal's prospects looked bleak. Fast forward a week, and the positive energy around the club is back. The Gunners put in a wonderful performance in the North London derby last weekend, thrashing Tottenham 4-1.
Unfortunately for Mikel Arteta's men, they play after Manchester City this weekend. This means City are likely to have reduced the five-point gap to two before Arsenal even take to the pitch. This could be the boost Arsenal need to finally clinch the Premier League title.
Arteta's men must gear up for another tough London derby, hosting Chelsea at the Emirates Stadium. Fans around the world will be asking for more of the same from last week. Meanwhile, this Blues team have improved significantly under their new manager.
Liam Rosenior has done a wonderful job at the helm since taking over in January. That said, Chelsea have faltered recently, dropping points much like the Gunners did against Wolves. The Blues surrendered a lead to Burnley last weekend, with the game ending 1-1. That result has put their Champions League ambitions in jeopardy.
Arsenal expected lineup: Raya, Timber, Saliba, Magalhaes, Hincapie, Zubimendi, Eze, Rice, Saka, Trossard, Gyokeres
Chelsea expected lineup: Sanchez, James, Adarabioyo, Chalobah, Gusto, Caicedo, Santos, Palmer, Fernandez, Neto, Pedro
Al-Nassr boss Jorge Jesus has moved to allay fears regarding the fitness of Cristiano Ronaldo after the Portuguese forward was forced off during his side's hard-fought victory on Saturday. The Saudi Pro League title race took a dramatic turn as the Riyadh giants secured a 3-1 win over Al-Fayha, but the sight of their captain limping off injured late in the second half left fans concerned. Despite the scare, the victory allowed Al-Nassr to leapfrog Al-Ahli and reclaim their spot at the top of the table.
The veteran Portuguese international endured a frustrating evening before his premature exit. In the opening exchanges, Al-Nassr were awarded a controversial penalty after Mohamed Simakan went down under minimal contact. However, Ronaldo, usually unerring from 12 yards, scuffed an early penalty wide of the left post. Things went from bad to worse for the visitors when Chris Smalling's Al-Fayha took a surprise lead just before the break through an Abdulelah Al-Amri own goal. Al-Nassr's blunt attack struggled to find a way through the hosts' resolute defence for much of the night, leaving the league leaders on the brink of a costly defeat.
Speaking to the media following the final whistle, Jesus was adamant that Ronaldo's exit was a precautionary measure rather than a response to a major tear or strain. The veteran coach explained that the decision to hook his star man was based on managing his workload during a high-intensity period of the season, stating in his post-match press conference: "He felt muscular fatigue. After we made it 2-1, I didn't want to risk it and I replaced him. The medical department will assess his condition, but what he felt was just muscle fatigue."
The manager's tactical reading of the game proved inspired as Al-Nassr finally broke Al-Fayha's resistance in the 72nd minute through Sadio Mane. Shortly after, Joao Felix's effort ricocheted in off the goalkeeper to complete the comeback, before Abdullah Al-Hamdan compounded the hosts' misery with a third goal. Jesus noted that he had anticipated the hosts would flag physically as the clock ticked down. "It was an important victory. The game was difficult, as I warned the players before. In the second half, we made things easier for ourselves and managed to turn the result around."
The manager's bench played a pivotal role in securing the three points, with substitutes making a tangible impact on the proceedings.
"I knew that Al-Fayha would enter the second half with less physical capacity and would not be able to keep up with us. That's what we exploited in the best way," he revealed. "As a coach, my job is to read the details of the game with precision and make the right substitutions at the right time. But that also requires having players who can decide the game and make the difference."
Add GOAL.com as a preferred source on Google to see more of our reporting
The victory puts Al-Nassr two points above Al-Ahli in the Saudi Pro League standings, with Al-Hilal trailing by one more point, although the fitness of the former Real Madrid star will continue to be monitored closely ahead of their upcoming fixtures. While Ronaldo's failure to convert from the spot provided a rare moment of vulnerability, the team's ability to secure the win in his absence for the final minutes suggests a growing maturity within the squad as they pursue silverware on multiple fronts this season.
Front Row Soccer
www.frontrowsoccer.com
Haji Wright cannot be stopped these days.
Haji Wright scoring for the USMNT in 2024. (USA TODAY Sports)
Haji Wright cannot be stopped these days.
The U.S. men's national team forward connected for his fifth goal in four games, helping Coventry City to a 2-1 home victory over Stoke.
HAJI WRIGHT CAN'T STOP SCORING FOR COVENTRY CITY 🔥 pic.twitter.com/b087vZlSum
Wright headed home a left-wing cross at the far post in the 11th minute, boosting his side into a 1-0 lead.
After Stoke equalized, Jack Rudoni's 94th-minute goal gave Coventry its fourth win in a row.
Coventry City (21-6-8, 71) extended its lead in the English Championship to eight points over idle Middlesbrough (18-7-9, 63), which plays at Middlesbrough on Monday.
Front Row Soccer editor Michael Lewis has covered 13 World Cups (eight men, five women), seven Olympics and 28 MLS Cups. He has written about New York City FC, New York Cosmos, the New York Red Bulls and both U.S. national teams and has penned a soccer history column for the Guardian.com. Lewis, who has been honored by the Press Club of Long Island and National Soccer Coaches Association of America, is the former editor of BigAppleSoccer.com. He has written seven books about the beautiful game and has published ALIVE AND KICKING The incredible but true story of the Rochester Lancers. It is available at Amazon.com.
Link
Copy link
The world No. 1 sat front row at the show with stars including fashion mogul Donatella Versace, socialite Romeo Beckham, singer Shawn Mendes, and F1 driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli.ByTENNIS.comPublished Mar 01, 2026 copy_link
Published Mar 01, 2026
© 2026 Daniele Venturelli
One of the new faces of Gucci was on hand to witness the birth of a new creative vision for the Italian fashion house.Ahead of her return to competition at the BNP Paribas Open, WTA world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka attended Milan Fashion Week this week, where she sat front row for Gucci's “Primavera” Fall 2026 show, which marked what *Marie Claire* reported was the debut of the brand's vision from new creative director Denma.Sabalenka, who was revealed as a new global ambassador for Gucci herself during the Australian Open in January, sat front row at the show with stars including fashion mogul Donatella Versace, socialite Romeo Beckham, singer Shawn Mendes, and F1 driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli. She wore head-to-toe Gucci, too, including a sleek black turtleneck and striped blazer.Read more: Beach-inspired glitz and Gucci news: How Aryna Sabalenka is serving up style
Ahead of her return to competition at the BNP Paribas Open, WTA world No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka attended Milan Fashion Week this week, where she sat front row for Gucci's “Primavera” Fall 2026 show, which marked what *Marie Claire* reported was the debut of the brand's vision from new creative director Denma.Sabalenka, who was revealed as a new global ambassador for Gucci herself during the Australian Open in January, sat front row at the show with stars including fashion mogul Donatella Versace, socialite Romeo Beckham, singer Shawn Mendes, and F1 driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli. She wore head-to-toe Gucci, too, including a sleek black turtleneck and striped blazer.Read more: Beach-inspired glitz and Gucci news: How Aryna Sabalenka is serving up style
Sabalenka, who was revealed as a new global ambassador for Gucci herself during the Australian Open in January, sat front row at the show with stars including fashion mogul Donatella Versace, socialite Romeo Beckham, singer Shawn Mendes, and F1 driver Andrea Kimi Antonelli. She wore head-to-toe Gucci, too, including a sleek black turtleneck and striped blazer.Read more: Beach-inspired glitz and Gucci news: How Aryna Sabalenka is serving up style
Read more: Beach-inspired glitz and Gucci news: How Aryna Sabalenka is serving up style
Recapping the day on social media, Sabalenka called the show "breathtaking" and said she was "grateful to have witnessed such a defining moment."Sabalenka continued to celebrate Gucci throughout the week, writing in another social media post that she was "throwing 'fits [outfits]." In it, Sabalenka also modeled a head-turning fur coat, much to the delight of beau Georgios Frangulis."Oh wow," he wrote in the comments, as retired WTA pro Elena Vesnina dubbed her a "queen."
Sabalenka continued to celebrate Gucci throughout the week, writing in another social media post that she was "throwing 'fits [outfits]." In it, Sabalenka also modeled a head-turning fur coat, much to the delight of beau Georgios Frangulis."Oh wow," he wrote in the comments, as retired WTA pro Elena Vesnina dubbed her a "queen."
"Oh wow," he wrote in the comments, as retired WTA pro Elena Vesnina dubbed her a "queen."
After unveiling her Gucci brand partnership in grand fashion, Sabalenka said working with the label "means the world."Read more: How Aryna Sabalenka is building a brand as powerful as her game"They're bold. They're elegant. They're super cool," she gushed in Melbourne. "I feel like it's a perfect fit, the collaboration. I don't know. I'm the happiest person on earth right now. I couldn't dream a few months ago that I'll join the best brand. Right now I'm just super happy.”Sabalenka enters the Sunshine Double with an 11-1 match record this year, thought she hasn't played since a three-set loss to Elena Vesnina in the Australian Open final on Jan. 31. A two-time runner-up in Indian Wells, she is also the defending champion in Miami.
Read more: How Aryna Sabalenka is building a brand as powerful as her game"They're bold. They're elegant. They're super cool," she gushed in Melbourne. "I feel like it's a perfect fit, the collaboration. I don't know. I'm the happiest person on earth right now. I couldn't dream a few months ago that I'll join the best brand. Right now I'm just super happy.”Sabalenka enters the Sunshine Double with an 11-1 match record this year, thought she hasn't played since a three-set loss to Elena Vesnina in the Australian Open final on Jan. 31. A two-time runner-up in Indian Wells, she is also the defending champion in Miami.
"They're bold. They're elegant. They're super cool," she gushed in Melbourne. "I feel like it's a perfect fit, the collaboration. I don't know. I'm the happiest person on earth right now. I couldn't dream a few months ago that I'll join the best brand. Right now I'm just super happy.”Sabalenka enters the Sunshine Double with an 11-1 match record this year, thought she hasn't played since a three-set loss to Elena Vesnina in the Australian Open final on Jan. 31. A two-time runner-up in Indian Wells, she is also the defending champion in Miami.
Sabalenka enters the Sunshine Double with an 11-1 match record this year, thought she hasn't played since a three-set loss to Elena Vesnina in the Australian Open final on Jan. 31. A two-time runner-up in Indian Wells, she is also the defending champion in Miami.
Gauff is ranked higher but Pegula comes to the Sunshine Swing fresh off a title run in Dubai.ByTENNIS.comPublished Mar 01, 2026 copy_link
Published Mar 01, 2026
The 2026 BNP Paribas Open is just around the corner—main-draw action kicks off Wednesday, March 4—and all eyes are on the top players as they descend on Tennis Paradise.Tennis Channel's team of analyst handicapped the field and made their picks of all the must-watch players heading into the Sunshine Swing.1. *Which player are you most excited to see play in Tennis Paradise?*2. Which player is most likely to kickstart their 2026 season in Indian Wells?3. Which AO champion is more likely to win Indian Wells: Alcaraz or Rybakina?4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
Tennis Channel's team of analyst handicapped the field and made their picks of all the must-watch players heading into the Sunshine Swing.1. *Which player are you most excited to see play in Tennis Paradise?*2. Which player is most likely to kickstart their 2026 season in Indian Wells?3. Which AO champion is more likely to win Indian Wells: Alcaraz or Rybakina?4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
1. *Which player are you most excited to see play in Tennis Paradise?*2. Which player is most likely to kickstart their 2026 season in Indian Wells?3. Which AO champion is more likely to win Indian Wells: Alcaraz or Rybakina?4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
2. Which player is most likely to kickstart their 2026 season in Indian Wells?3. Which AO champion is more likely to win Indian Wells: Alcaraz or Rybakina?4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
3. Which AO champion is more likely to win Indian Wells: Alcaraz or Rybakina?4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
4. *Which American man will post the strongest result at the BNP Paribas Open?*Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
Last up: Which American women is the one to watch in Tennis Paradise?🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
🖥📲️Stream all the action from Indian Wells **on the TC App**!EUGENIE BOUCHARDJessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
Jessica Pegula. Jess has been so consistent in recent tournaments, and is coming off an impressive win at the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships. She may be dealing with a knee injury but hopefully that is more a function of just how much she's played to start the season, and not a bigger issue going forward. She has historically posted stronger results at the Miami Open, but the Indian Wells Tennis Garden's famous gritty courts should be advantageous to her high-percentage game.
Coco Gauff. She played great in Dubai, even in the match she lost to Svitolina in the semifinals. She's never won this event, so I think that could be extra motivation. These courts clearly play to her strengths: a gritty, high-bouncing court can only help her forehand and should give her extra zip on her serve.BRETT HABERJessica Pegula. It's been a crazy consistent six months for Pegula, who has made the semifinals or better of her last seven tournaments, culminating with last week's WTA 1000 win in Dubai. Never sleep on Gauff's chances, but frustration with serve seemed high despite some improvements in the Middle East Swing.
Jessica Pegula. It's been a crazy consistent six months for Pegula, who has made the semifinals or better of her last seven tournaments, culminating with last week's WTA 1000 win in Dubai. Never sleep on Gauff's chances, but frustration with serve seemed high despite some improvements in the Middle East Swing.
Coco Gauff. I do think Emma Navarro will have a good tournament, but Coco is due for a big run at a top-tier tournament, and her athleticism on these courts should be a perfect fit.NICK MONROEJessica Pegula. She's consistent and full of confidence, but this has been a tournament where she hasn't often played her best. Now that she's back up into the Top 5, I think she can break that pattern in 2026.
Jessica Pegula. She's consistent and full of confidence, but this has been a tournament where she hasn't often played her best. Now that she's back up into the Top 5, I think she can break that pattern in 2026.
She will face hometown favorite Peyton Stearns in the singles final after advancing in both draws at the ATX Open.ByStephanie LivaudaisPublished Mar 01, 2026 copy_link
Published Mar 01, 2026
© 2026 Getty Images
Taylor Townsend delivered a perfect double at the ATX Open on Saturday, booking her first WTA singles final before teaming with Storm Hunter to reach the doubles final.Multitalented Townsend has long been a force on the doubles court, where she has lifted two Grand Slam trophies (2024 Wimbledon, 2025 Australian Open) and last year rose to WTA doubles world No. 1.The 29-year-old has been awaiting her singles breakthrough, but it may all be clicking in Austin.In her career-first WTA singles semifinal, Townsend took down Ashlyn Krueger 7-6 (6), 6-3 on Center Court, rallying from 0-4 in the first set to clinch victory in one hour and 49 minutes.Read More: The BNP Paribas Open will send 2026 into a higher gear. Which of the women could use a kick start of her own?
Multitalented Townsend has long been a force on the doubles court, where she has lifted two Grand Slam trophies (2024 Wimbledon, 2025 Australian Open) and last year rose to WTA doubles world No. 1.The 29-year-old has been awaiting her singles breakthrough, but it may all be clicking in Austin.In her career-first WTA singles semifinal, Townsend took down Ashlyn Krueger 7-6 (6), 6-3 on Center Court, rallying from 0-4 in the first set to clinch victory in one hour and 49 minutes.Read More: The BNP Paribas Open will send 2026 into a higher gear. Which of the women could use a kick start of her own?
The 29-year-old has been awaiting her singles breakthrough, but it may all be clicking in Austin.In her career-first WTA singles semifinal, Townsend took down Ashlyn Krueger 7-6 (6), 6-3 on Center Court, rallying from 0-4 in the first set to clinch victory in one hour and 49 minutes.Read More: The BNP Paribas Open will send 2026 into a higher gear. Which of the women could use a kick start of her own?
In her career-first WTA singles semifinal, Townsend took down Ashlyn Krueger 7-6 (6), 6-3 on Center Court, rallying from 0-4 in the first set to clinch victory in one hour and 49 minutes.Read More: The BNP Paribas Open will send 2026 into a higher gear. Which of the women could use a kick start of her own?
Read More: The BNP Paribas Open will send 2026 into a higher gear. Which of the women could use a kick start of her own?
Taylor Townsend is into her first singles final 📍Pure joy 🥹#ATXOpen pic.twitter.com/SSxSXqThpy
“I'm creating a legacy for myself, and I'm doing it my way,” Townsend said in her on-court interview, after being asked to reflect on well-documented career ups and downs.“You know, honestly, everyone that's talked sh-t they gotta eat their words!“I'm still standing, I'm still here, and I'm not going anywhere. And it's only just going to keep getting better from here, so I hope that they buckle up.”Townsend was back on court a few hours later with Hunter as the No. 1 seeded doubles team, taking down another American-Australian duo in Cathy McNally and Kimberly Birrell, 7-5, 6-4.She will play for both titles on Sunday. Townsend and Hunter will face No. 3 seeds Eudice Chong and Liang En-Shuo in the doubles final.Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
“You know, honestly, everyone that's talked sh-t they gotta eat their words!“I'm still standing, I'm still here, and I'm not going anywhere. And it's only just going to keep getting better from here, so I hope that they buckle up.”Townsend was back on court a few hours later with Hunter as the No. 1 seeded doubles team, taking down another American-Australian duo in Cathy McNally and Kimberly Birrell, 7-5, 6-4.She will play for both titles on Sunday. Townsend and Hunter will face No. 3 seeds Eudice Chong and Liang En-Shuo in the doubles final.Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
“I'm still standing, I'm still here, and I'm not going anywhere. And it's only just going to keep getting better from here, so I hope that they buckle up.”Townsend was back on court a few hours later with Hunter as the No. 1 seeded doubles team, taking down another American-Australian duo in Cathy McNally and Kimberly Birrell, 7-5, 6-4.She will play for both titles on Sunday. Townsend and Hunter will face No. 3 seeds Eudice Chong and Liang En-Shuo in the doubles final.Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
Townsend was back on court a few hours later with Hunter as the No. 1 seeded doubles team, taking down another American-Australian duo in Cathy McNally and Kimberly Birrell, 7-5, 6-4.She will play for both titles on Sunday. Townsend and Hunter will face No. 3 seeds Eudice Chong and Liang En-Shuo in the doubles final.Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
She will play for both titles on Sunday. Townsend and Hunter will face No. 3 seeds Eudice Chong and Liang En-Shuo in the doubles final.Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
Her opponent in the singles final is No. 4 seed Peyton Stearns, a 24-year-old from Cincinnati with deep Austin connections.
