Iran’s threats require regime change…

 The mere Iranian threats of closing the Strait of Hormuz is causing shipping to turn away from that two mile wide passage along the Iranian coastline.

From Zero Hedge

Two supertankers—Coswisdom Lake and South Loyalty—each capable of carrying 2 million barrels of crude, abruptly altered course in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend after U.S. stealth bomber strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. 

Sure, the US and our allies have a variety of measures that can be taken to keep the Strait open.  Here are are few, From Copilot AI:

To ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open—a vital artery for global oil and gas—the U.S. and its allies have several strategic levers they can pull, both military and diplomatic:

1. Naval Presence and Escort Operations The U.S. Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, already patrols the region. Increasing naval escorts for commercial vessels, as was done during the 1980s "Tanker War," could deter Iranian interference. Some shipping companies have already begun pausing transits or placing vessels on standby due to rising tensions.

2. International Maritime Coalition Reviving or expanding initiatives like the International Maritime Security Construct—which includes the UK, Saudi Arabia, and others—can provide a coordinated response to threats and reassure global markets.

3. Mine Countermeasures and Surveillance Deploying mine-hunting ships, drones, and surveillance aircraft can help detect and neutralize threats like sea mines or fast-attack boats, which Iran has used in the past.

4. Cyber and Electronic Warfare Readiness Iran has reportedly begun jamming GPS signals in the strait. Countering these tactics with electronic warfare capabilities and hardened navigation systems is essential to maintaining safe passage.

5. Diplomatic Pressure and Economic Leverage The U.S. has urged China to pressure Iran, given Beijing’s heavy reliance on oil that transits the strait. Multilateral diplomacy—especially involving Gulf states and Asian oil importers—can amplify the cost of Iranian escalation.

6. Alternative Export Routes While limited, allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE can reroute some oil via pipelines to bypass the strait. Expanding these capacities could reduce the global impact of a temporary disruption.

7. Clear Red Lines and Deterrence Messaging U.S. officials have warned that closing the strait would be “economic suicide” for Iran and could trigger a broad international response. Maintaining credible deterrence is key to preventing miscalculation.

The Strait of Hormuz isn’t just a regional flashpoint—it’s a global pressure valve. Keeping it open is as much about showing resolve as it is about building coalitions.

In the case of Iran approving the blockading of the Strait of Hormuz, their mere threat to block it is having the same effect as actually doing it.

Another threat as of this writing is a pending Iranian attack against US bases in the region.  If this occurs, I predict the Ayatollah's life will be short and oil production will greatly diminish. 

There are two analogies I recently read about Iran’s Islamic-driven propensities and what it takes to change them.

One is the analogy of the use of an antibiotic to eliminate a bacterial infection:  If you stop the antibiotic before the infection is eliminated, the infection will grow back stronger. 

Another is to a cancer:  If chemo is stopped too soon, the cancer will spread.

Israel's continuing actions along with the US use of the MOPs on nuke sites were the initial doses of antibiotic/chemo.  The deeper infections/cancers still drive Iran’s fundamentalist Islamic policy.

The current fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran is an infection, a cancer on the population. The treatment is far from complete.

President Trump now seems to be hinting at “regime change” for Iran.  He recognizes that fundamentalist Islam is the root that needs to be pulled out.  The leftist media only notes that there appears to be a policy split from his staff – they love to promote division.  But this is just another case of a leader leading, indicating a need to recognize new realities and adapting to those realities in real time.  His staff will follow.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374722565112

Israel/Iran Conflict: Unknown Unknowns

 Donald Rumsfeld, a Secretary of Defense of days of yore, talked about knowns, unknowns, and unknown unknowns.  I’ve puzzled over “unknown unknowns” and have concluded during my most recent puzzlings that unknown unknows are situations when you thought they were known but were dead, seriously, badly screwed up WRONG. Black swans come to mind.

