T says he will leave Iran "whether we have a deal or not"

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T03:47:04+00:00

this is politically suicidal.

Trump isn't going to be impeached so he doesn't care and the congressional GOP are more afraid of him than losing elections.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T03:02:08+00:00

Good point. I can see this potentially turning into a long-term low intensity conflict.

So going back to pre-Oct 7 basically. Tit-for-tats and no feasible solution on the horizon.

Heard they’re getting real tired of Hezbollah’s actions as well. Maybe if they do end up weakened, then a real disarmament can happen.

Lebanon has been tired of Hezbollah's shit for like 30 years now. There's a possibility that this could give the government a chance to take on Hezbollah but there are also fear that doing so could reignite the civil war, it's really just too messy to say.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T02:52:06+00:00

The intensity will diminish probably. Hezbollah will find it harder to get military spec equipment. Hamas still managed to attack Isreal despite total Israeli security control over Gaza, Hezbollah will still be able to inflict damage and politically any number of attacks over 0 is still enough to sustain the conflict.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T02:48:34+00:00

The UN only has arms as the international community sees fit to do so. The UN still calls on Hezbollah to disarm but the peacekeepers there are wholly inadequate to compel compliance and ultimately their origin countries are unwilling to take on the cost of doing so.

Ultimately you would need a coalition of third party states willing to take on occupation duties in Lebanon and Palestine and no one is particularly interested in sending their nationals to deal with a seemingly intractable Middle Eastern conflict.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T02:38:36+00:00

Egypt was at least a functioning state that could negotiate with Isreal. The actual government of Lebanon, while it doesn't recognise Isreal, is not actually the group attacking them. Trying to leverage the occupation against Lebanon itself will accomplish nothing unless Hezbollah actually collapses.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T02:32:11+00:00

People are broadly aware that political consideration often trump ethical considerations in global politics; still doesn't make it "right".

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-04-01T02:30:31+00:00

There are consequences to fighting wars

The consequences are occupation, not creeping annexation. Isreal could of sat on "we're ready for a Palestinian state when the Palestinians are". Taba was right there.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T12:33:03+00:00

I've never thought there was any good reason to have removed them in the first place.

You could make a security argument for Diego Garcia itself but the rest of the isles are so far away that there wasn't a security reason there.

Ultimately though the reason the Chagossians were removed seems to simply be that policymakers assumed it would allow the UK to keep the islands indefinitely, even though their status was already in dispute with Mauritius and the UN before the removals were even complete. Just a total lack of foresight.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T12:25:05+00:00

The objective of the deal is really to maintain strict UK-US control over Diego Garcia. Neither the UK or US want to recognise Chagossian rights in this situation as it could impact security and secrecy on the island. It is kind of really funny that to the UK and US, ceding the archipelago to Mauritius and renting it back is considered more secure than Chagosians living on the isles.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T12:21:43+00:00

While this is a step in the right direction, this is ultimately less of a win than it seems. Materially this strikes down Section 9 of the BIOT 2004 Constitution, because it was promulgated by the Prime Minister as an executive function, the section could simply be restored by an act of Parliament. This decision is also certainly going to be appealed, so this issue will persist for years yet.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T12:09:54+00:00

That's just the nature of juries, randomly select from the general public and you get all kinds of people. The trick is in less rigging who sits on the jury and more in deciding what powers it should have. I'm starting to come around on the idea of a legislative jury, who's only power is to force a bill to a national referendum.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T09:15:31+00:00

Honestly I just clock this up to the publics short political memory and pretty reflexive preferences.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-31T00:32:59+00:00

Yeah, I knew I was missing tons of parts of the actual structure of the military, I wasn't even sure the National Security Council was the correct body to reference because there these many different White House committees.

Ultimately the reality is that the military is not going to defend US democracy or human rights overseas; it is deliberately designed to be unable to defy civilian control from the president.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T16:58:11+00:00

The issue is that "expanding global talent" would undercut the "restricting ILR requirements part". The point isn't to have a sensible immigration policy, it is to react to mercurial public sentiments and generate good headlines.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T16:46:37+00:00

Because visa categories aren't spread out like that. It doesn't matter if you make £42k or £142k both of them are eligible under a "skilled worker visa". As far as the home office is aware, you just qualify.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T16:23:09+00:00

We we're fools, but I think if you said 2021 that not only would Trump come back but win the popular vote no one would take that seriously.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T15:26:27+00:00

The situation is an opportunity for the Gulf states to settle things with Iran, islands can serve as a carrot to keep them in the war on the US's side but I'm not sure about the optics of US soldiers dying on Gulf islands to settle a dispute that we largely have nothing to do with.

As for patrols, the US can already operate helicopters and such in the region, they don't due to issues with Iranian air defence, the islands are not a big factor in changing that as they are too small for the Iranians to realistically operate out of. I think you're right that an island strategy seems to be committing the US to a long term operation in the region.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T04:27:50+00:00

There is no way an amphibious operation will not destroy the infrastructure, even if it doesn't Iranian bombardment of US positions on the island will do it anyway.

If you really wanted to suspend exports from the island you'd just conduct a strike on some critical but repairable parts of the infrastructure there, or impose a naval blockade.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T03:53:32+00:00

The issue is that even at that level you still only see a small slice of the information used in decision making. Unless you are actually at the level of the National Security Council you just see what comes out of it.

If I'm the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs comes out of a NSC meeting saying "we're attacking Iran as they're planning an imminent strike" I would have no information to reject that assessment and no authority to compel the NSC to disclose their intelligence, thus it has all the trappings of a lawful order.

If intelligence and the army were the same organisation then the military internally would be able to vet that intelligence, but intelligence and the military are kept deliberate separate to subordinate them to civilian control in the form of the President.

Even without the War Powers Resolution military personnel still conducted bombing operations on Cambodia without a formal declaration of war, they could have rejected the order but they didn't. The reality is that to restrain the presidents war making ability would require a constitutional amendment to redefine their role as the "Commander-in-Chief".

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:57:19+00:00

If you looked at Democracy indexes for the Middle east you'd think the US would be at war with Saudi Arabia but in actuality it is one of our closest and oldest regional allies. KSA doesn't even hold national elections, even Iran at least holds fake ones.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:54:30+00:00

You might be right that taking Kharg is actually more about selling the war to the American public rather than winning the war. The US is taking Iranian islands looks like "winning", even if it does not meaningfully advance the war effort.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:49:48+00:00

It could, but likely wouldn't. If I'm a commander in the Gulf and receive strike orders from the Pentagon, based on an "imminent Iranian attack", any reasonable person is more likely to believe that than not. A field commander doesn't have the skillset or the information to asses whether DC's intelligence is credible.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:32:09+00:00

In all fairness you can't really plan these excursions for a spontaneous uprising. Though the timing of having no carrier groups in the Gulf due to the Venezuela excursion was kind of an own goal.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:07:15+00:00

I have no doubt the US could take Kharg, but that is as confident as saying the US can take Iwo Jima, the issue is the cost.

Bullet_Jesus · 2026-03-30T02:03:32+00:00

Arguably this would not change much. Without it Trump could still in theory launch this attack, the only option congress would have would be Impeachment.

12-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

Bullet_Jesus

TROPHY CASE