Stearns played college tennis at the University of Texas, where she was a three-time All-American and helped the Longhorns capture back-to-back NCAA team titles.All week long, she has been cheered on by actor and fellow Texas graduate Matthew McConaughey. Clips shared by the tournament on social media show Stearns behind the scenes with the Interstellar star and taking selfies together while holding up the Hook 'em Horns sign.Ranked No. 62 in the world, Stearns took down Kimberly Birrell 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 in the semifinals on Saturday.Stearns advanced to her third WTA 250 final and her first on hard courts. She previously won Rabat in 2024 and was runner-up in Bogota in 2023, with both results coming on clay.
All week long, she has been cheered on by actor and fellow Texas graduate Matthew McConaughey. Clips shared by the tournament on social media show Stearns behind the scenes with the Interstellar star and taking selfies together while holding up the Hook 'em Horns sign.Ranked No. 62 in the world, Stearns took down Kimberly Birrell 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 in the semifinals on Saturday.Stearns advanced to her third WTA 250 final and her first on hard courts. She previously won Rabat in 2024 and was runner-up in Bogota in 2023, with both results coming on clay.
Ranked No. 62 in the world, Stearns took down Kimberly Birrell 6-3, 3-6, 6-2 in the semifinals on Saturday.Stearns advanced to her third WTA 250 final and her first on hard courts. She previously won Rabat in 2024 and was runner-up in Bogota in 2023, with both results coming on clay.
Stearns advanced to her third WTA 250 final and her first on hard courts. She previously won Rabat in 2024 and was runner-up in Bogota in 2023, with both results coming on clay.
Flavio Cobolli captured his first hard-court ATP Tour title and third overall Saturday at the Abierto Mexicano Telcel presentado por HSBC. Seeded fifth in Acapulco, the Italian produced a high level to down Frances Tiafoe 7-6(4), 6-4 in the championship match.
Cobolli pummelled his forehand with pinpoint accuracy and displayed his shotmaking ability throughout the clash. Thanks to his title run, Cobolli will rise to a career-high No. 15 in Monday's PIF ATP Rankings.
“When I was a kid, I was dreaming for this moment,” said Cobolli. “For this kind of tournament, playing on the center court with people cheering for me. I'm very proud, not only for me, but also for the people that work for me — my dad, my family, the rest of my team. They will help me a lot.”
The 23-year-old is the fourth man born in the 2000s to win ATP 500 titles on multiple surfaces, joining Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner and Arthur Fils.
Despite entering the final winless against Tiafoe in their previous two Lexus ATP Head2Head meetings, Cobolli showed no signs of hesitation. Shortly after letting slip a set point on return at 5-4 in the opener, he trailed 1/3 in the tie-break, but won six of the final seven points to gain a one-set advantage.
Tiafoe did not earn a break chance until the eighth game of the second set, converting his third opportunity to that game to level the score at 4-4. It offered a glimpse of hope for Tiafoe, who earned multiple wins in dramatic fashion this week, saving two match points to beat in Aleksandar Kovacevic in the second round. Tiafoe also needed a heroic effort in the semi-finals to overcome Brandon Nakashima, who served for a straight-sets win before the eighth seed launched his comeback.
Such theatrics were not to be in the final. Cobolli held his nerve after dropping serve, earning a break back and successfully serving out the match after two hours and nine minutes.
“I think I deserve it for how I work outside the court,” Cobolli said. “After the losses, I work again on court and I just want to say that I'm very proud of myself. It was a great match today, I think it was the best of the tournament for me. I never won against [Frances] before today, so I'm very happy.”
Last year, Cobolli won the ATP 250 event in Bucharest and the ATP 500 tournament in Hamburg. He is the youngest Acapulco champion since a 22-year-old Dominic Thiem in 2016.
{{player.PlayerFirstName}}
{{player.PlayerLastName}}
{{player.PlayerCountryCode}}
{{player.PlayerLastName}}
{{player.PartnerLastName}}
{{player.Record}}
Vswins
{{opponent.Record}}
Show H2H Detail
{{opponent.PlayerFirstName}}
{{opponent.PlayerLastName}}
{{opponent.PlayerCountryCode}}
{{ opponent.PlayerLastName }}
{{opponent.PartnerLastName}}
{{player.Ranking}}
Rank
{{opponent.Ranking}}
{{player.Age ? player.Age : '-'}}
Age
{{opponent.Age ? opponent.Age : '-'}}
Your data will be used in accordance with the
ATP Privacy Policy
and
WTA Privacy Policy.
Get official marketing communications from the ATP and WTA! We'll send you newsletters keeping you informed about news, tournaments, competitions, ticketing, partner offers and more.
Your data will be used in accordance with the
ATP Privacy Policy
and
WTA Privacy Policy.
© Copyright 1994 - 2026 ATP Tour, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way or by any means (including photocopying, recording or storing it in any medium by electronic means), without the written permission of ATP Tour, Inc.. Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Community Social Media Policy | Modern Slavery Statement | Feedback | Cookies | Your Privacy Choices
No matching videos found. Please use different search term.
Get official marketing communications from the ATP and WTA! We'll send you newsletters keeping you informed about news, tournaments, competitions, ticketing, partner offers and more.
Your data will be used in accordance with the
ATP Privacy Policy
and
WTA Privacy Policy.
© Copyright 1994 - 2026 ATP Tour, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way or by any means (including photocopying, recording or storing it in any medium by electronic means), without the written permission of ATP Tour, Inc.. Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Community Social Media Policy | Modern Slavery Statement | Feedback | Cookies | Your Privacy Choices
Jennifer Affleck and Ben Affleck stepped out to celebrate their son Samuel's 14th birthday after the actress opened up about co-parenting their three children.
The exes were photographed walking together at Combat Paintball Park in Castaic, Calif., on Saturday afternoon.
Garner kept her head down while Affleck looked straight ahead as they carried their gear.
Advertisement
Samuel and two of his friends followed shortly behind.
Advertisement
At one point, Garner and Affleck, both 53, who wed in 2005 and separated in 2016, roamed the property separately.
The duo also shares kids Violet, 20, and Seraphina, 17.
Advertisement
Garner and Affleck's joint outing comes after the “13 Going on 30” star got candid about raising their kids since their 2015 separation.
“When your kids grow up in two separate households, I become mom and dad, and he becomes dad and mom,” Garner said on the “One Nightstand” podcast last month.
“You kind of can't help it, right? Because you don't have the benefit of both sides, the yin and yang being in the same house, so you have to have a bit of both in the way you parent.”
Advertisement
Start your day with Page Six Daily.
Please provide a valid email.
By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Want celebrity news as it breaks?
The “Alias” alum explained there was “a little bit of a loss in that” but also “something gained,” saying, “You also just learn, it's made me let go and not focus so much on the bringing up.”
Garner and Affleck have amicably co-parented their children throughout the years with several family outings, including birthdays and holidays.
Last March, they were spotted being affectionate and warmly holding hands during another paintball outing with Samuel.
Advertisement
The following month, they came together to celebrate Easter with their kids.
The “Daredevil” co-stars also appeared in good spirits while taking their youngest two kids, Samuel and Seraphina, to a Red Sox game that July and to the movies last September.
The “Gone Girl” actor, who was last married to Jennifer Lopez from 2022 to 2025, is seemingly single, while Garner has been dating businessman John Miller since 2018.
By Anthony D'Alessandro
Editorial Director/Box Office Editor
SUNDAY AM: The David Ellison owned Paramount can claim the first big No. 1 opening of the year for an MPA title as Spyglass' Scream 7 roars to a franchise best opening of the year with a $64.1M domestic opening and $97.2M opening worldwide. But that's not at all as far as records go: It's the best horror opening ever for Paramount, besting Paranormal Activity 3‘s $52.5M and it's the best opening ever for a February horror movie, ahead of 2001's Hannibal ($58M).
“It's a testament to the enduring legacy of the franchise,” said Paramount Domestic Distribution Boss Shaun Barber. The success of Scream 7 is a confluence of both nostalgic fans and a new generation embracing the franchise. Read, 77% of the audience was between 18-44. Getting Scream 7 booked in Imax was also a huge deal particularly as it coincided with the 30th celebration of Ghostface, all of this building toward the weekend we're seeing.
What about the backlash from the un-casting of Melissa Barrera? Certainly that was out there online among a portion of fans, however, Paramount's marketing mission was to create enough desire, positivity surrounding the installment timed to the franchise's 30th anniversary and Neve Campbell's return. It helps when there is a core fanbase on a movie that a studio can keep a constant dialogue with. “It All Leads to This” was the selling point of the campaign, emphasizing a thruline from the events of the 1996 original title all the way through that of the current with Sidney Prescott and her daughter.
Watch on Deadline
“This historic, franchise record-breaking box office performance is a testament to the enduring legacy created by our director Kevin Williamson 30 years ago, led by the incomparable Neve Campbell, breakout star Isabel May, legacy stalwart Courteney Cox and the entire cast. We applaud everyone at Paramount Pictures, especially Josh Greenstein and Dana Goldberg, who have been tremendously supportive since day one and were committed to making Scream 7 a priority tentpole for the studio, alongside Josh Goldstine who designed a bold marketing campaign and Shaun Barber who eventized the theatrical release with premium formats and a franchise-first, in IMAX. We are proud to celebrate the success of the seventh installment with our good friends and producing partners William Sherak, James Vanderbilt and Paul Neinstein at Project X. We are truly grateful to audiences around the world who enthusiastically showed up to theaters, ready for another thrilling Ghostface experience,” said Gary Barber, Chairman and CEO, Spyglass Media Group. As we told you Spyglass and Paramount co-financed the movie 50/50 for a net $45M production cost before P&A.
While all premium and Imax screens delivered 40% of the domestic box office, Imax alone did $7.1M around the world for Scream 7, $5.5M stateside at 412 auditoriums and $1.6M abroad from 326 hubs. As we told you, it's the first time that a Scream franchise movie has played in Imax, hence great date, Paramount.
Of that global figure, $33M of that was minted abroad in 52 markets, repping 90% of the foreign footprint, +35% from Scream VI in like-for-like markets. It's the first time that any Scream film has broke over $30M offshore on opening weekend, a very big deal. Slasher movies overperform domestically, it's the other type of horror movies, i.e. the spiritual Conjuring like films, which overperform abroad, hence the result here for Scream 7 is impressive.
Broken down, Scream 7 grossed $22M in Europe, +33% ahead of Scream VI, $7.7M in Latin America, +45% ahead of the previous chapter and $3.4M in Asia Pacific, +28% from part 6. The marketing campaigns around the world are very similar, so digitally and socially focused. There were some cool stunts which traveled around the world, read in Italy Ghostface was stomped in the snow, Ghostface artwork and trailers were projected on major landmarks around the world, and there was a Scream house in the UK.
Global partners included Reese's chocolate with a “Scream for Reese's” Halloween campaign and a bespoke Uber France prank activation featuring Ghostface and leading influencers.
The UK led all offshore territories for the Kevin Williamson movie with a No. 1 $5.3M at 596 sites, which was the biggest opening for the franchise, a Paramount horror movie, and a horror pic YTD, +28% over Scream VI.
France with $4.2M opened in No. 2 at 431 theaters, however, it also repped the biggest horror opening YTD, +2% above Scream VI. Local family comedy Marsupilami reigned at No. 1 in its fourth weekend.
Moviegoers weren't discouraged to go to the movies despite the cartel atrocities earlier in the week in Mexico where the Neve Campbell movie did $3M at 870 cinemas, +34% over Scream VI, and record debut for series and YTD.
Other No. 1s, and franchise best and horror 2026 debut highs included Australia ($2.5M at 291 theaters, +20% Over Scream VI), Germany ($2.4M plus previews at 494 sites, +30% above Scream VI), Brazil ($2.3M including previews from 775 sites, +19% from Scream 6 and the biggest opening of the year), Italy ($1.8M at 358 cinemas (+90% over Scream VI and the biggest Paramount horror opening ever), Spain ($1.4M at 304 sites, +61% above Scream VI), Netherlands ($600K at 99 sites, +12% above Scream VI), Belgium ($525K at 80 sites, +22% above Scream VI), Colombia ($517K at 226 sites, +80% above Scream VI and also the biggest opening of the year there), Argentina ($489K at 220 also the biggest opening of the year, +74% above Scream VI and biggest Paramount horror bow ever), Peru ($447K at 109 sites, +83% above Scream VI), Austria ($432K at 61 cinemas, +20% above Scream VI and also the biggest ever for a Paramount horror movie) and Greece ($359K at 85 sites, +49% above Scream VI). Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong release next week.
There's a better run out for Scream 7 as opposed to Scream VI which in its third week came up against John Wick: Chapter 4.
The Scream 7 campaign kicked off on Oct. 30 with the official trailer, generating nearly 240M global views worldwide.
Sunday AM domestic weekend figures:
2. GOAT (Sony) 3,707 (-156) theaters, Fri $2.6M (-32%) Sat $5.5M Sun $3.7M, 3-day $12M (-29%), Total $73.9M/Wk 3
3. Wuthering Heights (WB) 3,221 (-461), Fri $2.2M (-53%) Sat $2.7M Sun $2M, 3-day $6.95M (-53%), Total $72.3M/Wk 3
4. Twenty One Pilots: More Than We Ever Imagined – Live in Mexico City (Traf) 833 theaters, Fri $2.1M, Sat $1.2M Sun $301K 3-day $3.7M/Wk 1
5. EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert (NEON) 1,903 (+1688) theaters, Fri $1.1M (-21%) Sat $1.3M Sun $1M, 3-day $3.5M (+9%), Total $7.8M/Wk 2Great hold here by the King, granted there was a big boost in screens.
6. Crime 101 (AMZ) 2,607 (-554) theaters, Fri $934K Sat $1.5M Sun $938K , 3-day $3.4M (-38%), Total $30M/Wk 3
7. I Can Only Imagine 2 (LG) 3,105 theaters, Fri $900K (-76%) Sat $1.35M Sun $880K 3-day $3.1M (-60%), Total $13.2M/Wk 2
8. Send Help (20th) 2,500 (-300) theaters, Fri $758K (-38%) Sat $1.3M Sun $762K 3-day $2.82M (-36%), Total $59.9M/Wk 5
9. How to Make a Killing (A24) 1,726 (+101) theaters, Fri $452K Sat $645K Sun $464K 3-day $1.56M (-55%) Total $6.2M/Wk 2
10 Zootopia 2 (Dis) 1,350 (-470) theaters, Fri $277K (-43%) Sat $730K Sun $431K3-day $1.43M (-35%), Total $425.8M/Wk 14
SATURDAY AM: Paramount-Spyglass' Scream 7 is still shouting toward a $60M weekend in North America, maybe more if word of mouth can keep up. That's the best opening the 30-year old franchise has ever seen. Definite recommend on PostTrak stands at 61% which is very good for any movie, but it's lower than the 74% of Scream VI which starred Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera. What's clear, the absence of that duo hasn't hurt ticket sales. Scream on its old guard of Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox prevails. In Screen Engine/Comscore PostTrak exits, 56% came to the movie because it's part of a franchise they love, 30% came for the cast.
Scream 7 also saw the best opening day/previews for the franchise at $28.8M. Rivals are predicting a mid-$60M opening, but that all depends on whether Saturday can withstand a -20% decline against that $28.8M. Presales were heavy with 53% of the audience buying their tickets within the last week or a week ago. So hopefully, there's more walk-up today. Scream 7 is propelling the weekend to an estimated $110.3M for all titles, which is +103% over the same weekend a year ago.
CinemaScore is a B-, which is lower than Scream VI‘s B+ and on par with 2011's Scream 4 (which was a low point for the franchise; that pic opening to $18.6M and finaling at $38.1M domestic, $97.2M WW). A B+ CinemaScore is the highest ever achieved by any Scream movie and that grade also went to the original 1996 movie, and its 1997 sequel, Scream 2.
For Scream VI, it was the 18-24 crowd who were the biggest at 41% and this time it was 25-34 demo at 32%. Hispanic and Latino is slightly lighter this time around at 30% (but still strong) versus Scream VI‘s 38%. Caucasian was 39%, a much stronger turnout from Black moviegoers at 20% (compared to Scream VI‘s 12%), with Asian American at 3% (down from VI‘s 12%).