There are a large number of unknowns and unknown unknowns in the Israel/Iran conflict now on the chess board.  Here is a list of a few I’ve read about and a few I’ve made up.  Consider which ones are fluff, critical, relevant, dangerous or deadly.

If Fordow is bombed by Israel: 

• Will Iran use that bombing as justification to actually build the bomb? They are threatening that now.  Unknown is do they already have the bomb; is their intent to build the bomb no matter what we do?  I say “likely” to both.
• Will that trigger intervention by China, Russia, or both? There are ongoing threats by these nations. If so, in what form, for how long and when?
• Will radiation be leaked and drift eastward into Afghanistan and worse, Pakistan?  What would the reaction of those nations and the world be?
• How effective would such bombing be?  How many of the smaller GB-28s in Israel's possession would be required to do the job?  Can the US provide more if needed?

If Fordow is bombed by the the US: 

• Would Iran use a portion of its remaining missile stockpile to strike US forces in surrounding nations?  What impact would they have?  I speculate “little” at this point of their diminished capacity and capability.
• Would the reaction of Russia and China be worse than if the bombing was conducted solely by Israel?
• Plus all of the previous list of questions.

Russia/China:

• To what extent will Russia or China come to Iran's assistance?
• What will be the trigger points?
• In what form would such assistance be?

Iranians in the US:

• How aware of Iranian sleeper cells are we?
• What kind of harm could they do?

To what extent can Iran be trusted in negotiations?  I believe “not at all”.

To what extent does Iran want to negotiate?  A lot but only as a delay tactic to reduce further attacks and to give more time to accomplish their nuclear objectives.  They are already using the potential attacks on remaining nuke sites as a form of blackmail to justify nuclear weapons development.

How many missiles does Iran have left?  And are they being resupplied by Iranian allies?

Will Iran attempt to block the straight of Hormuz?

• Conventional wisdom is that they will not because it would block their own oil exports.
• What would their means of blockade be?  Mines? Rocket attacks on shipping?
• How effective could such blockade be and how long might it last?

For how long can world opinion of Israel’s bombing of Iran be held at bay to the extent that Israel can complete its mission of destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?

Is Iran’s nuclear infrastructure so decentralized and dispersed that it can be fairly quickly reconstituted?

Regime change.

• Is it possible?
• Is it desirable?
• To what extent would the population of Iran support change?
• Would replacement result in the same, less extreme, or more extreme anti-Israel policy?
• Is there legitimate concern that a power vacuum would be created as in Libya after Ghedaffi and the nation descends into chaos? 

How long will the current level of attacks between these two nations last?

• Days, weeks, months?
• Become perpetually sporadic as in the past?
• Can or will Iran reconstitute proxies to continue and perpetuate attacks against Israel?

Will this conflict spin out of control?

• If so, when?
• Is it reversible?
• How serious?
• Will it turn nuclear?

These are a few of the knowns, unknowns, and if wrong, the unknown unknowns.  I’m certain there are literally hundreds of others that flow from these questions plus others not even on the table.

What is your opinion about these?  Can you add a few more?

Potential short term options and outcomes in Israel/Iran conflict…

 A little brainstorming, or brain farting, depending on your perspective:

A lot of potential scenarios exist with regard to the current Israel/Iran war.  The mutually acknowledged objective of Israel's attack on Iran is the elimination of Iran's current nuclear weapons development – and to set back their bomb building timeline for many years.  Fordow’s elimination is the prize.  Can Israel eliminate Fordow without use of the US MOP?  Theoretically, yes.

From Copilot AI: 

The largest penetrating bomb in Israel’s known arsenal is the GBU-28, a U.S.-made, laser-guided “bunker buster” weighing around 5,000 pounds. It was originally developed during the Gulf War to destroy deeply buried Iraqi bunkers and has since become a key part of Israel’s strike capabilities.

The GBU-28 can penetrate up to 22 feet of reinforced concrete or over 160 feet of earth, making it highly effective against fortified underground targets. Israel acquired around 100 of these bombs starting in 2005, and they’ve reportedly been used in operations targeting tunnels and hardened facilities.

