Post New

He has no intention of ending the war, with the existing Iran regime in place. (because Bibi told him so)

Trump says Iran agreed to not have nuclear weapons, but ‘they can change their mind’

“I did have to say we have to do something about Iran, because regardless of how well we’re doing [economically] we can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” he said in the interview, which was published Wednesday. “They’ve already agreed they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon.”

“I mean, now they can change their mind, but that was one of the things they’ve had to agree, they’ve agreed to that. That was the big thing,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/03/trump-iran-war-nuc...

The Ayatollah issued a fatwa, decades ago, prohibiting the development of nukes.

Not good enough says Trump

Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (iircIsrael is not)

Not good enough says Trump.

Iran signed the JCPOA

Not good enough says Trump.

"they could change their mind", says treaty breaker in chief Trump, confessing the "negotiations" were nothing but a kabuki dance.

Steve

I think it's a different reason.

I don't think he's failing to end the war because Bibi told him to. I don't think he gives a rat's ass what Bibi thinks or wants, and he would sell Bibi down the river for a nickel if he thought it was in his best interests to do so.

I think it's because he's in a box where he can't get a positive outcome. Because of the opinions held by his supporters, like Dope1.

He tore up the JCPOA, and went to war with Iran even though in February they were willing to agree to a bunch of stuff, based on a core belief: Iran can never be trusted to keep their word not to pursue a nuclear weapon. That's the founding principle of his Iran policy. It's the core of his argument against the JCPOA. Of his supporters who pay any attention to Iran at all, it's the central justification for why he was right to abandon the JCPOA. That there's nothing that Iran can agree to that can be counted on.

So it doesn't matter what Bibi is telling him - there's no satisfactory way out of this. Because we're not using ground troops and the air strikes (predictably) failed to topple the regime, the war can only end with an agreement, not the unconditional surrender of Iran. But no agreement can ever be good enough, because of the founding principle discussed above. So there's nothing he can achieve that his base will accept as good enough.

He's just reaping what he's sown with his constant disparagement of the JCPOA as weak and useless, and his years of persuading his supporters that there was a better arrangement to be had. He F'd Around, and now he's Found Out....that he was wrong, and there wasn't really any materially better deal to be had from the Iranians. And that we didn't really have any way to force the Iranians into a better deal using military power. That in this situation, going out there and "tuning up" Iran wasn't going to get us what we wanted.

Trump never admits he lost and frequently doubles down. That's why the war hasn't ended. Not because Trump cares about Bibi.

I don't think he's failing to end the war because Bibi told him to. I don't think he gives a rat's ass what Bibi thinks or wants, and he would sell Bibi down the river for a nickel if he thought it was in his best interests to do so.

We disagree on that point. I think he is just as compromised as Congressional leadership.

He tore up the JCPOA, and went to war with Iran even though in February they were willing to agree to a bunch of stuff, based on a core belief: Iran can never be trusted

So, you agree that the months of "negotiations" have been a kabuki dance?

Of course that points to the only outcome being regime change via tipping the country into perpetual failed state civil war, or a US ground invasion, which is what Israel wants. "Bibi" says out loud his 40 year wet dream has been destroying the Iranian regime.

Notice the playbook that Bush 43 used wrt Iraq

-give up your WMDs.

Saddam-got rid of that stuff years ago.

-not good enough, surrender your WMDs

Saddam-here's reams of documentation of our program to get rid of them.

-not good enough, surrender your WMDs

Saddam-bring in the UN. they are invited to look anywhere they want.

-not good enough, surrender your WMDs

UN: Iraqi officials are cooperating. we aren't finding squat

-not good enough, surrender your WMDs, or we invade in 3...2....1

That there's nothing that Iran can agree to that can be counted on.

Or, like Iraq, 20 years ago, there is nothing that Iran can do to stand down the situation, because Trump will always dismiss everything they offer, or, as Joe Kent said, make additional demands that are intended to be "poison pills" to sabotage the talks.

And that we didn't really have any way to force the Iranians into a better deal using military power.

Or, the plan is to wait until global crude reserves run dry, and watch the price of gas escalate, until the Proles are willing to support a ground invasion, to get cheaper gas.

17D chess. Probably the only reason Trump didn't attack Iran last year, is he wanted to knock over Venezuela first, so he could profiteer off that oil too.

Kissinger would be proud.

Steve

So, you agree that the months of "negotiations" have been a kabuki dance?