PLFs and Imax are driving 40% of the weekend with seventhquel playing evenly, everywhere in the country. The Regal Times Square in NYC is the top grossing location with just over $70K through yesterday. There's a great excitement from rival studios over the movie's over-performance, one exclaiming “Nostalgia + young = $$$$$$$” while another exclaims there's a “Neve-aissance” going on with the actress also popping on the Netflix series The Lincoln Lawyer.
It's clear, given the young skewing demo, the marketing campaign leaned more on social than linear. iSpot shows only $6M being spent for Scream 7 spots in a very targeted campaign that included NFL, NBA, SportsCenter and Men's College Basketball. Also, remember Paramount booked that lucrative pre-game Super Bowl spot for Scream 7.
Cox gets in on the weekend fun:
Elsewhere in the top 10, Trafalgar has a Twenty-One Pilots concert movie, Twenty One Pilots: More Than We Ever Imagined – Live in Mexico City. Pic is playing some Imax screens and did an estimated $2.1M on Friday with an eye on $3.6M for the weekend in fourth place at 833 locations. Top performing markets include Salt Lake City, Philly, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Tampa, Detroit, Cleveland, Nashville and more.
The top 10 as of Saturday AM:
UPDATED FRIDAY MIDDAY: David Ellison can celebrate another win this weekend in addition to taking pole position with Warner Bros and that's that Scream 7 is heading to a franchise opening record of $59M after a $28M Friday that includes previews. What the? Nope, no head-scratching needed. Give the Scream fans what they want: Neve Campbell and the franchise's original architect Kevin Williamson in the director's chair. Now some rivals are seeing well over $60M for the weekend, but the caution here stems from the front-loadness of horror pics.
Previous opening record was 2023's Scream VI with $44.4M domestic. The Spyglass co-production was put into motion by the previous Paramount Brian Robbins administration, however, the current admin under marketing czar Josh Goldstine takes the win for the franchise opening record.
And as an extra bonus today, the PSKY stock is up post following news of Warner Bros' realizing Paramount's superior offer with $13.51 at the time of this post, +21%.
Given the big opening for Scream 7, the entire weekend looks to be well ahead of the same frame a year ago (Feb. finale/beginning of March) which did $54.4M per Box Office Mojo.
RELATED: Where to Watch All The ‘Scream' Films: Streaming Guide
We'll have more updates as they come.
UPDATED Friday AM after Thursday PM EXCLUSIVE: Scream 7 preview figures came in higher Friday with $7.8 million, which as we told you last night is a franchise record. The question now is how frontloaded will it be.
The 2022 Spyglass/Paramount revival Scream did $13.3M in previews/first Friday, which was 44% of its three-day total ($30M) — granted that came during a four-day MLK weekend ($33.8M).
In 2023, Scream VI posted a $19.2M combined previews/first Friday, repping 43% of that pic's $44.4M opening (a franchise record start).
According to RelishMix, prerelease social media universe stats on Scream 7 at 264.5 million are running 11% above horror-franchise norms across TikTok, Facebook, X, YouTube and Instagram combined. At the same time, they are behind Scream VI‘s 360.5M social media reach by 27%. Neve Campbell is active on social, bringing 672,000 fans, while Courteney Cox stands by in pre-activation mode with her 20.7M fans.
Conversation is mixed-positive per RelishMix, the better word of mouth due to Campbell's return as the franchise's spine, rather than just a cameo.
“The hype is nostalgia-with-teeth, with people treating Sidney like horror royalty and the trailer like proof the series still knows its own rules,” RelishMix says. “Fans are cheering while also acknowledging Sidney's life is basically a permanent caller ID jump-scare. There's also genuine craft-appreciation for franchise iconography and the ‘back where it started' vibe, plus nerdy deep-cuts that compare it to Halloween style final-girl mythology. Examples: ‘So glad Neve Campbell is back. It's not really a Scream movie if she isn't in it!' and ‘I love how Sydney and Ghostface are becoming the new generation of Laurie and Michael Myers.' Also: ‘Best film series ever!' and ‘This trailer has absolutely sold me… I'm going opening night.'
this week's top 5:
PREVIOUSLY, EXCLUSIVE: After becoming the lead bidder for Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount is capping off a great Thursday with $7.5 million in previews for the Spyglass co-production Scream 7, which would rep a franchise record.
Scream VI previously posted franchise records for previews ($5.7M), ahead of a three-day domestic opening ($44.4M) and global debut ($66.4M). Paramount didn't return request for comment.
All of Scream 7‘s money is from tonight, starting with a 6 p.m. fan preview on premium screens with extra content and tchotchkes followed by broader previews at 6:30 p.m. Scream 7 won't be playing in 3D like the 2023 title, but instead will be booked in Imax and ScreenX auditoriums for the first time in the horror franchise's history. The seventhquel is also playing D-Box and premium large-format screens.
Critics are far more severe on Scream 7 than the recent Radio Silence reboots at 38% Rotten, and an audience score of 79%. Scream VI was 77% certified fresh with critics and 90% with audiences, while 2022's Scream was 76% with critics and 82% with audiences.
What's the appeal of Scream 7? Why, original franchise scribe, Kevin Williamson, who is directing for the first time on the 30-year horror series. The action has Neve Campbell's Sidney Prescott back in Pine Grove with her daughter (Isabel May) in tow. They're both being threatened by Ghostface killers.
Radio Silence (Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett) produce this time around after helming the 2022 reboot Scream and 2023's Scream VI. Courtney Cox's Gale Weathers is among other Scream dramatis personae are back for part seven.
Scream 7 is the only wide major studio entry this weekend. The pic cost a net $45M before P&A, co-financed 50-50 between Spyglass and Paramount. The six previous Scream movies have grossed a combined worldwide total of $908.5M.
Scream 7 is playing 52 offshore territories this weekend including Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Spain and the UK.
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
Scream 6 being so good is what got them these numbers. They need to thank Melissa/ Jenna and Radio silence for getting people interested in Scream again. I have a feeling the second week drop will be a doozie!
You're delusions are noted.
LMAO so obviously hurt. Melissa did nothing for this franchise. Jenna Ortega was alright.
This was, without a doubt, the worst movie I have seen in the entire series—and one of the worst films I've seen overall. Its excessive attempt to be meta felt forced and resulted in a complete letdown. I have no intention of rewatching it.
Yet you already paid to see it lol
Saying this when scream 3, 5, and 6 exist is wild.
Agreed about 3 but 5 and 6. Now you're embarrassing yourself.
Good or bad, at least they have an actress in the lead this time who knows how to act
Proves how dumb they were to ever stray away from Neve.
Once again a boycott doing the opposite, drumming up more interest in a project,
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
By
Lorena O'Neil
Pretty soon, public school students in Louisiana, from kindergarten up through college, will see the Ten Commandments displayed in every classroom — math, science, even gym. That's because of a new ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country.
On Feb. 20, the federal appellate court reversed a June decision that had called the 2024 Louisiana law requiring displays of the religious texts in all public school classrooms “plainly unconstitutional” and allowed for a temporary block on the law. (The case had previously been heard by a three judge-panel on the Fifth Circuit but that was vacated after all 17 judges heard the case in January.)
The move marks a win for the Christian nationalist movement, a worldview that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should remain so, and that the government should enforce it. The ideology is not new, but experts tracking the movement say it is gaining steam across the country, emboldened by the current Supreme Court and the Trump administration. And if this Louisiana Ten Commandments case continues to make its way up to the highest court in the land, it could have a devastating impact on the separation of church and state.
Sophie Bjork-James is an anthropologist and an expert on the religious right and Christian nationalism. She says that the Ten Commandments going up in Louisiana schools is not only a win that shows how much power Christian nationalists are acquiring, it is also a step towards further shifting the country to the right by educating children on Christianity.
“Within Christian nationalism they would see [the recent ruling] as a victory and a step toward changing public education to become Christian,” says Bjork-James. “Which they see as a moral imperative to make the country more in line with their vision of what God wants.”
SINCE CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS BELIEVE THAT Christianity is a fundamental part of the founding of the U.S., many challenge the narrative that religious freedom means the separation of church and state. (These claims are often fervently challenged by constitutional and historical experts.) Additionally, Christian nationalists often go as far as saying all moral problems stem from a lack of public Christianity.
Editor's picks
The 250 Greatest Albums of the 21st Century So Far
The 100 Best TV Episodes of All Time
The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
100 Best Movies of the 21st Century
“You can see Christian right leaders making claims that we wouldn't have so many school shootings, there wouldn't be so much violence, there wouldn't be drug use, if there was more Christianity in schools,” says Bjork-James.
“Evangelicals have produced a significant amount of content that tells the story of America as one that is blessed by God, has a divine relationship with God and centers Christianity,” she continues. “[They see] the idea that there is supposed to be a separation of church and state as a farce, a lie. And while most historians would refute this, they see [religion in school] as going back to the country's origins.”
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has publicly espoused these sorts of views. “The Supreme Court got it wrong about the separation of church and state,” he told me in 2024. “The Ten Commandments are the fabric of civilization and you're telling me, we can't hang them in school?”
He also told a reporter that if the Ten Commandments had been displayed in Thomas Matthew Crooks' classroom, he may not have attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump in July 2024.
Now, Landry's state will be the first in the nation to mandate the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom
“This is a significant shift, because it's normalizing a particular narrative that erodes the separation of Church and State,” says Bjork-James. ”It's both a product of shifting norms and also an effort to further shift norms. The fact that the [Ten Commandments law] could actually be implemented is an example of the Christian right's expansion into state power.”
Related Content
How ICE Turned Immigration Into a Church-State Power Struggle
The Court Case That Could Blow the Roof Off Political Spending
A Company Is Building Communities for Right-Wing Christians. Some Neighbors Aren't Happy
Brett Kavanaugh Has a Clear Conflict in School-Prayer Case. Will He Recuse Himself?
Bjork-James ties this back to the decimation of abortion rights. One of the pillars of the Christian right for years has been opposing abortion, and when the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, it gave Christian nationalism a big win. “Dobbs was such a huge success for them that it freed up some political attention to expand and experiment with what else they can achieve.”
MELISSA DECKMAN IS THE CEO OF THE PUBLIC Religion Research Institute, which recently released a new map analyzing the spread of Christian nationalism in the country. While the term Christian nationalist was created by academics, and thus many people who share this worldview don't identify as such, PRRI asked Americans about their belief systems and found that one third of Americans hold views that would qualify as Christian nationalist. The organization also found that a majority of Republicans (56 percent) ascribe to Christian nationalism.
“In the last decade, Christian nationalism has become very embedded within the MAGA movement,” says Deckman. “There's a sense that these folks are feeling emboldened to enact policies that correspond to their own religious viewpoints.”
Deckman says you can see its spillover effects in a lot of the state legislatures that are trying to break down the wall that separates church and state.
“There's been a prolonged movement by conservative Christians to influence the curriculum of America's classrooms,” says Deckman, who has written extensively about public schools and the Christian right. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court banned school prayer and mandatory Bible readings from public school. “You had a Supreme Court that was far more likely to rule against what they saw as an encroachment of the state violating the establishment clause. Conservative Christians felt that the liberal court was removing God from classrooms.”
In 1980, the Supreme Court decision Stone v Graham said a Kentucky law mandating the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom was “plainly religious in nature” despite arguments, similar to those occurring in Louisiana, that this was about history and morality.
“Now, you have a legal context that's changed with the a Supreme Court that is looking more favorably of intermixing religion and education in a lot of ways,” says Deckman, pointing to a 2022 decision by the court to allow a football coach to pray with his students and the 2025 decision to let parents opt out of a curriculum that went over LGBTQ issues.
TEXAS AND ARKANSAS ALSO HAVE TENCommandments laws on the books that are facing legal challenges. With Louisiana, this law is ripe to go all the way up to the Supreme Court for review. But right now, the Fifth Circuit's recent ruling stopped short of deciding the constitutionality of posting the Ten Commandments. The ruling merely said it's premature to decide if any harm was caused, since the posters were never allowed to go up and the judges couldn't know the exact details of what the displays could look like.
Attorney General Liz Murrill has provided examples of posters that she says comply with the law, including posters that incorporate Mean Girls' Regina George, Hamilton playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda, and quotes attributed to late SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which her granddaughter has told us was “misleading the public.” Under the Louisiana law, the Ten Commandments must be depicted “in a large, easily readable font,” and the poster can be no smaller than 11 by 14 inches. Posters will be donated to the local school districts, who will ultimately decide which to display.
“Don't kill or steal shouldn't be controversial,” Murrill tells Rolling Stone in a statement. “My office has issued clear guidance to our public schools on how to comply with the law, and we have created multiple examples of posters demonstrating how it can be applied constitutionally. Louisiana public schools should follow the law,”
Trending Stories
'SNL': Women's Hockey Gold Medalists Stick It to Trump
MAGA Reacts to Trump's Strikes on Iran: ‘Absolutely Disgusting and Evil'
'SNL' Weekend Update Uses Trump's Own Words Against Him on Iran War
'SNL': Watch Mumford & Sons Perform 'Rubber Band Man,' 'Here'
However, this puts schools in a tough position, poised between complying with the state law, but knowing that once they do it's only a matter of time before a lawsuit ensues.
The ACLU, Americans United and the Freedom from Religion Foundation are representing the plaintiffs in the Ten Commandment lawsuit, Roarke v. Brumley. “Today's ruling is extremely disappointing and would unnecessarily force Louisiana's public school families into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole in every school district,” their joint statement says. “We will continue fighting for the religious freedom of Louisiana's families.”
We want to hear it. Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Rolling Stone is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Rolling Stone, LLC. All rights reserved.
Chet Hanks — the son of Hollywood stars Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson — has revealed that he's found himself in an unexpected situation while enjoying a trip abroad. Taking to Instagram on Friday, February 27, he shared a video in which he starts by looking into the camera and saying, “Ya'll ready for story time?”
Explaining that he had decided to head to Puerto Rico last week to join his “homie Max's birthday party,” Chet noted that he “had a good time” during the celebration. He then headed over to Medellin to see another friend, saying, “Sounds good, right? We'll check this out…”
Chet continued his Instagram storytime by saying, “I'm traveling with my Greek passport because I'm a dual citizen.”
Explaining that his American passport was close to expiring, he noted that “sometimes they don't let you in the country, even if it hasn't expired, but it's about to expire.” However, when he got to the airport for his international flight out of Medellin, he says, “They tell me that if I'm using a foreign passport, I need a green card to get back into America.”
The issue? Chet says that he doesn't have a green card. Because of this, he's staying in Colombia. He added, “Granted, there's worse places to be stuck, but I literally have no … idea what I'm gonna do, and the only embassy to get this … settled is in Bogota.”
It seems like Chet might end up seeing more of Colombia than he expected, which could be an unexpected benefit of the surprising situation.
When Chet shared what was happening to him on Instagram, his social media followers left comments that included everything from advice to a quote from one of his dad's most memorable movies.
“The one time you should've pulled the ‘my dad is…' card,” one person wrote.
Another follower added, “Oh no! 😮😂 so what's the verdict?! I'm on edge!”
“Life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you're going to get…😬😬😬😬❤️❤️❤️,” a third person said in a comment while referencing one of Tom's famous lines from “Forrest Gump.”
Rapper Kreayshawn joked, “Time to start a family out there 😂”
Someone else left a message with advice, saying, “Better call someone in your family to have them FedEx your passport to you ASAP.”
Another person made an offer, writing, “I can fly out to you and bring your American passport.. where is it at. momma on her way young man 😂!!!”
Like EntertainmentNow?
Go here and check the boxnext to EntertainmentNow
Comment
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Δ
Previous
Next
About
Contact US
Privacy Policy
Terms Of Service
Editorial Guidelines
Sitemap
Copyright © 2026 Heavy, Inc. All rights reserved. Powered by WordPress VIP
By Nellie Andreeva
Editor-In-Chief
NBC's Saturday Night Live addressed one of the biggest controversies of the week, the shocking incident at the BAFTA Film Awards involving Tourette's campaigner John Davidson's involuntary racial slur, in a cut-for-time sketch that may stir its own controversy with its comedic take on the neurological disorder.
In the high-wire, PSA-style skit titled ‘Tourette's,' a host of celebrities, including J.K. Rowling, Mel Gibson, The Real Housewives of New York star Jill Zarin, Armie Hammer, Louis C.K., Bill Cosby and Ye claim they suffer from Tourette's, which would explain problematic comments or actions they have been involved in.
Related Stories
Late Night TV
'Heated Rivalry' Star Hudson Williams Skates Onto Connor Storrie's 'SNL' Debut In Cameo
Late Night TV
Connor Storrie's Monologue Sets The Stage For U.S. Hockey Truce As Stars Say "It Was Gonna Be Just Us, But We Thought We'd Invite The Guys Too"
For instance, Zarin, played by Sarah Sherman, whose recent video critique of Bad Bunny's Super Bowl half-time show led to her firing from the Real Housewives‘ revival series, revealed, “I suffer from severe longwinded monologue-style Tourette's, a condition that affects nine out of 10 people on Long Island.”
Watch on Deadline
“I'm Mel Gibson, and as I probably should have pointed out decades ago, I too, suffer from Tourette's, which explains a lot of the things I've said or yelled through the years,” said the Braveheart star, portrayed by Andrew Dismukes.