However, even the GBU-28 has its limits. For example, Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility—buried deep beneath a mountain—is considered too well-protected for the GBU-28 to destroy. That’s why Israel has reportedly sought access to the much larger GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound U.S. bomb capable of reaching far deeper targets. But as of now, only the U.S. operates the aircraft capable of deploying it.

With enough GBU-28s dropped on Fordow, that site can be destroyed.  The number of these required to do the job is not publicly confirmed or many not even be known with certainty.  And the number of these bombs currently in Israel's possession is known only to Israel – and maybe the US.

But even dropping US MOPs will require several to complete the mission.

An ideal approach from the US perspective is to supply Israel with several dozen (or hundreds?)  additional GBU-28s for ISRAEL to drop on Fordow without overt US involvement.  Let Israel do the dropping.  This would avoid a lot of potential Iran blowback on US installations in the Middle East.

Alternatively, the US could bite the neighborly bullet and let our B-2’s take a few passes at Fordow.  One hour and done.

There will be consequences. Iran is likely to divert a few hundred of their remaining 1,200 missile stockpile on US positions elsewhere in the Middle East.  And Russia, who relies on Iran for a good chunk of their munitions' to continue their aspirations against Ukraine, will likely cause some trouble.

The best outcome is for Iran to come to their senses (from our perspective, not theirs) and agree to shut down their nuclear aspirations.  But the odds of their agreeing to do that in any non-deceptive way are slim to none.

The next few days will be, as they say, “veddy inn-terr-esss-ting.”

Editorial aside:  The MOP was used in Afghanistan.  I don't know how much that contributed to the overall mission...we left that theatre with our tail tucked.  Is the MOP now intended to be used only as an intimidating show piece, or are there actually good uses for it?  It seems to me that Fordow is an ideal use. But if we refrain from using it there because there might be "consequences", then it should be shuffled off to the bomb graveyard because it apparently has no use.  

Why are big cities blue and why do they tend to tolerate violence?

 If there is ever another civil war in the United States, it will be between the largest urban areas versus the rest of us.

Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, and Baltimore are the first to come to mind.

Based on a combination of my own insights and a little help of AI, here is why the largest cities tend blue, leftist, progressive, and have major, pardon the expression, large shit-hole neighborhoods, enclaves, ghettos, and radical elements.

1.  Business and commerce have thrived in compact urban environments due to close proximity of supporting resources.  This is in the process of change with new communications technologies that help disperse businesses, but the benefit of close proximity is the primary cause for the large size of cities we now have.

2. The large, dense populations require more infrastructure, regulations, and services to meet the demands of the larger population.  This means larger budgets and much higher taxes.

3. The increases in population and building densities cause property values to skyrocket, increasing housing and other building costs.

4.  More services and more taxes require more social services and still higher taxes in an endless cycle of more services and higher taxes.

5. These additional social services in turn attract more people in need of these social services, thus the outsized homeless populations.

These cities attract demographic diversity. (This part is from a left leaning AI which I temper a bit back to reality.) 

• Cities are melting pots. They attract younger, more diverse populations—ethnically, culturally, and economically. These groups often support progressive policies on immigration, civil rights, and social services.

• Educational Attainment: Urban areas typically have higher concentrations of college-educated residents, who statistically lean more liberal on social and environmental issues.

• Economic Structure: Cities are hubs for industries like tech, media, education, and the arts—sectors that often foster progressive values and prioritize innovation, inclusion, and regulation over deregulation.

No! Diversity is NOT our strength.  It occasionally has some narrow benefits, but it is not a strength.  Melting pots?  Not so much nowadays.  The incompatibles and radicals increasingly want to spread their jaded joy to the rest of the population.

True, there are more left-wing college-indoctrinated specialists in cities.  This education might further their chosen profession, but socially, morally and politically they have been trained to become morons.