No. I think Trump genuinely wants the Iranians to give him what he wants - a deal better than the JCPOA. I think he lacks the awareness to realize that he's not going to get what he wants. I think he keeps floundering around in the negotiations because of that. And also because he keeps trying to pull various levers (Another bombing! The Blockade! More threats! Send a few escorts!) thinking that they'll change the various dynamics, not realizing that they won't. So you get a prolonged negotiation that he thinks and intends will result in a satisfactory deal, and it just keeps failing.

Or, the plan is to wait until global crude reserves run dry, and watch the price of gas escalate, until the Proles are willing to support a ground invasion, to get cheaper gas.

Again, I see absolutely no reason at all that Trump would ever want that to happen. It doesn't benefit him. All of the things that are happening as a result of continued conflict with Iran are making things worse for him personally, not better. It's screwing up the deals he wants to cut with other Gulf States, it's hurting him politically and making it harder for him to get his grifts in the U.S. through (the ballroom! the lawfare fund!), and it's hurting his ego.

The plan was to get a super-quick win at low cost like he thinks he got in Venezuela. He gets to be the guy who "solved" Iran, by being brave and strong enough to do what all those milquetoast dumb p*ssy Presidents failed to do. Don't take "no" for an answer and don't cut a deal - just go in with the military and "tune them up," and they'll fall in line once they realize we're so much stronger than them. That didn't happen, so he's floundering - he has no plan for this scenario.

That's why it's not kabuki theater. This wasn't planned, and he's not doing it intentionally. He wants a win and can't get one. He doesn't have to admit a loss until the war is over. So he's keeping things unresolved and keeps negotiations going.

The Ayatollah issued a fatwa, decades ago, prohibiting the development of nukes.

Not good enough says Trump

Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (iircIsrael is not)

Not good enough says Trump.

Iran signed the JCPOA

Not good enough says Trump.

You're making the Iranians out to be saints. They're not.

Trump ripped up the JCPOA. Incidentally, why did he do it? Main reason, it was Obama's agreement. Second reason, Beeb talked him into it because Beeb fought it all along on the premise that it didn't go far enough. The only agreement good enough for Beeb is one where the Iranian regime commits suicide. Anyhow, Iran waited more than a year after Trump ripped up the agreement, and then they tore up their own copy and proceeded with a massive enrichment program to 60%, which has only one conceivable purpose - to build nuclear bombs. HEU at 60% can be further enriched to 90% within a matter of weeks. At that point no one in their right mind could trust Iran that they're NOT building a bomb. Trump of course doesn't have the skill or the patience or the credibility to embark on a new negotiation with Iran that could take years, with zero chance of a more favorable result than the JCPOA, so here we are.

As a corollary, I actually don't think Iran having a nuclear bomb is the end of the world. This nuclear arms race started with Dubya declaring the Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and then proceeding to invade Iraq. The N. Koreans and Iranians concluded that they need a nuclear deterrent to survive. N. Korea did it, and it paid off because they became untouchable. Iran wavered but certainly decided to become a threshold-nuclear power to gain leverage. Similarly, India and Pakistan both got nukes as a mutual deterrent, and it works between them. If Iran builds a bomb it will give them the same kind of deterrence, but I don't think they'll ever use it. Its main effect will be to limit Israel's and America's options in the region, and they're both willing to go to war before that happens, proving to Iran that it really needs those nukes.

That's why it's not kabuki theater. This wasn't planned, and he's not doing it intentionally. He wants a win and can't get one. He doesn't have to admit a loss until the war is over. So he's keeping things unresolved and keeps negotiations going.

I agree, but if something can't go on forever, it won't. I am struggling to see how this ends. What is the most likely outcome and alternatives?

Strait opening and sanctions lifted? Why would Trump agree?
Strait opening and sanctions not lifted? why would Iran agree?
Ground invasion?
Stays closed indefinitely?

I can only see stays closed indefinitely but I am sure I am missing something.

Aussi

That's why it's not kabuki theater. This wasn't planned, and he's not doing it intentionally. He wants a win and can't get one. He doesn't have to admit a loss until the war is over. So he's keeping things unresolved and keeps negotiations going.

Everything you wrote was spot on, up to this point.

I think Trump is desperate to get a deal. The only thing he wants out of it is to open Hormuz. Nothing else matters. He's even willing to give Iran $300 billion to make it happen. The Iranians see this "open Hormuz for $300B" transactional offer, and they know they have Trump by the balls. So why should they rush at this point? They know that every day with Hormuz closed increases their leverage, and they're going to play it for all it's worth.