Then there was actor Hammer, played by the episode's host Connor Storrie, “Not many people know this, but one of the most common side effects of Tourette's is cannibalism.”
Added Rowling (Ashley Padilla), “Tourette's isn't just blurting out an offensive word. It can be years-long obsession with something like trans life and a deep anger that someone who was born with a wand in their pants would want that one removed and replaced with a Horcrux.”
SNL veteran Kenan Thompson reprised his popular Cosby impersonation, with the disgraced comedian claiming that he suffers from “something called the drink Tourette's,” while Ye confessed to having “three different kinds of Tourette's.”
Whether you find the sketch all in good fun or in bad taste, you can watch it above.
Harkening back to the BAFTA controversy, SNL‘s mock Tourette's PSA was “brought to you by National Workforce of Rethinking Disabilities, or N.W.O.R.D.”
At last weekend's BAFTA ceremony, Davidson shouted the N-word at presenters Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan, along with other expletives during the event. The ceremony's host Alan Cumming apologized for the “strong language,” noting that it was a result of “involuntary tics.” The racial slur made it to the BBC's tape-delayed BAFTA telecast.
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
So ‘cool.' Do Cerebral Palsy next, edge lords.
Very weak episode. It seemed like they purposely tried using other cast members rather than relying on Padilla and Dismukes and it was felt. This sketch would've been the best of the episode had it aired and that Louis CK impression is phenomenal.
Sorry. As a Tourette's sufferer living in hell in my head 24/7, this sketch made me cry as it is in such bad taste. Most Tourette's sufferers are suicidal, so thank god this didn't make it into the actual show. This is no different than a sketch mocking people with Down syndrome or extreme autism.
This is literally the first SNL sketch in history (as a die hard fan) that I had to turn off and roll into a corner in a deep depression.
Please never mock our disability ever again. It's not funny. It's a state of intense internal suffering I would never wish upon anyone.
Thank you for speaking up. People rarely understand the reality of living with Tourette's, the challenges, the stigma, and the constant judgment. It's not entertainment; it's a medical condition. We would never laugh at someone fighting cancer or managing diabetes. People with Tourette's deserve that same compassion and respect.
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Is Saturday Night Live finally approaching a manageable cast size after years of flirting with (and sometimes surpassing) record numbers? With Bowen Yang gone (and not counting the sketch-light Weekend Update anchors, despite Colin Jost logging more sketch time this season), the show currently has seven main-cast performers and seven featured players. On this week's Connor Storrie-hosted episode, Chloe Fineman didn't appear to be there—she wasn't in any live sketches or the pre-tape segment, and I didn't catch her at the goodnights—and a few other cast members (Andrew Dismukes, Kenan Thompson, and Jane Wickline) didn't show up live until the last two sketches of the night. So for most of the episode, it felt like the show was suddenly leaner, if not especially meaner, drawing from a pool of ten performers for the first hour's worth of live material.
From that group of ten, only Mikey Day is a long-timer, and the sketches seemed to be underlining the smaller crew's relatively youthful bent. Intentional or not (and it was probably not), this was weirdly noticeable: Host Connor Storrie is youngish, but at 26, and best-known for a TV show where he plays a professional hockey player, there's no particular reason he would need to play a teenager in multiple sketches. Yet twice he was cast as the hunky (well, obviously that's understandable) popular kid, with a third sketch premised on his character urging a bunch of co-workers to at least act like teenagers (or, depending on your point of view, characters on Severance).
The real surprise of the episode was how little this small-cast, young-character energy actually paid off, especially in a deadly opening half-hour. The episode gained some steam after Weekend Update, with a series of silly if kinda sloppy sketches that brought to mind the late 2000s, where fans might have to suffer through a bunch of big-character nonsense and wet-noodle political commentary upfront before the good, weird stuff would emerge in the second half of the show. Through Update, I was wondering if we were watching the weakest episode of the season unfold.
For the first hour, it was close! The cold open is often a lost cause and the monologue isn't really meant to be a LOL highlight, but I've rarely felt quite so stone-faced, and then quite so anguished, as during the first proper sketch of the night, with Marcello Hernández as a… teacher who has an accent? I'm sorry, maybe I'm thickheaded, but I was utterly mystified by what, who, or why that character was supposed to be. Sometimes the show has done neat behind-the-scenes videos about sketches that score particularly well, like the Ashley Padilla haircut bit from a few episodes back. I'd actually love to see one of those for this sketch. How would it be described? What was the genesis for it? How did it manage to be deeply strange as a piece of comedy writing yet not get a single laugh from its strangeness? (I think I have the beginnings of an answer to that: It was the rare strange comedy sketch that didn't actually seem to realize it was strange.) What was the process that led to it leading off the night? Granted, the audience seemed to like it pretty well, but didn't it just seem like they were laughing at the “funny” voice? I want a full-scale investigation of how that sketch happened.
Storrie's other teenager-centric sketch fared only somewhat better. He played a jock won over by a nerd (Ben Marshall), who proceeds to lose the room all over again with an extremely off-putting thank-you song. Storrie held up his end reacting to this, and the uncommented-upon absurdities of the sketch (like the lighting changes and the ubiquity of Marshall's cheap silver top hats) got some laughs, but I'm not sure if Marshall has been put to best use on the show so far. As much as I didn't care for some of Please Don't Destroy's videos, his energy does read a bit better in pretapes than in a live setting.
Storrie had a much stronger chance to show off in the final sketch of the night, where he played a stripper who continues his mission to entertain a bachelorette party despite being hit by a “small car” shortly before crawling through their doorway. He did some dexterous physical comedy, punctuated by the varied reactions of the ladies played by Jane Wickline, Sarah Sherman, Ashley Padilla, and Veronika Slowikowska. It felt like the exact right pitch for Storrie's oddball-heartthrob sensibility—only slightly marred by another form of youthful vigor. This time, it wasn't really the show's fault: The audience was so excited to see Storrie ripping off his clothes that their delighted shrieks stepped on some of the jokes. Similar noise greeted a passable sketch with a couple's relationship issues overshadowed by a trio, then quartet, of fortysomething men having a confusingly great time at an ice rink; It was difficult for the foreground/background choreography to land when the crowd got so repeatedly worked up at a glimpse of the cameoing Hudson Williams.
But you can't blame a shaky outing on the audience—or even on an inexperienced host, given how Storrie threw himself into most of these roles. Throughout the episode, a slightly pared-down cast seemed on the verge of gelling into something more substantial, only to ease up just enough to fall back apart.
This episode had one great high concept, flawlessly executed by… not Ashley Padilla?! No, this week it was Veronika Slowikowska, doing her first Weekend Update desk piece as a maid of honor delivering extremely serious news of the week embedded in a toast. It was a funny idea on its own, but it was Slowikowska's pitch-perfect delivery that sold it: She absolutely nailed the style, cadence, and chummy stiffness of a cutesy wedding speech.
And those last three sketches of the night, while a little unpolished in their delivery, went a long way toward affixing a “plus” to the episode's grade. The joke variety of the sketch where Storrie proposes an “office dance” was terrific, with Dismukes waxing fondly over Severance, Sherman not realizing the office has a women's bathroom, James Austin Johnson doing a primo nerd-take to the camera, and Storrie earnestly coaxing everyone to embrace their inner teenagers. Same for the better Marcello Hernández sketch of the night, involving an absurd version of the leg surgery referenced in Materialists. Taken together, this clutch of sketches had a bit of a group-of-people-sit-around-saying-weird-stuff sameness, but at least the round-robin format didn't put everything on a funny voice.
Besides the aforementioned teacher disaster, the Gentleman's Code pre-tape was surprisingly dire. Obviously not every pre-tape is going to be gold, but it's rare that one feels as conceptually emaciated as a bunch of guys saying “how dare you!” and slapping each other.
Slowikowska. In addition to her Update triumph, she did solid straight-woman work in the ice-skating sketch and solid ensemble work in other pieces.
Ryan Gosling's fourth time hosting combined with the presumed visual splendor of a first-time appearance from Gorillaz is exactly the kind of dream-team combination that seems likely to disappoint! But it sure sounds great on paper.
Jesse Hassenger is a contributor to The A.V. Club.
Recommended for You1"Thousands of layoffs" anticipated under terms of $111 billion Warner Bros./Paramount deal2Where to watch the 2026 Oscar nominees3DTF St. Louis is really effing good4It's-a not you, it's-a me, Mario: Why Nintendo's heroes and princesses aren't going steady5Star-studded audio drama Bronzeville brought a "Black Metropolis" to life
© 2026 Paste Media Group. All Rights Reserved
The folk-rock band made their fourth appearance on the late-night staple.
By
Jessica Lynch
Mumford & Sons returned to Studio 8H on Saturday night — and they didn't come alone.
The folk-rock band made their fourth appearance on Saturday Night Live on February 28th, performing material from their new album Prizefighter, released February 20th.
The set's standout moment came when Hozier walked out to join the band for a live performance of “Rubber Band Man,” their collaboration that has spent 10 weeks at No. 1 on the Adult Alternative Airplay chart.
Explore
Hozier
Mumford & Sons
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
It marked the band's first SNL appearance in eight years, since their 2018 visit, and the Hozier surprise gave the performance an extra jolt that the Studio 8H crowd was clearly not expecting.
Related
Madonna Steals the Spotlight at Dolce & Gabbana's Milan Fashion Week Show
How to Watch the 2026 NAACP Image Awards Online
How to Watch WWE Elimination Chamber 2026 Live Online for Free
The episode was hosted by Connor Storrie, the 26-year-old Canadian actor best known for his role as Shane Hollander on HBO Max's Heated Rivalry, making his SNL debut. During his opening monologue, Storrie brought out members of the U.S. women's Olympic hockey team, who recently won gold, alongside the U.S. men's squad — playing up the contrast between the women's recent triumph and the men's 40-plus year gold medal drought for laughs.
The night's other talking point came during a late-night sketch filmed on location at the Rink at Rockefeller Center, where Storrie's Heated Rivalry costar Hudson Williams made an unannounced cameo. The two, who play rival hockey players on the show, skated together in what quickly became the episode's most shared moment online.
Williams later returned to Studio 8H to join Storrie in introducing Mumford & Sons for their musical segment.
Beyond “Rubber Band Man,” the band performed additional material from Prizefighter, which also features tracks including “The Banjo Song” and “Here.”
Get weekly rundowns straight to your inbox
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *
Post Comment
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Billboard is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Billboard Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By
William Vaillancourt
Saturday Night Live‘s Weekend Update bashed Trump's efforts at regime change in Iran by reminding everyone what he said about Barack Obama 16 years ago.
Trump announced early Saturday that the U.S. and Israel were striking Iran, and encouraged Iranian citizens to then “take over your government.” It was later confirmed that the U.S.-Israeli attacks had killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader since 1989. According to the Iranian rights group HRANA, 133 civilians had been killed and 200 others were injured as of late Saturday.
“You guys, I'm starting to worry that President Trump might not win that peace prize,” Colin Jost began, as Trump has been angling for the the Nobel Peace Prize and trying to sell all the wars he has supposedly ended.
“This attack might be a bad idea. I don't know. I'm not really an expert on Iran. So let's hear from someone who can explain why we might have done it,” Jost continued, playing a 2011 clip of Trump criticizing then-President Barack Obama.
Popular on Rolling Stone
“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate,” Trump says while sitting behind his desk at Trump Tower. “He's weak and he's ineffective.”
Jost nodded along. “See? Now that's the Trump I voted for.”
Co-anchor Michael Che then addressed criticisms from the right and left that Trump, who had been negotiating with the country over its nuclear program, didn't obtain authorization for the strikes.
“He did—Netanyahu said it was okay,” Che joked of the Israeli prime minister, who for decades has been claiming that Iran was close to developing nuclear weaponry.
“I can't believe our leader can just attack Iran with no vote, no provision from Congress, no anything, ” Che continued. “I mean, what is this? Iran?”
Trending Stories
'SNL': Women's Hockey Gold Medalists Stick It to Trump
'SNL' Weekend Update Uses Trump's Own Words Against Him on Iran War
MAGA Reacts to Trump's Strikes on Iran: ‘Absolutely Disgusting and Evil'
'SNL' Cold Open: Trump Tells His 'America First' Voters Why They Shouldn't Feel Duped by Iran War
Weekend Update also addressed Trump's record-length State of the Union address on Tuesday, which clocked in at nearly two hours, or as Jost put it, “almost two full diapers.”
“During the State of the Union address, Trump said our nation is back, ‘bigger, better and stronger than ever before,'” Jost continued. “‘Same,' said the measles.”
We want to hear it. Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Rolling Stone is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Rolling Stone, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Erik Pedersen
Managing Editor
Warner Bros' One Battle After Another, Netflix's Frankenstein and KPop Demon Hunters and Disney/Marvel's The Fantastic Four: First Steps took top film honors at the 30th anniversay Art Directors Guild Awards, which were handed out Saturday night at the InterContinental Los Angeles Downtown. See the full winners list below.
Frankenstein's Deverell and Vieau and One Battle's Martin and Carlino will vie for the Best Production Design Oscar in two weeks along with the designers and decorators behind Best Picture nominees Sinners, Hamnet and Marty Supreme.
RELATED: The 60 Movies That Have Made More Than $1 Billion At The Global Box Office
Since the ADG Awards launched in 1996, one of its winners for Period, Contemporary or Fantasy film of one of those has gone on to win the Art Direction/Production Design Oscar in 20 of the 29 years. including 2025, when Wicked production designer Nathan Crowley and set decorator Lee Sandales took home the Academy Award two weeks after their ADG win.
Kasra Farahani scored something of an upset by winning the Fantasy Feature prize for Disney/Marvel's Fantastic Four: The First Steps over competition including Avatar: Fire and Ash and Wicked: For Good.
KPop Demon Hunters production designers Mingjue Helen Chen and Dave Bleich won the first film award of the night, for Animated Feature. Netflix's most-watched film of all time is on an awards roll of late, sweeping the Annie Awards last Saturday before scooping and a VES Award and Eddie Award this week.
RELATED: The 25 Highest-Grossing Animated Films Of All Time At The Global Box Office
Three Apple TV series won ADGs tonight. Julie Berghoff of Emmy winner The Studio took the Half Hour Single Camera Series Prize, Jeremy Hindle won the One-Hour Contemporary Single-Camera Series award for Severance and Jon Carlos followed by taking the Period Single-Camera prize for Palm Royale.
Luke Hull won the One-Hour Fantasy Series award for Disney+'s now-wrapped Andor. The Star Wars series also had a win at the VES Awards on Wednesday. He was unable to attend the ADG ceremony while working the UK.
Glenda Rovello of Hulu's one-season Mid-Century Modern won for Multi-Camera Series.
Production designers Akira Yoshimura, Keith Ian Raywood, N. Joseph De Tullio and Andrea Purcigliott took the Variety or Reality Series prize for the Lady Gaga-hosted episode of NBC's Saturday Night Live. The trio of Yoshimura, Raywood and De Tullio followed with another win for the SNL 50: The Anniversary Special
Monster: The Ed Gein Story‘s Matthew Flood Ferguson won for TV Movie or Limited Series.
The guild handed out a number of special honors tonight. Wicked and Wicked: For Good filmmaker Jon M. Chu accepted the 2026 Cinematic Imagery Award from his Crazy Rich Asians star Awkwafina. Before helming the blockbuster Wicked films — which together have grossed more than $1.28 billion worldwide — Chu helmed such features as In the Heights, documentary Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, Jem and the Holograms and sequels to Now You See Me, G.I. Joe and Step Up. He is working on Hot Wheels, a live-action take on Mattel's iconic toy car franchise, among other projects.
Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA), received for the inaugural President's Award. A former producer and alum of HBO, Paramount and other entertainment industry companies, she has been an ally of the biz since joining the California Assembly and since she succeeded Adam Schiff in the House of Representatives. Friedman was honored for steadfast support of good union jobs and her advocacy of state and federal tax incentives. She continues to fight for all-important federal tax credits.
Four Lifetime Achievement Awards are being handed out for exceptional contributions and lasting impact on the recipients' respective disciplines. The first went set designer and art director Jann Engel. She's a three-time ADG Award winner for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Avengers: Endgame and a Call of Duty ad whose credits also include many superhero pics including Captain Marvel and Spider-Man: Far From Home.
Production designer Thomas E. Sanders, a two-time Oscar nominee for Saving Private Ryan and Bram Stoker's Dracula who also worked on Braveheart and many other films, will be inducted posthumously into the ADG Hall of Fame. He died of cancer in 2017 at 63.
Men in Black helmer Barry Sonnenfeld presented the evening's second career honor to production designer Bo Welch. He's a four-time Oscar nominee for Men in Black, The Birdcage, A Little Princess and The Color Purple and a two-time Emmy nominee whose credits also include the other two men in Black pics, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, Wild Wild West, A Series of Unfortunate Events and Schmigadoon!
Scenic artist Stephen McNally also got a lifetime honor tonight. His resume includes such films as Venom and its sequel, Steve Jobs, Twisted, What Dreams May Come and Flubber along with TV series Trauma and Parenthood. It was presented by his “colleague, friend and fellow paint slinger” James Shefik.
Storyboard artist and production designer Tom Southwell got the last tribute. His dozens of films spanning various genres range from Blade Runner, The Muppet Movie, Romancing the Stone and The Goonies to The Golden Child, Major League and City Slickers to Mission: Impossible, X-Men and Star Trek: Nemesis. Rin Underwood presented the award.