Economically, cities tend much more toward socialism and regulation, over-whelming any perceived sense of innovation or individual freedoms. 

This brings me to the question:  Why do large cities tend to tolerate lawlessness, destruction, and riots?

In short:  Diversity, progressive (leftist) values, and radical influences that the cities have attracted, endorse, and fund.

The radicals are running the asylum!  Laws are for suckers.  Not for minorities, illegals, or the super-rich.  The politics of cities have been appropriated by coalitions of radicals comprised of illegals, minorities, welfare proponents, and antagonists (trouble-makers with external allegiances).  These coalitions believe that they must not be subject to traditional laws.  Those laws are for the white man – not for them.  They are the domain of ICE and the Federal Government which these radical coalitions believe are illegitimate and evil.

And that, friends, is what we have to deal with in our largest cities.  We’ll have to find ways to live with it or deal with it.  Living with it allows it to fester and grow worse.  Dealing with it will be painful.  Pick your poison.

Trump the "Don"

 “The Don is often surrounded by a close circle of trusted advisors and family members, managing alliances, rivalries, and the complex dynamics of the criminal underworld. It's a position of immense power, but one that also carries significant risks due to potential betrayal, rival conflicts, or law enforcement pressures. The title signifies the highest position of authority within the organization, with the Don overseeing all operations, making critical decisions, and maintaining order within the group.” 

MS Copilot

I voted for the Don.

But I gotta tell ya, his actions remind me of the Italian variety.

How so?

Well, for starters, the legal actions by the other “mob” previously in power, exerting “law enforcement pressures” on him.

His actions of figuratively “offing” thousands among “mob” rivals in government (as he did in business)who he feels will continue to betray his operation.

His honed skill at deal making which often involves bluster,  threats and intimidation.  His statements involving Panama, Canada and Greenland come to mind.

His laser focus on his “family” the United States, above any other nation which many consider to be in opposition to a “moral position”.

The most notorious example is his treatment of Ukraine. The analogy is the shop owner (Ukraine) who is in a financially (militarily) tough spot. He needs a loan (protection). The Don suggests sharing his (Ukraine's) profits in exchange for a very high interest loan (protection). The Don knows that this is ultimately “a deal he can’t (is in no position t0) refuse.

To throw in another analogy from nature: Ukraine is a wounded animal. There are sheep (European nations) all around him that are trying to help, but are afraid and out-muscled.  There are two hyaenas (Russia, the antagonist) and the United States, both after Ukraine for what it can offer, albeit for different reasons. The Don, in this case, is the second hyaena, who is after the spoils of Ukraine, the wounded animal. The wounded animal has little choice.

The  Don is disliked by many within his family (the United States) for what they see as the immorality of his tactics, his “style” his “tone”. The others, who support him, understand all his efforts, despite the perceived amorality and blustery style, are all being done for the good of the “family”, the United States. He promises to make everyone "rich" again.

This is the way nations survive. This is the way it is, the way it will be, and many will agree, the way it has been throughout history.

To those upset and opposed to our new President...

There is much crying and gnashing of teeth with the inauguration and long overdue actions of our newest President.

Apparently these opposers have other preferences:

* Misplaced compassion, longing for continued open borders.

* Little or no concern about the criminals entering the US, and the pouring in of deadly addictive substances, violent gangs, and human trafficking.

* Desire to ignore or embrace the mental illness of those with gender dysphoria when science and millennia of human experience tells us there are only two genders.

* Preference for rewarding less competent individuals based on color, gender, or mental confusion rather than competence or skills.

* Preference for the US to remain dependent on other nations for manufacturing, energy, and national defense rather than making our nation self-reliant and strong.

There are forces already aligning against the common sense actions of President Trump carrying out the wishes of the US electorate.  Litigation by leftists and upset special interests are already in the works.

The lack of common sense by the opposers is astounding and confounding.  Once again I can only attribute these anomalies to unseen spiritual forces hell-bent on destroying the good that this nation attempts to preserve.