Production designer Thomas E. Sanders, a two-time Oscar nominee for Saving Private Ryan and Bram Stoker's Dracula who also worked on Braveheart and many other films, was inducted posthumously into the ADG Hall of Fame. One of Thomas' proudest achievements was his work with Guillermo del Toro on the period horror-thriller Crimson Peak, whose gothic, richly textured and haunting production design defined the film's tone and atmosphere. His final project was Justin Lin's Star Trek Beyond in 2015.
Writer-director Randall Wallace made the induction. Thomas died of cancer in 2017 at 63.
RELATED: 2025 Deaths Photo Gallery: Hollywood & Media Obituaries
The In Memoriam segment paid tribute to a number of professionals we lost during the past year: Vance Lorenzini, Stuart Craig, Scott Herbertson, Noele King, E. Jay Krause, Julia Levine, Dean Mitzner, Stephen Runninger, Frankie Smith, Jonathan Velasco, Les Dilley and Barbara Hall.
Veteran comic, actor and voice-over specialist Ron Funches hosted the show, which celebrated world-building in motion pictures, television, shorts and music videos and commercials.
Here are the winners of the ADG's 2026 Excellence in Production Design Awards:
PERIOD FEATURE FILMFrankensteinProduction Designer: Tamara Deverell
ONE-HOUR PERIOD SINGLE-CAMERA SERIESPalm Royale: “Maxine Drinks Martini's Now,” “Maxine Serves a Swerve”Production Designer: Jon Carlos
CONTEMPORARY FEATURE FILM
One Battle After AnotherProduction Designer: Florencia Martin
ONE-HOUR CONTEMPORARY SINGLE-CAMERA SERIESSeverance: “Chikhai Bardo”Production Designer: Jeremy Hindle
FANTASY FEATURE FILMThe Fantastic Four: First StepsProduction Designer: Kasra Farahani
ONE-HOUR FANTASY SINGLE-CAMERA SERIESAndor: “Who Are You?”Production Designer: Luke Hull
VARIETY SPECIALSNL 50: The Anniversary SpecialProduction Designers: Akira Yoshimura, Keith Ian Raywood, N. Joseph De Tullio
VARIETY OR REALITY SERIESSaturday Night Live: “Lady Gaga Host”Production Designers: Akira Yoshimura, Keith Ian Raywood, N. Joseph De Tullio, Andrea Purcigliott
COMMERCIALSPrada: “Galleria Bag”Production Designer: Florencia Martin
SHORT FORMAT & MUSIC VIDEOSApple – Someday by Spike Jonze: “AirPods 4 with Active Noise Cancelation”Production Designer: Shane Valentin
TELEVISION MOVIE OR LIMITED SERIESMonster: The Ed Gein StoryProduction Designer: Matthew Flood Ferguson
ANIMATED FEATURE FILMKPop Demon HuntersProduction Designers: Mingjue Helen Chen, Dave Bleich
HALF HOUR SINGLE-CAMERA SERIESThe Studio: “The Note”Production Designer: Julie Berghoff
MULTI-CAMERA SERIESMid-Century Modern: “Bye, George”Production Designer: Glenda Rovello
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
The 26-year-old actor is fresh off his breakout role in the unexpected hit series, ‘Heated Rivalry.'
By
Nicole Fell
Assistant Editor
Connor Storrie has officially made his Saturday Night Live debut.
The 26-year-old actor was absent from the Trump-centric cold open, entering onto the stage for his monologue to loud cheers.
“Now, some of you may have seen all of me on my show Heated Rivalry,” he joked to the audience. “It's a show that's taught a lot people about hockey, and it's taught a lot of straight women that their sexuality is actually gay men.”
Storrie, who admitted to crying when he booked the show, lamented on the fact he was born to be there before joking that he wasn't sure he pulled off the hockey portion of Heated Rivalry. He then brought out Quinn and Jack Hughes from the U.S. men's hockey team and Hilary Knight and Megan Keller from the U.S. women's hockey team.
Related Stories
TV
How to Livestream Connor Storrie's 'SNL' Hosting Debut Online
TV
'Heated Rivalry' Season 2 Is Shooting This Summer, Expected to Air in Spring 2027
The men said they haven't seen the show, before the women assured Storrie they'd seen it. The monologue didn't shy away from taking a dig at the video that showed the men's hockey team laughing along with President Trump as he told them that the women's team would have to join the men's team at the White House.
“It was going to be just us, but we thought we'd invite the guys too” and “we thought we'd give them a little moment to shine” were the highlights from Knight and Keller, along with the reminder that the last time the men's team won was over 40 years ago, while the last time the women won was two Olympics ago. The monologue ended with everyone looking cheery together.
Connor Storrie's monologue! pic.twitter.com/j3b9QkrcWB
Storrie's Heated Rivalry co-star Hudson Williams made a surprise appearance during a sketch taking place on the 30 Rock skating rink. The internet had been speculating throughout the week if the 25-year-old Canadian actor would join his onscreen beau for a guest appearance.
The sketch found a couple hashing through a rejected proposal. Storrie, alongside the SNL cast members, in the sketch yelled about someone finally showing up. Williams then slid onto the ice and into Storrie, met with huge cheers from the audience. The actor also lated joined Storrie in announcing musical guest Mumford & Sons together.
anything can happen at the rink pic.twitter.com/WM4hfKM5IT
The pair have repeatedly spoken about how close the experience of making Heated Rivalry has made them. “I have one of my best friends for life right beside me through it all, which is already a luxury that a lot of actors don't get,” Williams previously told The Hollywood Reporter. “I'm sure I would've probably had a smaller appetite for the amount of stuff we're doing if I didn't have him through this.”
SNL went all in on Storrie leading up to Saturday's show, which featured Mumford & Sons as the musical guest. The sketch comedy series released its typical two teasers — the first showing Storrie partaking in an “accent duel” and the second showing him “making out” with cast member Sarah Sherman and Mumford & Sons. The show also released a charming blooper reel of the actor's first teaser.
Storrie's SNL debut comes just months after his breakout role in the queer hockey drama, Heated Rivalry. Hailing from Canadian streamer Crave and airing on HBO Max in the U.S., the series centers on a fictional hockey universe based on popular romance books by Rachel Reid. Letterkenny alum Jacob Tierney created, wrote and directed the series.
Heated Rivalry focuses on two rival professional players — Canada-born Shane Hollander (Williams) of the fictitious Montreal Metros and Russia-born Ilya Rozanov (Storrie) of the fictitious Boston Raiders — as they navigate a near-decade-long situationship-turned-relationship. The show has made certified stars out of both Storrie and Williams.
The pair began last month presenting at the Golden Globes and closed the month serving as torchbearers in the 2026 Olympic Torch Relay. Storrie's seemingly already found his first post-Heated Rivalry role; he's in talks to join the ensemble cast of Molly Gordon and SNL writer Allie Levitan's A24 comedy Peaked. Williams has also found his next role, re-teaming with Crave for the Carrie-Anne Moss-led series, Yaga.
Crave renewed Heated Rivalry for a second season early into the show's first season run. HBO Max has confirmed it will continue to air the series. The show is slated to shoot the second season this summer — Tierney said it would shoot in August on a recent TV appearance. It's aiming for a spring 2027 release, Bell Media and Crave told THR in a statement.
Reid announced earlier this year that she'll be publishing her seventh book in the Game Changers series, which Heated Rivalry and its sequel The Long Game belong to. The book, Unrivaled, will be the next chapter in Shane and Ilya's story. She announced earlier this week that she'd be pushing the book to a 2027 release date.
Ryan Gosling will host next week's episode of SNL, where he'll be joined by musical guest Gorillaz. And on March 14, Harry Styles will pull double duty as host and musical guest.
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Inside the business of TV with breaking news, expert analysis and showrunner interviews
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Horror mogul Blum is being honored with the Milestone Award at the Producers Guild of America Awards on Saturday night.
By
Beatrice Verhoeven
Awards Editor
While introducing Producers Guild of America Milestone Award nominee Jason Blum at the PGA Awards on Saturday night, Barry Diller made digs at David Ellison, as well as the guild itself, for giving the honor to people like Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves in previous years.
“Samuel Goldwyn, Adolph Zukor, Jack Warner — What would Jack Warner do to know he'd been succeeded by a stunt pilot?” Diller, chairman of internet and media conglomerate IAC and an executive who led Paramount Pictures and Fox, said, which evoked audible gasps and laughs from the audience. Current Paramount chairman and CEO Ellison, who has been in the news in recent days for the mega merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery, is a licensed pilot for helicopter aviation, aerobatics and more. Warner, of course, was the founder and president of Warner Bros. Studios.
Related Stories
Movies
PGA Awards: Winners List (Updating Live)
Movies
2026 NAACP Image Awards: 'Sinners' Dominates With 13 Wins, Including Best Motion Picture
Diller, a longtime friend of Blum's, continued: “Cecil B. DeMille, Disney, and now Blum: Not the most obvious succession, but then you also gave this award to Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves. So there's that.”
Diller continued his introduction by making quips at Blum's “cheapness.” Of course, Blum, the founder and CEO of Blumhouse (behind horror franchises like Paranormal Activity, Insidious, The Black Phone, The Purge), is well known for investing small amounts of money in films and giving directors their creative freedom. For example, 2007's Paranormal Activity was made for just $15,000 but grossed almost $200 million worldwide.
“There's some commonality with the greats,” Diller continued. “DeMille made movies for $15,000 and so did Blum almost 100 years later. To say he's cheap isn't a characterization. It's a defining attribute. … I'm giving this award to Jason, not because I like horror movies; I actually hate them. But because we've been friends since before he matriculated, if that's the right word to describe working for Harvey Weinstein. How he found his groove after that is anyone's guess, but he sure did find it.”
Blum served as an executive for Bob and Harvey Weinstein at their production company Miramax before becoming an independent producer at Paramount and founding Blumhouse Productions in 2000.
Diller continued: “300 films made on the lowest pay scales in film history, but he also did something quite extraordinary in itself, and that's helping artists tell stories and helping them make a lot of money. … Once Jason found his calling, he focused with an intensity that is rare in this business, and that's worth saying because Hollywood is essentially a machine that's designed to distract you. There's always a bigger budget being dangled in front of you, a more prestigious kind of movie that will get you an awards campaign or a franchise that someone swears is going to change everything. The shiny objects in this town are endless. Jason though stayed focused on scary and people betting on themselves … Jason is this odd something of a Renaissance man, a true embodiment of a man [who] can do all things if it is his will. And it is his will and his stick to perseverance of what he believes in and how essentially honest and honorable he has been that makes me ever so glad to be able to present this award to him.”
When Blum took the stage to accept the Milestone Award, he joked, “I think my biggest achievement is getting Barry Diller to the PGAs!”
“Barry's been a friend of mine for a long time and a mentor of mine and someone I admire so, so much,” he added. “And he's changed my life is a lot of ways.”
During his acceptance speech, the horror mogul also talked about how AI cannot replicate the passions and tastes of a producer. “We're living at this time where machines are very confident that they can pick what will work, that algorithms can tell us everything we've ever watched and what we should watch next, and AI can tell us what to stream in the mood we're in next Tuesday. But what machines can't do?” He then brought up the success of Heated Rivalry, noting, “If you would ask an algorithm a few months ago to predict a low-budget gay hockey romance with zero known stars, I promise you the algorithm would have been like, ‘Do not make that show.' But that's why Heated Rivalry needed us. It needed producers.” Blum added that he even invited the hit show's producers to be his guests at the show, but they were in New York to watch Connor Storrie host Saturday Night Live.
For a full list of PGA winners, click here.
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
By Natalie Oganesyan
Weekend Editor
In his first time hosting Saturday Night Live, Heated Rivalry breakout star Connor Storrie was a consummate pro while delivering his opening monologue — though his words provided an assist for the Team USA men's hockey team to seemingly patch up its recent controversy.
Storrie began with the typical opener fare, poking fun at the Crave Canada show's “spicy” scenes by showcasing a single-second clip of his character, Ilya Rozanov delivering the word “OK,” as the only one cleared to air for promo on broadcast.
In an extended bit, an earnest Storrie then pivoted to a trio of dramatic asides, in which he played up being a self-serious actor. But upon delving into the difficulties of his HR role — learning Russian and how to play hockey — he was interrupted by brothers Quinn Hughes and Jack Hughes, who were part of the men's hockey team that won Olympic gold in Milan.
Quinn Hughes assured Storrie he was “great” at playing hockey on screen, while Jack Hughes said, “I got my teeth knocked out in the final, does that happen in your show?”
Watch on Deadline
“Metaphorically,” Storrie replied cheekily, wagging his eyebrows at the Studio 8H audience.
But the applause the Hughes siblings got paled in comparison to the extended cheers received by Team USA women's hockey champions Hilary Knight and Megan Keller, who also clinched Olympic gold.
“Don't worry, we saw your show,” Keller told Storrie, after the Hughes brothers admitted they hadn't watched Heated Rivalry yet.
It was a not-so-subtle truce to end the kerfuffle spurred by a locker room video that featured the men's team, post-win, laughing along with President Donald Trump when he joked he had to reluctantly also invite the women's team to the White House.
“It was gonna be just us, but we thought we'd invite the guys too,” Knight said knowingly.
Meanwhile, Quinn Hughes admitted that the last time the men won gold was 46 years ago, while the women did so two “whole Olympics ago.”
Watch the monologue above.
Admittedly, it's frustrating that Storrie's debut was overshadowed by the Hugheses having to awkwardly deliver redress for their team's misogyny. Earlier this week, the two had appeared on Good Morning America and tepidly addressed the video, as well as the men's team's decision to visit with Trump in the Oval Office. (The women's team declined the invitation.)
“I'm glad you mentioned the women's team again. We're extremely happy for them. Obviously, a lot going on with social media right now surrounding our team and their team,” Quinn Hughes said in part.
Meanwhile, Jack Hughes said during a press conference later: “It is what it is now, like, we have so much respect for the women's team, they have so much respect for us, and we're all just proud Americans. We're happy that we both swept the Olympics.”
Knight told GMA Thursday, “I thought the call in itself was distasteful and an awesome learning moment to refocus the narrative and understand our words matter, and how we speak about women matters, and we need to celebrate this team.”
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
Here's an example of allyship where all the men had to do was remind Trump that the women won recently (two olympics ago), won first, and should have been his first call for congratulations.
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
By Matt Grobar
Senior Film Reporter
In accepting the Milestone Award tonight at the 37th annual Producers Guild Awards, producer Jason Blum thanked many, beginning with his longtime friend Barry Diller, the billionaire chairperson of IAC, who presented him with the prize.
Referring to himself humbly as “this lowly middle-aged producer,” Blum said Diller's “been a friend of mine for a long time and a mentor of mine, and someone I admire so, so much, and he's changed my life in a lot of ways.”
The mega horror producer also thanked his wife Lauren, who “supports me in everything I do”; CAA's Bryan Lourd, “who believed in before anyone else did”; Universal's Donna Langley, “who gave Blumhouse a home when we had basically produced a half a movie”; and his “partner” in the newest chapter of his career, “one of the greatest artists I've worked with in my life, “James Wan.
Related Stories
News
PGA Awards 2026 Winners List - Updating Live
News
PGA's Daryl F. Zanuck Outstanding Producer Nominees Talk Shop Before Awards Show: "Producing Is Hard, It Is Ghetto"
The crux of Blum's speech, though, was a story about his parents — and his father, specifically — who while running The Ferus Gallery on La Cienega decades ago, somehow convincing the artist Andy Warhol not only that his iconic 32-piece set of Campbell soup can paintings needed to remain together, but that he should sell them to him for just $2000.
Watch on Deadline
“That story has stayed with me and it's in my bones, and it taught me that good taste doesn't come from consensus. That belief has to come before validation,” Blum told the crowd. “In hindsight, it seems like what my dad did seems easy. But it wasn't, it was impossible. Everyone was making fun of these paintings. They hung them in their kitchen. And my dad is like, ‘I'm eating tuna fish sandwiches, and I'm going to spend all my money and buy these paintings.”
Similarly, Blum said, good producing is “impossible” — and producers, themselves, are impossible.
It's hard to pin down the job of the producer, he suggested, and how they pull off what they do. But he said he believes we can define their craft as the effort “to somehow bring all of us impossible people together. To keep the team intact. To keep the soup cans in tact — even when it would be easier, faster, and more lucrative to sell them off one at a time.”
Today, Blum continued, “we're living in this time where machines are very confident that they can pick what will work, that algorithms can tell us everything we've ever watched and what we should watch next, and AI can tell us what to stream and the mood we're in next Tuesday.”
What machines cannot do, however, is “fall in love with something,” or “have instinct.”
Said the producer, “If you had asked an algorithm a few months ago to predict how a low-budget gay hockey romance with zero known stars would perform, I promise you the algorithm would've been like ‘Do not make that show.' But that's why Heated Rivalry needed us; it needed producers.”
The show's key creatives, Jacob Tierney and Brendan Brady, believed in it when perhaps no one else did — and it's that belief, Blum said, “in artists, in stories, and the road it takes to get things made” that producers as a community do “better than anyone else.”
In the past, Blum said, he wasn't one to tell stories “about people who believed in [someone] before anyone else.” But he's come to realize that “those stories are really, really important because they tell the next generation that producing matters, that passion matters. That belief matters. That sometimes —oftentimes — the market is wrong.”
In winding down, Blum left his audience with the message, “Keep believing in your stories, and in your impossible directors and impossible actors and impossible writers, and most of all, impossible producers, even when we are at our most impossible.”
The PGA's Milestone Award recognizes individuals or teams who have made historic contributions to the entertainment industry. Other contemporary recipients of the prize, once given out to the likes of Louis B. Mayer, Walt Disney and Alfred Hitchcock, include Steven Spielberg, Sherry Lansing, James Cameron, Bob Iger, Donna Langley, Ted Sarandos, George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy, Charles D. King, and Dana Walden.
The founder of Blumhouse, the horror powerhouse that merged with Wan's Atomic Monster in 2024, Blum's recent producing credits include Five Nights at Freddy's 2, Black Phone 2, The Lost Bus, and the USA Networks series The Rainmaker, based on the novel by John Grisham.
This year's PGA Awards are taking place at the Fairmont Century Plaza in Los Angeles. Other honorees include Amy Pascal, who's receiving the David O. Selznick Achievement Award, and Mara Brock Akil, who's being recognized with the Norman Lear Achievement Award.
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Dean took home four awards at the ceremony in Manchester.
By
Thomas Smith
You'd be forgiven if, by the close of BRIT Awards 2026, you felt a sense of déjà vu. Olivia Dean appeared on the Co-op Live's stage four times during the ceremony to sweep her categories in spectacular fashion, but it also continued a seemingly unstoppable trend at the BRITs in recent years: one artist totally dominating.
In 2025, Charli xcx earned five awards in an array of categories, which toasted the Brat phenomenon. A year earlier in 2024, RAYE stormed to a record-setting six wins in a single night, a feat unlikely to be broken. Go back a year further and it was Harry Styles grabbing four trophies in 2023, and Adele scooping three prizes in 2022.
Each time, the industry quietly asked itself: are we sure this is a good thing for the U.K.'s music scene? Should it feel like such a forgone conclusion that a star will arrive at the ceremony as a runaway favorite in each category and head home (or to the after-party) with an armful of trophies?
There are fair arguments that this could be overshadowing the broadness and depth of the U.K. music scene as a whole. At 2026's ceremony, Dean won album of the year, artist of the year, song of the year (“Rein Me In” with Sam Fender) and pop act, all of which are heavyweight categories and saw Dean juke it out with worthy competitors. She now continues a five-year streak where the artist of the year and album of the year categories share a winner.
It meant that someone like Lily Allen went home empty-handed, despite three nominations in album, artist and pop act categories. Her 2025 LP West End Girl was a pop culture phenomenon and summed up what's great about British music: wit, honesty and superb songcraft.
Acts like Lola Young (four nominations, one win), Wolf Alice (three nominations, one win) and Dave (three nominations, one win) had their moments, but were dwarfed in Dean's winning presence. Jim Legaxcy, a genre-blurring newcomer, went home without a trophy despite his potential.
Unless you are the chosen winner of the night (whether it be Dean, Charli, RAYE or whoever), it can be hard to compete. British music is rich and varied, with subtleties across genres, scenes and cities; one hopes that when the world watches the BRIT Awards, they notice these differences and variances and want to dive deeper into every artist nominated, not just be satisfied by the headline names.
That said, the BRIT Awards remains one of the U.K.'s few music moments that can cut through to make stars overnight (the BBC's coverage of Glastonbury Festival is perhaps the only rival). Dean's memorable 2026 ceremony means she now joins the upper echelons of British music, and cements herself as a capable, cheery new leader.
This is, ultimately, what the U.K. music industry wants and needs: superstars like Dean can act as the rising tide that lifts all boats. Following her big moment on mainstream terrestrial television and on social media feeds, international fans may in turn discover Fender, the North Shields-born rocker who is growing beyond the U.K. and into international territories. They'll perhaps see that Dean is an alumni of the BRIT School, a non-fee paying state school that puts music at the heart of education and pay attention to the next bright young thing to hit the touring circuit.
It also proves that the U.K. music industry remains a global leader. It can still identify top talent and nurture them into global superstars even if that doesn't happen overnight. Look at Lola Young, an artist whose breakout moment, 2024's “Messy,” came in the middle of her second album campaign. Or Wolf Alice, a beloved indie-rock band that has gigged incredibly hard over the past decade and recently signed to Sony to kickstart an ambitious new chapter of their career. Skye Newman, a nominee for breakthrough artist, will hit the road with Styles later this year and clearly has the long game in mind.
A number of artists will have left the 2026 BRIT Awards empty-handed or with fewer prizes than they expected or deserved. But perhaps they'll be able to take solace in the fact that just by virtue of being nominated they are a part of something bigger, and a scene that still has the talent and fight to make its mark on a global stage.
As Abbey Road's Sally Davies suggested to Billboard U.K. in 2025: “The music we make here is world-moving. It travels all over and makes people happy, and we should be shouting about that. We can be wonderfully British and too modest and humble, but maybe we need to be a bit more celebratory.”
In her final acceptance speech of the night, Dean was overwhelmed with emotion. She had triumphed in the album of the year category for The Art of Loving and was lost for words, ultimately tearing up and then resting her head on the podium for a brief moment in disbelief. It's the kind of star-making moment that people will remember her for, much like how RAYE juggling six prizes did the same in 2024 and Harry Styles' leap to megastardom was confirmed back at 2023's ceremony.
Perhaps in 2027, a different act will do the same and create the same talking points about the ultimate benefits or drawbacks for British music. The fact that the scene's musicians are at the top of the charts globally and right in the midst of the conversation suggests that we're at least on the right track, and more than capable of doing it over and over again.
Get weekly rundowns straight to your inbox
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *
Post Comment
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Billboard is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Billboard Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By Natalie Oganesyan
Weekend Editor
Shia LaBeouf has once again been arrested, this time on an additional charge of misdemeanor count of simple battery related to an incident earlier this month in which he assaulted several people in New Orleans, per the Associated Press.
The actor was previously booked and posted bail in the aftermath of the Feb. 17 bar brawl, in which he punched patrons and shouted anti-gay slurs. The Transformers alum now faces three charges, with his next hearing scheduled for March 19.
City police previously said LaBeouf was “causing a disturbance and becoming increasing[ly] aggressive” at a Royal Street business outside the French Quarter. LaBeouf's attorney Sarah Chervinsky told the AP that LaBeouf voluntarily turned himself in to the Orleans Parish Prison upon learning of the new arrest warrant issued yesterday.
Watch on Deadline
Related Stories
News
Shia LaBeouf Posts "Free Me" After Being Arrested At Mardi Gras Party
Legal
Shia LaBeouf And FKA Twigs Settle Sexual Battery Suit - Update
“No regular person would be required to post over $100,000 in bonds, and be jailed two separate times for one misdemeanor incident,” Chervinsky said. “Just as he does not deserve preferential treatment, Mr. LaBeouf also does not deserve to be treated more harshly by the police and courts just because he is a public figure.”
The news comes amid LaBeouf's sprawling interview with Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan, during which he rambled about his past legal issues, sobriety journey, religious beliefs and former relationships with artist FKA Twigs and actress Mia Goth. At one point, he left the interview couch to grab a beer and, toward the conclusion of the conversation, walked away and accidentally broke his wall.
“I fucked up, it's on me,” he said of the New Orleans arrest. “It was no good, bro. My behavior's dirty, ugly, disgusting, so I gotta eat it, you know?”
LaBeouf also posited he may still be charged with a hate crime, which carries a more severe penalty, though in some statements he expressed a cavalier attitude toward his latest controversy.
“Who gives a fuck though? It's another experience. Jail be another adventure. What are you gonna do?” he said.
Despite having attended support groups for addiction previously, he said, “I don't think I have a drinking problem. I think I have a different problem, and I'm gonna address it … I think I have a small man complex. Some kind of Napoleonic, I don't know what it is. I think it's something that has to do with anger and ego more than my drinking.”
He added that he has often been “forced to get sober by the court system, usually, and then women get scared, so you gotta stay sober for the girl.”
In more eyebrow-raising comments, he admitted his bigotry is “why I got arrested.”
“Big, gay people are scary to me,” he said, saying that when three gay men “are touching my leg, I get scared. I'm sorry. If that's homophobic, then I'm that.” He said he gets triggered when his “masculinity is challenged,” adding, “I'm good with gay, be gay over there though, don't be gay in my lap.”
Later, he pivoted: “I am wrong for touching anyone ever and that's the end of my statement on this whole shit.”
LaBeouf also confirmed that once released from jail (he said he didn't know who bailed him out), he returned to party in the French Quarter during Mardi Gras.
This isn't the first time the Disturbia actor has been embroiled in unsavory dealings. The former child star-turned-embattled figure was previously sued by ex-girlfriend Twigs for sexual battery, assault and infliction of emotional distress, which was later settled.
Of that matter, he admitted to Callaghan: “Whatever she said, run with most of it.”
Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.
Comment
Name
Email
Website
Δ
This is performance art.
I'm here for it
He is my hero
He has grown up and become such an ugly human being. Take a page from Ron Howard – be better.
Who would want to work with this horrid man?
I wish we could kick him out of the city and ban him from ever returning.
Signup for Breaking News Alerts & Newsletters
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get our latest storiesin the feed of your favorite networks
We want to hear from you! Send us a tip using our annonymous form.
Sign up for our breaking news alerts
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Update 2/28/2026 at 9 p.m.: Well, that was quick: THR is reporting that LaBeouf has once again been arrested in New Orleans on Saturday, on one additional charge of simple battery. The charge is apparently related to the original February 17 incident he was previously arrested on; LaBeouf voluntarily turned himself in on Saturday after learning that New Orleans police had issued a fresh arrest warrant for him on Friday. Such, presumably, is the small man's plight.
Original story: The life cycle of a Shia LaBeouf controversy is a well-studied, if not especially complex, sociological phenomenon. LaBeouf makes headlines for bad behavior—for instance, getting arrested on charges of battery stemming from a bar fight during Mardi Gras in New Orleans—and then, after a brief period, finds a fairly forgiving venue to tell everybody how sorry he is, before eventually doing it all over again. The major distinguishing feature of any given cycle, then, mostly come down to how ebullient LaBeouf is with his mea culpas and self reflections. In that light, his latest tour is a bit of a doozy, as LaBeouf appeared on the Channel 5 With Andrew Callaghan podcast this weekend to give an extremely digressive interview in which he diagnosed himself with a pesky case of “small man complex.”
First of all: Yes. But also, it's a pretty fascinating interview, as Callaghan tries, as gently as possible, to prod an erratic LaBeouf on as many topics as possible: The abuse allegations from former girlfriend FKA Twigs. (“She's a good girl, bro.”) His divorce from Mia Goth. (Also a “good girl,” in LaBeouf's reckoning, who he's happy to co-parent with.) And especially his tenuous grasp on sobriety, which was apparently most recently shaken by being introduced to the non-alcoholic psychoactive substance kava. The latter touches on the whole “small man complex” diagnosis, with LaBeouf—who talks extensively about years of being in various programs—putting forward his belief that he doesn't actually need more rehab in his life, instead diagnosing his issues as bristling at situations in which “my masculinity” is “being challenged.”
It is truly a bizarre conversation, as LaBeouf clearly wrestles with the things he knows he's supposed to be saying—including multiple apologies to the men he allegedly fought in New Orleans—versus making accusations that those same people were “clout chasers” who invaded his personal space and sexually harassed him. Or, in LaBeouf-speak: “Big gay people are scary to me. I'm like, standing by myself and three gay dudes are next to me, touching my leg, I get scared. I'm sorry if that's homophobic. Then I'm that.” (Frequently referencing his Catholicism—including quoting G.K. Chesterton and professing his belief that Martin Luther is in hell—LaBeouf states at one point “I'm good with gay, be gay over there, though. Don't be gay in my lap.”)
Even beyond the most headline-grabbing incidents, though, the conversation is truly a trove of strange quotes, as when LaBeouf defines his willingness to take photos with fans by stating “I'm like a golden retriever or a governor,” or addressing a celebrity who didn't grant him the same grace when he was a kid with a “Mike Piazza, you're a bitch, bro.” When Callaghan raises the idea that problematic people in our society often face forms of exile, LaBeouf sounds positively excited by the prospect: “Put me in the banished spot,” he effuses. “Let me party.”
Recommended for You1"Thousands of layoffs" anticipated under terms of $111 billion Warner Bros./Paramount deal2Where to watch the 2026 Oscar nominees3DTF St. Louis is really effing good4It's-a not you, it's-a me, Mario: Why Nintendo's heroes and princesses aren't going steady5Star-studded audio drama Bronzeville brought a "Black Metropolis" to life
© 2026 Paste Media Group. All Rights Reserved
Kim Kardashian was spotted fully blinged out on the set of her new movie this week.
The “Kardashians” star was pictured on the Los Angeles set of “The Fifth Wheel” on Tuesday modeling a black and red, jewel covered corset-style bodysuit. She accessorized with a red feathered headdress, a black bejeweled choker, and what appeared to be a black cape lined with red silk.
She also rocked a heavy makeup glam consisting of pink lips, coordinating eyeshadow, and pink blush.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The TV personality pulled a gray bathrobe around the eye-popping look and donned a pair of Ugg-style slippers, carrying a cell phone as she made her way around the set.
Earlier this month, she was seen shooting scenes with Nikki Glaser and Brenda Song, rocking a skin-tight black ensemble.
Though she appeared to be channeling former rival Taylor Swift's “The Life of a Showgirl” aesthetic, she's actually simply blending into the Las Vegas-themed film, which is helmed by “Desperate Housewives” maven Eva Longoria.
Advertisement
Kardashian, who is a producer on the film, co-stars alongside Glaser, Song, Will Ferrell, Fortune Feimster, Casey Wilson, and Jack Whitehall.
“A group of best friends from high school attempt to reconnect during a weekend jaunt to Vegas,” reads an official synopsis from the movie. “When a hot outsider (Kardashian) crashes the weekend, they're forced to face their messy lives, bad decisions, and unraveling friendships.”
The reality icon's latest job comes amid a string of high profile acting gigs.
Advertisement
Last year, Kardashian starred alongside Naomi Watts, Sarah Paulson, Glenn Close, and Niecy Nash in Ryan Murphy's critically panned legal series “All's Fair.”
Start your day with Page Six Daily.
Please provide a valid email.
By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Want celebrity news as it breaks?
She also previously co-starred in the twelfth season of Murphy's “American Horror Story” in 2023.
Kardashian's latest acting gig isn't likely to be her last — despite its controversial reception, “All's Fair” is set for a second season.
Additionally, insiders told Page Six earlier this week that Kardashian is in talks to appear in yet another Ryan Murphy series — this one centered around “Beauty Broker” Melinda Farina, known for matching high-profile clients with elite plastic surgeons.
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter
The ‘White Lotus' star also tells THR that he's “so excited” to continue his relationship with the brand.
By
Nicole Fell
Assistant Editor
Husband and wife duo Patrick Schwarzenegger and Abby Champion are starring in a new Tommy Hilfiger campaign.
The brand announced its Spring 2026 campaign last week, featuring Schwarzenegger, Champion and a slew of familiar faces including Tommy and Dee Hilfiger, Lionel Richie, Iman, MGK, Checo Pérez, Lucien Laviscount, Soo Joo Park, Luke Champion and Raphael Diogo.
“What makes Tommy unique is that his world genuinely sits at the intersection of fashion and entertainment,” Schwarzenegger exclusively told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. “Being part of this campaign with Abby felt less like a traditional shoot and more like stepping into something real that he's built over decades.”
Related Stories
Movies
Haley Lu Richardson on 'Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die' Twist and Urging Sam Rockwell to Check Into 'The White Lotus'
TV
'The White Lotus' Season 4 Casts Helena Bonham Carter, Marissa Long and Chris Messina
The White Lotus star added, “That authenticity is what make this brand so special. I'm so excited to continue our relationship and to work with Tommy once again.”
Related Video
The campaign, which was shot by Lachlan Bailey, serves as an “invitation” to Hilfiger's “world of ease, warmth and entertainment,” and is inspired by “four decades of blending fashion with art, music, entertainment and sport,” according to a release from the brand.
The Spring 2026 campaign is the first in a series of inspired by Hilfiger's favorite destinations around the world. This particular aesthetic takes inspiration from Hilfiger's Palm Beach home. Schwarzenegger and Champion are photographed against classic Cadillacs and pool side loungers.
In a release for the campaign, Hilfiger describes building the brand with “endless curiosity, a belief in dreaming big and a love of bringing people together” over the last 40 years. “From the beginning, I looked to the creative voices shaping pop culture to help guide that vision,” he said.
“This season, we've invited a cross-generation cast of icons and contemporary voices to the ultimate Spring party — to share in the way I live,” Hilfiger continued. “It's a celebration alive with personality and modern American style.”
Schwarzenegger described Hilfiger as “the ultimate host,” noting his knack for curating an exciting group of people. “There's something about the way he brings people together,” Champion added in a release. “You never know who's going to arrive or what the night will turn into. One minute you're chatting with Iman, the next Lionel Richie is behind the decks.”
The Spring 2026 collection, unlike the Palm Beach-inspired campaign, is inspired by Hilfiger's love for West Coast style, particularly California's unique brand of prep looks. It's available on the brand's website. More photos from the campaign can be found below.
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
"Don jr. and Barron won't have to fight or die, just other people's children," the musician wrote.
By
Mitchell Peters
Jack White is criticizing Donald Trump following the U.S. launch of Operation Epic Fury against Iran.
On Saturday (Feb. 28), the 50‑year‑old rock musician — a longtime Trump critic — took to social media to condemn the president after the United States, alongside Israel, launched aerial strikes in Iran that Trump said were aimed at targeting the country's nuclear program.
“Don't you love seeing him declare war on a country while wearing a trucker hat that says ‘USA' on it?” White wrote on Instagram alongside a photo of Trump's televised address announcing the military strike.
“Behold the leader of the ‘Board of Peace,'” White continued. “For the next war announcement donny, may I suggest having your feet up on the Resolute desk while eating a Big Mac in a velvet track suit?”
Trump established the Board of Peace in early 2026, with a stated mission to promote stability, peacebuilding and reconstruction in conflict zones, with the president as chairman.
White also pointed out that despite Trump's comments about deserving a Nobel Peace Prize, the president has often been aggressive with other countries around the world.
“Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Cuba, what's the difference right?” White wrote. “don jr. and barron won't have to fight or die, just other people's children, so… invade and bomb away! New sign ups for the ‘board of peace' starting at one billion dollars! Can you believe donny hasn't received a real Nobel Peace Prize yet? Unfair! Maybe in his third term he'll get one.”
On Saturday, Trump spoke out against the “very wicked, radical dictatorship” in Iran. “The Iranian regime seeks to kill,” the president added. “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”
White has been a longtime outspoken critic of Trump. Most recently, the White Stripes rocker lashed out after Trump posted a since‑deleted video on his official Truth Social account depicting Michelle and Barack Obama as apes. “How is it possible we've given this evil man so much power?” White asked.
The Rock & Roll Hall of Famer has long been vocal in his opinion that Trump promotes racist ideology. In 2023, White called out the politician and all of his supporters, writing on Instagram, “Anybody who ‘normalizes' or treats this disgusting fascist, racist, con man, disgusting piece of s—t Trump with any level of respect is also disgusting in my book.”
See White's full post condemning Trump's military campaign in Iran on Instagram here.
Get weekly rundowns straight to your inbox
Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinted
in whole or in part in Billboard publications.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *
Post Comment
good
Peace is about keeping other nations peaceful. You have to react sometimes BEFORE it becomes a problem. This is what was done out of necessity in order to prolong peace. It's easy to criticize any action until the enemy strikes us first- then you would criticize that we didn't react sooner- you can't have it both ways.
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
A daily briefing on what matters in the music industry
Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Billboard is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Billboard Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
By
Mattha Busby
In a packed ballroom in Los Angeles, astrologer Shima Moore announces that something has just happened in the stars for the first time in at least 6,400 years. Minutes earlier, Saturn and Neptune met at zero degrees in Aries, the first degree of the first zodiac sign. Moore, dressed like a priestess in flowing white robes and a red and gold scarf, describes it as a “cosmic reset.” This rare planetary transit, she indicates as a harpist plucks softly, could herald the next phase of human evolution: open contact with extraterrestrials.
“This next few years is the time for potential ET contact,” she tells me afterwards. “I just sense that's going to really be happening. I'm tuned into what's going on astrologically.”
Alongside me, more than 300 attendees — aura readers, quantum life coaches, and “starseeds” who believe they descend from beyond the Milky Way galaxy — are guided by Moore to hold their arms aloft and give thanks to “the guardians of this place.” Several people shake from the sheer force of the collective energy. One breathes so sharply I worry he's about to be lifted by a light into the sky.
I'm watching this celestial scene at the Los Angeles Airport Hilton next to Althea Avanzo, a “galactic channeler” with fire-engine red hair that goes down to her waist. She whispers in my ear that we are entering a “time loop portal wormhole.” She later tells me how she was “taken up on the ships” when she was around three months old. “They took genetic information from me to create a hybrid child,” Avanzo says.
Popular on Rolling Stone
Welcome to the 24th-annual Conscious Life Expo, a four-day conference devoted to “the conscious co-creation of a new world.” That, if the ensuing event teaches me anything, will involve understanding aliens and fine-tuning the administrative logistics of “first contact.” Coincidentally, the day before the conference began, President Donald Trump pledged to finally release the government files on extraterrestrial life. So, I'm here at the largest event of its kind across the U.S. to find out what sort of information might be disclosed, and whether ET really is phoning home.
Editor's picks
The 250 Greatest Albums of the 21st Century So Far
The 100 Best TV Episodes of All Time
Certainly, it seems like something is shifting and that we're at a precipitous moment: UFO talk is no longer confined to the conspiratorial fringes. With hearings on Capitol Hill, former government officials using the phrase “non-human intelligence,” physicists like Bob Lazar testifying about retrieved anti-gravity craft that he was allegedly ordered to reverse manufacture, and Barack Obama making a coy remark about “objects in the skies,” it feels less ridiculous to ask whether the 9,000 people who pass through this conference over the weekend are delusional, or simply early to the party.
The decades-old movement to force “disclosure” — the release of all the alleged classified evidence documenting alien contact with earth, though it's also used to describe the movement that believes in alien life — dates back to 1947, when the U.S. military said it had recovered a “flying disk” in Roswell, New Mexico. These days, it is reaching unprecedented heights, and the crowded expo hall strikes me as what an Area 51 hanger might look like if half of Sedona moved in.
This is what disclosure looks like in 2026 — part revival meeting, part Comic-Con, part political rally. In the lobby, I meet a blonde woman who is pushing her rabbit in a buggy. “His name is Bunny,” she tells me. “He's disabled.” Beside her, a bearded man shakes a maraca and blows a didgeridoo into the chest of another man, sporting a shiny purple shirt, as he closes his eyes and smiles. For what it's worth, it does look extremely relaxing.
Related Content
Obama Denies Knowledge of Extraterrestrial Contact But Says Aliens Are ‘Real'
Spencer Pratt, ‘The Hills' Reality TV Star, Makes a Run for L.A. Mayor
MusiCares Distributes $15 Million to Help Los Angeles Music Community Rebuild After Fires
Tyler, the Creator Postpones Camp Flog Gnaw As L.A. Braces for ‘Atmospheric Rain Torrential Downpour'
Mauve curtains separate vendors who hawk $300 group seances, $222 “starseed activations,” $110 tarot card readings, and $69 “mantis psychic channeled readings” from a man wearing a preying mantis outfit and headpiece who will hold your hands intently for much of the 20-minute session. (Access to the conference is $125 for the weekend and $60-plus for each keynote and panel, unless you buy a “Platinum All Access” ($785) or “Diamond VIP Experience” pass ($1,111.) A Saturday night ayahuasca ceremony is also being offered by a scruffy neoshaman, with other psychedelic plants like San Pedro cacti never far away either.
“We have been visited for many, many millenia, and we have to move forwards in our lives as a way to progress our existence as a species,” Keith Seland, a ufologist with a thick chevron moustache, tells me at his booth. He's selling copies of his books, including the 2020 Humaniverse Guide to First Contact with ET.
Meanwhile, an 84-year-old man who legally named himself Jesus Christ roams freely in his white dhoti, somehow weaving between the masses who bump into each other with alarming frequency. “We're all one,” he tells me.
Along another aisle, Natalie Walter, also known as Naya Cosmic, has a colorful booth where she offers quantum healing upgrades and “light language activations.” That is to say that she can “channel” an alien language which might help others “remember” that they can also speak it. “It started with recurring dreams of these blue beings that I had as a child,” she recalls, wearing a forehead chain with a moonstone resting atop her mythological third eye. “And then five years ago, they came to me in Sedona, where they actually put a blue light right through my crown chakra and all of a sudden I could do the healing with my hands.” (Someone walks past and, eyeing Walter, says to her friend, “She's Lemurian, I can tell.”)
From afar I spot Dick Russell, a New York Times-bestselling author who penned the 2023 biography The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a Truth Warrior. His forthcoming book is titled They're Here!: UFOs, UAPs, and US. “There's a consensus that ‘first contact' is not far away,” he tells me later over email.
In another conference room, Adam Apollo, a self-described planetary steward and “sexual healing” expert is giving a talk on “Galactic Spiritual Tech,” donning exercise mitts and parachute pants. Adam and Apollo are indeed his real names — his hippy parents were astrology enthusiasts — though he keeps his surname private for security reasons.
He provides a compelling tale of an ET encounter which he says took place at Burning Man in 2005. “Even though I was totally sober, when you meet an ET being and they start blasting into your mind with telepathy, you kind of wonder, ‘Was there something in my drink?'” Later, as he relaxed on the playa, he delved into the recesses of his mind, where he met “the whole Galactic Council” and exactly 73 ambassadors of different interplanetary species. He also had time to visit sex temples in Petra, an ancient city in Jordan. “I started to see and remember all of these things,” he tells the crowd, including when a Pleiadian priestess helped save his crew after his starship got stranded during the “Orion wars.”
These far-out experiences convinced him that reality is not only a “holographic matrix field,” he says, slipping into a Gandalf-like British accent he uses for emphasis, but one inhabited by beings from other star systems. “They're your family.”
Next up is Stephen Bassett, who in 1996 became the first and only registered UFO lobbyist on K Street, fighting through his advocacy organization Paradigm Research Group to end what he saw as the government-imposed truth embargo. The sci-fi buff and former tennis pro first became convinced that there has been “contact” after reading 1994's bestseller Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens by John Mack, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard psychiatrist. In 2021, Bassett was vindicated when it emerged that the Pentagon ran a secret UFO program.
“A rumor has been spreading worldwide … that Donald Trump has already planned a speech for disclosure and plans to give it on July 8,” Bassett says, wearing a dark suit in a basement conference room next to a section of the expo known as “The Rabbit Hole.” Stephen Spielberg's new film Disclosure Day, which features crop circles and aliens speaking through Emily Blunt, is set to come out June 12, and could set up Trump's coming revelations nicely, Bassett adds. “People love aliens, they really do.”
Back in the ballroom where the opening ceremony was held, shock-jock panel host Jimmy Church says disclosure is “our fundamental right” and that we deserve “to know who our brothers and sisters are.” The roomful of attendees, including a lady wearing fluffy black Uggs, a guy with a purple lotus dyed into his hair, and an elderly gentleman who is furiously petting his cockapoo, naturally exclaim, “Yes!” and clap.
At a “Secret Technologies” panel, an all-star cast of experts and conspiracy theorists including Robert Edward Grant (926,000 followers on Instagram) and Billy Carson (1.7 million) explain how suppressed alien objects could transform our understanding of reality. And then the claims get even more wild. “We homo sapiens are the product of genetic manipulation by at least three extraterrestrial civilizations going back at least 14,000 years,” Linda Moulton Howe, a veteran journalist wearing narrow rim glasses who runs the popular Earthflies YouTube channel, tells the ballroom. “If we have worldwide animal mutilations, it might have something to do with sustaining the lives of these beings. And essentially we are being harvested.” She also asks how many of the “non-humans” are in collaboration with China. Another speaker interjects that they could be “arming” Russia, too, in an extraterrestrial colonization tactic likened to “the deadliest Mexican standoff.”
But, never fear, with the correct understanding of how to coexist through diplomacy, we might be able to live in peace with the coming ETs, according to Daniel Sheehan, a dapper lawyer in a cream suit who filed the landmark 1986 federal civil racketeering lawsuit over the Iran-Contra affair before pivoting to UFOs. He is giving a sparsely attended Saturday afternoon talk on what he describes as the “incremental disclosure of information concerning ET civilizations” since 2017, including “at least five species of highly intelligent ETs” and those who are in attendance give him a hero's welcome. He claims that ETs have been in contact with U.S. officials since at least 1964.
“We're going to have to start preparing how to become part of a galactic civilization,” he tells the small crowd. Sheehan wears a wry smile as he holds a copy of December's National Defense Authorization Act, which compels the Pentagon to be more transparent about any UFO interceptions. “Disclosure is blowing up, as it should be.”
And so if disclosure is coming, whose interpretation should we give the most credence? The line for the weekend's crowning event on Sunday begins forming a few hours before the doors open at 8 p.m. Medium Daryl Anka claims to have channeled a multidimensional being known as Bashar for over 40 years, developing a fervent cult following in the process. The room is jam packed with more than 400 people and dozens are left milling around outside, disappointed.
Anka, who looks like a cross between the British occultist Aleister Crowley and Kojak star Telly Savalas, eventually takes the stage wearing a T-shirt which says “2027: The Year Everything Changes.” He sits down, closes his eyes, clears his throat, and twitches. I find myself holding my breath. Many start to film him with their phones. Anka breathes as if he is about to cough up a furball, and then greets the audience to whoops and cheers. “You may find yourself being very surprised at how quickly things will synchronistically begin to appear in your reality,” he says in an accent that sounds like Siri crossbred with a desert prophet.
One audience member asks how she can best utilize the information about ETs which has already been made available. “Until open contact,” Anka says, “the idea is to follow what we have shared with you, what we call the formula, to prepare yourself, to raise your frequency, to be synchronistically, exactly where you need to be when you need to be there to receive the information and the guidance that you will need to move forward in life after open contact.”
He tells the audience that “hybrid children” are already among us, that the mythological sasquatch is “the natural-evolved species on the planet” and that humans are “quantum jumping all the time.” A lady next to me ums and ahs with appreciation at each imparting of information. It's her sixth time seeing Anka become Bashar live, she says.
Trending Stories
'SNL': Women's Hockey Gold Medalists Stick It to Trump
'SNL' Weekend Update Uses Trump's Own Words Against Him on Iran War
MAGA Reacts to Trump's Strikes on Iran: ‘Absolutely Disgusting and Evil'
'SNL': Watch Mumford & Sons Perform 'Rubber Band Man,' 'Here'
Then, weirdly, as the talk comes to a close, I attempt to post an Instagram story of Anka, and my brand new iPhone switches itself off. There isn't much time to dwell on whether something in the room has meddled with my phone's battery, and we're shepherded out into the corridor where merch stands have been hastily erected, selling Bashar T-shirts, posters and “first contact” crystals.
Very few people are waiting for a UFO to land on the White House lawn, but disclosure isn't just about government files either. In a disillusioned country and a world-at-large that feels more atomized and at war with itself than in recent memory, there is a longing to believe that the story of humanity has cosmic authors, and that they might finally reveal themselves. In an era where politics feels surreal and technology behaves like magic, it might not be the unlikeliest scenario. As I step outside into the LAX traffic, I'm oddly comforted that the sky is empty save from a passing airplane, but I can't help but think there might be more out there.
We want to hear it. Send us a tip using our anonymous form.
Rolling Stone is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2026 Rolling Stone, LLC. All rights reserved.
Get the latest FREE edition of Grants Pass Tribune.
By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.
If you are searching for something unusual on Oregon's spring calendar, McMinnville once again offers an experience that leans fully into the strange.
The 26th annual UFO Fest is set to take place in McMinnville, transforming the Yamhill County community into a gathering point for those intrigued by unidentified aerial phenomena, government secrecy claims, and the cultural legacy of one of Oregon's most famous photographs. The event, hosted in partnership with McMenamins and centered around the historic Hotel Oregon and surrounding downtown venues, has grown into one of the most recognizable UFO-themed festivals in the country.
This year's speaker lineup includes the return of filmmaker and investigative journalist Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell. Corbell is scheduled to appear on Friday, May 15 at 7 p.m., where he will conduct a live, on-stage conversation with a guest described by organizers as a sworn government whistleblower who has recently testified before Congress regarding UAP, or unidentified anomalous phenomena.
According to event materials, the guest will be making their first public appearance outside of official proceedings. Organizers characterize the appearance as a candid discussion about UAP-related knowledge, the personal impact of disclosure, and the professional and personal consequences that can follow high-profile testimony. Promotional information describes the evening as a focused, one-night interview format intended to give attendees a deeper look at the realities faced by individuals who step forward with claims involving classified programs and national security matters.
While UFO Fest has always featured an element of spectacle, the speaker series has become a central draw. A UAP Pass grants access to all scheduled presentations as well as a question-and-answer forum, offering attendees an opportunity to engage directly with speakers. Organizers encourage early ticket purchases, noting that past presentations have sold out.
The event itself blends the serious and the playful. Over the years, UFO Fest has become known not only for lectures and panel discussions but also for costumed parades, themed vendors, and a citywide embrace of extraterrestrial imagery. Storefronts and venues participate in decorating contests, and visitors often arrive in elaborate alien-inspired attire. The festival's longevity suggests that Oregon's appetite for the offbeat remains strong.
McMinnville's connection to UFO lore traces back decades, anchored by a well-known photograph taken near the city in 1950 that continues to spark debate. The annual festival grew from that legacy and has since evolved into a broader exploration of the unexplained, drawing enthusiasts, skeptics, researchers, and the simply curious.
For residents of Southern Oregon and beyond, the festival represents a different kind of weekend getaway. Rather than coastal drives or mountain hikes, UFO Fest offers a dive into conversations about secrecy, disclosure, and the boundaries between science, speculation, and belief. Whether attendees arrive seeking answers or simply a memorable experience, the gathering underscores Oregon's reputation for embracing the unconventional.
As May approaches, McMinnville prepares once again to host a crowd willing to entertain big questions about what might be in the skies above. For those looking to experience the unique, the weird, and the undeniably odd, UFO Fest promises a community event unlike any other on the state's calendar.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The past week in Oregon politics has been defined by a convergence of fiscal challenges,…
Three years after Oregon voters narrowly approved one of the most consequential firearm regulations in…
Residents of Grants Pass will have an opportunity to hear directly from two of the…
Republican candidate Ben Fisher has announced his bid for Oregon House District 18, entering the…
Get the latest FREE digital version of the Grants Pass Tribune.
By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.
Get the latest FREE digital version of the Grants Pass Tribune.
By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.
Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.
We've seen shows set among the living and ones set in the world of the dead, but what about the limbo in between? Usually, this sweet spot is tackled through the medium of ghosts, like in Ghosts or School Spirits, but in 2003, Showtime reminded us of another class of supernatural creatures that could inhabit this liminal space: grim reapers. While TV shows about ghosts find the characters often wafting around purposelessly, trying to uncover unresolved issues that prevent them from passing over, Dead Like Me follows characters who are roped into a bureaucratic afterlife that burdens them with assignments and quotas. Program creator Bryan Fuller's two-season supernatural comedy delivers the gloomiest, coziest, and funniest version of the afterlife, making for the perfect comfort watch.
Dead Like Me follows the listless and sardonic George (Ellen Muth), a young adult who argues with her family and despises her new job at a temp agency. But soon enough, she is relieved from the drudgery of Seattle life by way of a flaming toilet seat from outer space that precisely hits her. Unfortunately, it is not nirvana that awaits her on the other side, but another corporate position of a grim reaper. She is unwillingly allocated the role and must collect souls once they reach death while reaching an unspecified quota, all under the reluctant mentorship of Rube (Mandy Patinkin), a senior grim reaper.
The most famous example of the afterlife manifesting as a bureaucratic organization is in The Good Place, where humans tallied points to be assigned to either the Good or Bad place, with angels working the system on desks like clergymen. More recently, The Bondsman delivered a similar structure but with hell, because what could be more hellish than the soul-sucking monotony of a 9-to-5? Dead Like Me is a precursor to this popular format, and it's easy to see the appeal in the visceral melancholy of conceding to unexplained orders from the upper levels you have no communication with, mixed with the dark comedy that arises from the irony of such an ambiguous state having such rigid structures.
Giving retail hell a new meaning.
In Dead Like Me, Rube leads the group of grim reapers and receives orders from the top via yellow sticky notes with the first initial, last name, time, and address of when a soul needs to be collected. Every morning, he hands out assignments, and the reapers learn to accept his process without question, even as some of the cases are more heartbreaking than others. From collecting children's souls to questioning whether someone deserves death, the show is filled with moral ambiguities and morbidity. The trick is that no one overtly crosses the line between good and evil; these are normal people who simply face the end of their time, making for some sobering scenes in the series.
Among the show's exploration of life and death is a comedic, offbeat atmosphere, which shouldn't come as a surprise, since George dies via flying toilet seat. Unfortunately for George, death doesn't mean she can shirk off her living responsibilities, because in Dead Like Me, grim reapers also need to pay rent and bills. George hilariously balances her new gut-wrenching job with the mundane routine of her temp agency one, while also dealing with the various personalities of the grim reapers, from the no-nonsense Roxy (Jasmine Guy), whose death was rooted in betrayal, to the unpredictable Mason (Callum Blue), who died by drilling a hole into his head while chasing a high. They're a mismatched group who guarantee laughs at every corner of this binge.
Most of the coziness and friction in Dead Like Me stems from George and Rube's student-mentor relationship, one that forms the beating heart of the show. Muth and Patinkin are incredible scene-partners, as their effortless banter, even when Rube's eye twitches at George's indolence, is easy to get lost in. They are constantly butting heads, but their relationship is reliable, especially as it grows into mutual respect and understanding. Their bond often relieves the tension of darker themes, like whenever George confronts the bitter reality of watching her family mourn her death or try to move on by selling her possessions. Despite all the animosity she holds towards him, she finds refuge in his quietude and wisdom, making for an ever-watchable calm-chaos duo.
Dead Like Me is a show where life doesn't start until after death. It beautifully balances the gravity of tackling mortality with a comical tone, featuring oddball characters and a distinct coziness. With only two seasons, this criminally forgotten show makes for a comforting weekend binge, one that somehow renders death both grim and feel-good, even if the corporate grind doesn't quit in limbo.
We want to hear from you! Share your opinions in the thread below and remember to keep it respectful.
Your comment has not been saved
This thread is open for discussion.
Be the first to post your thoughts.
Subscribe Now! Get features like
Hollywood icon Jim Carrey has sparked a flurry of reactions on social media after making a rare public appearance in Paris. The actor recently graced the stage at the 51st César Awards, where he was honoured, but it was his look that truly grabbed attention. Fans across social media were quick to comment on his transformation, with several noting that he looked almost unrecognisable.
Jim raised eyebrows after he was filmed in a rare red-carpet interview at the French film awards, which left many questioning his unrecognisable appearance, with some wondering if he had gone under the knife and others going so far as to suggest the footage was of an impersonator.
The 64-year-old Canadian-American actor was awarded the lifetime achievement Cesar d'honneur at the 51st Cesar Awards in Paris on Thursday. After taking to the stage, Jim delivered an emotional acceptance speech honouring his father and speaking entirely in French. “How was my French? Almost mediocre, right?” Jim joked at the end.
But he had fans scratching their heads after a video of him on the red carpet after the ceremony circulated on social media. Jim was dressed in a black tuxedo with long black hair.
In the video, the actor who played The Mask looked unrecognisable to some fans, who insisted he had undergone plastic surgery or had been replaced by an impostor. “It was just a brilliant evening. A really brilliant evening,” Jim told reporters as he held the award.
A post shared by Ashley | Truth & Tradition 🇺🇸 (@truthandtradition_023)
“No way this is the real Jim,” one person commented on the video, with another sharing, “That's not him. Jim Carrey's always had brown eyes prominent brown eyes. This is the worst impersonation ever.”
Another fan commented: "You can't even recognize him anymore."
“Must have had a lot of work done to his face. Looks very different,” one comment read. Another shared, “I'm no conspiracy theorist but that's not Jim Carrey.”
One confused fan wrote, “Must have had a lot of work done to his face. Looks very different”, with one wondering, “Man, he looks different! Hasn't been in the public eye for a while', 'Is he turning into Bill Maher? He looks… different.”
'I'm no conspiracy theorist, but that's not Jim Carrey,' commented another.
His recent public appearance is his first this year. The last time he made a public appearance was in November 2025 for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony. Jim is known for starring in projects such as The Mask, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Liar Liar, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
After a four‑year hiatus from major film roles, Jim resurfaced in 2020 as the mischief‑making Dr. Robotnik in Sonic the Hedgehog. In April 2022, while promoting Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Jim surprised reporters by admitting he was 'probably' stepping away from acting. Jim returned as Dr. Robotnik for Sonic the Hedgehog 3 last year. He is set to reprise his role as Dr. Robotnik in Sonic 4, scheduled for release in 2027.
Sugandha Rawal has been writing about entertainment and lifestyle for over 13 years, and if there's one thing that's kept her going, it's a genuine love for storytelling. She completed her graduation in Journalism from the University of Delhi and went on to earn her Master of Media from IP University. Beginning her career in the fast-paced environment of news wire reporting, she learned the art of accuracy, speed, and storytelling under pressure. She later expanded her horizons in print journalism, where she honed her feature-writing skills and developed a keen eye for detail and narrative depth. These days, she's firmly rooted in digital journalism, adapting and evolving with a media landscape that never sits still. Over the years, Sugandha has covered everything from Bollywood and celebrity culture to wellness trends and lifestyle shifts. She enjoys spotting the drama behind headlines, the emotion behind interviews, and the details that others might miss. When she is not chasing the latest entertainment update or lifestyle trend, you will find her observing the cultural shifts that shape the stories we consume every day.Read More
President Donald Trump said he would order agencies to release records on aliens and UFOs.
The Feb. 19 Truth Social post came after Trump criticized former President Barack Obama for saying on a podcast he thinks aliens exist despite having never seen them. The comments drew a lot of attention, and Obama later clarified his belief was based on statistics, but he never saw evidence during his presidency.
Trump criticized Obama for the comments and accused him of giving classified information, saying, "he's not supposed to be doing that." But then Trump posted on Truth Social that he would direct agencies to release government records on "alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters."
Trump's second term has been filled with splashy document disclosures, from classified documents on the murder of President John F. Kennedy to the release of millions of documents on the investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Interest in life in outer space is nothing new, Congress has convened a few times to discuss the possibility of UFOs in the last few years. In fact, former President Joe Biden signed legislation to release some of it. Here is what to know:
A provision in a 2023 bill passed and signed by Biden required the National Archives and Records Administration to establish a collection of government documents about UAPs. (The UAP term is a relatively new one that more broadly defines mysterious objects sighted in not just the sky, but also near or under the water.)
It was included in an annual defense policy bill, but didn't quite have the juice that some lawmakers had sought in order to demand greater transparency around reports of strange crafts whizzing through U.S. airspace and outmaneuvering the military. Plus, the executive branch has up to 25 years within a record's creation to make it public.
The bipartisan legislation was sponsored by top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York, who had hoped to establish a process that could ultimately reveal to the public what the government knows about the existence of any non-human intelligences on Earth. The legislation was co-sponsored by three Republican and two Democratic senators.
Under the law, the National Archives must also gather information about "technologies of unknown origin and nonhuman intelligence." While that sounded like a promising move toward transparency, the measure still empowers various government agencies to keep records classified.
If a president determines that the public release of certain records would pose a threat to U.S. intelligence operations and military defense, declassification could be postponed under language in the bill. However, the potential harm of releasing the records must outweigh the public interest of disclosure, according to the legislation.
When asked how Trump's directive would be different than what is laid out in the law, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump is more transparent than Biden, and "stay tuned!"
The National Archives began releasing some records in late April 2025 related to reports of UFOs.
You can see what has been made available here on the National Archives website.
Trump's call for more documents to be released came about five months after a slate of witnesses last testified under oath to Congress about strange flying craft they claim can outmaneuver U.S. military vehicles.
The four witnesses who testified Sept. 9, 2025, discussed their own first-hand experiences of seeing what they believed were UAP, as well as their knowledge of what the federal government may be unlawfully shielding from lawmakers about the phenomena.
The hearing was the third in as many years in the halls of Congress since fiery testimony in July 2023 reignited public fascination in UFOs – as well as the possibility that extraterrestrials are piloting them. Across the three hearings, several witnesses – including journalists and high-ranking military members – have testified about shadowy military programs to retrieve and study not only interstellar alien spacecraft, but the extraterrestrial pilots themselves.
The hearings have often spurred calls from advocates and lawmakers alike for transparency. Legislation is in the works that would compel the federal government to release more information about what has been uncovered.
Contributing: Zac Anderson
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at KCrowley@usatodayco.com. Follow her onX (Twitter),Bluesky andTikTok.
President Donald Trump said he would order agencies to release records on aliens and UFOs.
The Feb. 19 Truth Social post came after Trump criticized former President Barack Obama for saying on a podcast he thinks aliens exist despite having never seen them. The comments drew a lot of attention, and Obama later clarified his belief was based on statistics, but he never saw evidence during his presidency.
Trump criticized Obama for the comments and accused him of giving classified information, saying, "he's not supposed to be doing that." But then Trump posted on Truth Social that he would direct agencies to release government records on "alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters."
Trump's second term has been filled with splashy document disclosures, from classified documents on the murder of President John F. Kennedy to the release of millions of documents on the investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Interest in life in outer space is nothing new, Congress has convened a few times to discuss the possibility of UFOs in the last few years. In fact, former President Joe Biden signed legislation to release some of it. Here is what to know:
A provision in a 2023 bill passed and signed by Biden required the National Archives and Records Administration to establish a collection of government documents about UAPs. (The UAP term is a relatively new one that more broadly defines mysterious objects sighted in not just the sky, but also near or under the water.)
It was included in an annual defense policy bill, but didn't quite have the juice that some lawmakers had sought in order to demand greater transparency around reports of strange crafts whizzing through U.S. airspace and outmaneuvering the military. Plus, the executive branch has up to 25 years within a record's creation to make it public.
The bipartisan legislation was sponsored by top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York, who had hoped to establish a process that could ultimately reveal to the public what the government knows about the existence of any non-human intelligences on Earth. The legislation was co-sponsored by three Republican and two Democratic senators.
Under the law, the National Archives must also gather information about "technologies of unknown origin and nonhuman intelligence." While that sounded like a promising move toward transparency, the measure still empowers various government agencies to keep records classified.
If a president determines that the public release of certain records would pose a threat to U.S. intelligence operations and military defense, declassification could be postponed under language in the bill. However, the potential harm of releasing the records must outweigh the public interest of disclosure, according to the legislation.
When asked how Trump's directive would be different than what is laid out in the law, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump is more transparent than Biden, and "stay tuned!"
The National Archives began releasing some records in late April 2025 related to reports of UFOs.
You can see what has been made available here on the National Archives website.
Trump's call for more documents to be released came about five months after a slate of witnesses last testified under oath to Congress about strange flying craft they claim can outmaneuver U.S. military vehicles.
The four witnesses who testified Sept. 9, 2025, discussed their own first-hand experiences of seeing what they believed were UAP, as well as their knowledge of what the federal government may be unlawfully shielding from lawmakers about the phenomena.
The hearing was the third in as many years in the halls of Congress since fiery testimony in July 2023 reignited public fascination in UFOs – as well as the possibility that extraterrestrials are piloting them. Across the three hearings, several witnesses – including journalists and high-ranking military members – have testified about shadowy military programs to retrieve and study not only interstellar alien spacecraft, but the extraterrestrial pilots themselves.
The hearings have often spurred calls from advocates and lawmakers alike for transparency. Legislation is in the works that would compel the federal government to release more information about what has been uncovered.
Contributing: Zac Anderson
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at KCrowley@usatodayco.com. Follow her onX (Twitter),Bluesky andTikTok.
President Donald Trump said he would order agencies to release records on aliens and UFOs.
The Feb. 19 Truth Social post came after Trump criticized former President Barack Obama for saying on a podcast he thinks aliens exist despite having never seen them. The comments drew a lot of attention, and Obama later clarified his belief was based on statistics, but he never saw evidence during his presidency.
Trump criticized Obama for the comments and accused him of giving classified information, saying, "he's not supposed to be doing that." But then Trump posted on Truth Social that he would direct agencies to release government records on "alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters."
Trump's second term has been filled with splashy document disclosures, from classified documents on the murder of President John F. Kennedy to the release of millions of documents on the investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Interest in life in outer space is nothing new, Congress has convened a few times to discuss the possibility of UFOs in the last few years. In fact, former President Joe Biden signed legislation to release some of it. Here is what to know:
A provision in a 2023 bill passed and signed by Biden required the National Archives and Records Administration to establish a collection of government documents about UAPs. (The UAP term is a relatively new one that more broadly defines mysterious objects sighted in not just the sky, but also near or under the water.)
It was included in an annual defense policy bill, but didn't quite have the juice that some lawmakers had sought in order to demand greater transparency around reports of strange crafts whizzing through U.S. airspace and outmaneuvering the military. Plus, the executive branch has up to 25 years within a record's creation to make it public.
The bipartisan legislation was sponsored by top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York, who had hoped to establish a process that could ultimately reveal to the public what the government knows about the existence of any non-human intelligences on Earth. The legislation was co-sponsored by three Republican and two Democratic senators.
Under the law, the National Archives must also gather information about "technologies of unknown origin and nonhuman intelligence." While that sounded like a promising move toward transparency, the measure still empowers various government agencies to keep records classified.
If a president determines that the public release of certain records would pose a threat to U.S. intelligence operations and military defense, declassification could be postponed under language in the bill. However, the potential harm of releasing the records must outweigh the public interest of disclosure, according to the legislation.
When asked how Trump's directive would be different than what is laid out in the law, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump is more transparent than Biden, and "stay tuned!"
The National Archives began releasing some records in late April 2025 related to reports of UFOs.
You can see what has been made available here on the National Archives website.
Trump's call for more documents to be released came about five months after a slate of witnesses last testified under oath to Congress about strange flying craft they claim can outmaneuver U.S. military vehicles.
The four witnesses who testified Sept. 9, 2025, discussed their own first-hand experiences of seeing what they believed were UAP, as well as their knowledge of what the federal government may be unlawfully shielding from lawmakers about the phenomena.
The hearing was the third in as many years in the halls of Congress since fiery testimony in July 2023 reignited public fascination in UFOs – as well as the possibility that extraterrestrials are piloting them. Across the three hearings, several witnesses – including journalists and high-ranking military members – have testified about shadowy military programs to retrieve and study not only interstellar alien spacecraft, but the extraterrestrial pilots themselves.
The hearings have often spurred calls from advocates and lawmakers alike for transparency. Legislation is in the works that would compel the federal government to release more information about what has been uncovered.
Contributing: Zac Anderson
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at KCrowley@usatodayco.com. Follow her onX (Twitter),Bluesky andTikTok.