I agree, but if something can't go on forever, it won't. I am struggling to see how this ends. What is the most likely outcome and alternatives?

Strait opening and sanctions lifted? Why would Trump agree?
Strait opening and sanctions not lifted? why would Iran agree?
Ground invasion?
Stays closed indefinitely?

I think "strait opening and sanctions not lifted" is the most likely outcome - but nothing as clean as that.

Ground invasion is the very least likely. There's zero appetite for Iraq 2.0 here in the U.S., and Iran's vastly bigger than Iraq. It's probably a red line for Trump's base - and given how few red lines his base has, that's really saying something. Trump doesn't have the money for that kind of operation, and he's not going to get it from this Congress.

Stays closed indefinitely is also not very likely. It's just too painful for everyone. You'd trigger a global recession, cause crippling shortages throughout Asia and some of Europe, and cause a lot of misery in the U.S. and other countries with very high petrol uses. It would be catastrophic for the other Gulf States. And that's just the oil - there's plenty of other goods that are also held up, like gas and fertilizer and helium. But most importantly, it's not Iran's ideal outcome, either. They'd prefer the Strait be open than closed. The Strait can't stay closed forever, so it won't.

So the Strait opens, with or without sanctions being lifted. It's important to remember that neither is a binary: the Strait can open in degrees, sanctions could be partially lifted, assets can get partially unfrozen, etc. I think you're right that Trump wouldn't agree to lifting all or most sanctions just to get the Strait opened, even though that's (obviously) Iran's best case scenario. But Iran probably knows that, too. If the Strait reopens in material part, it won't be with Iran getting released from sanctions altogether.

I think the more likely outcome is probably some messy, sloppy muddled tenuous arrangement. The U.S. and Iran start by letting some traffic go through - perhaps even without even admitting they're doing it much, or as just "shows of good faith" presumably in furtherance of talks, when they're ready for that to happen. Enough to calm markets and provide some relief, but not a final deal that blasts the Strait open for both sides, at first. And then that expands by degrees.

Strait opening and sanctions lifted? Why would Trump agree?
Strait opening and sanctions not lifted? why would Iran agree?
Ground invasion?
Stays closed indefinitely?

Trump declares himself the winner and walks away with no agreement, leaving Iran in control of Hormuz.

Everything you wrote was spot on, up to this point.

I think Trump is desperate to get a deal. The only thing he wants out of it is to open Hormuz. Nothing else matters.

I agree he's desperate to get a deal. I don't agree that all he wants is to open Hormuz. What he wants is a deal that he can pretend is a win.

At this point, there's a strong possibility that Trump neither cares nor knows what he wants to get out of a "win," which I think explains some of the negotiating weirdness. Trump likes trial balloons and taking the temperature of proposals directly with his target audience. He's not a polls guy or a data guy. He's a "let's try this and see what happens" guy, relying on his ability to pivot away from things. So he sends his negotiators to Iran, tells them to see what they can get - and when they get something, he floats it out to his base and sees what happens.

That's why the last proposal went down the way it did. The negotiating team came back with a proposal, Trump floated out to see what the reaction was, everyone in his base seemed to think it was a "loss" for him, so he shot it down.

I agree he wants the Strait to be open, but he also can't have that be the final outcome of the war unless and until his base is (in the main) willing to swallow that as a win. It's far more likely you get a sloppy interim phase where the Strait mostly opens but we're still just under a ceasefire, and hostilities could resume at any minute. That way he doesn't have to face questions about whether the outcome of his little "excursion" was good or bad or worth the cost - it still isn't over yet. All that gets resolved is the temporary status of the Strait.

And that might let him reach his only actual escape valve here: Someone Else To Blame. He can't win the war, so he needs to find someone else to lose the war other than him. And the best candidate for that is Congress. He's not going to get new money for the war without a winning game plan, and he's going to start losing some of those War Powers resolutions at some point. And that's the true endgame. That will allow the U.S. to exit the war with a terrible outcome but allow him to blame the Dumbocrats and the Coward Caucus for making it impossible for him to prosecute the war in the way that would win. He won't have failed, he will have been failed.

That's why it's not kabuki theater. This wasn't planned, and he's not doing it intentionally. He wants a win and can't get one. He doesn't have to admit a loss until the war is over. So he's keeping things unresolved and keeps negotiations going.

Call it confirmation bias, if you want. But Joe Kent was in the room where the deliberations were going on. He says the negotiations are fake. What he has not put together is my take that this is about enriching the oil companies, as much as serving Israel.

Here is Kent's appearance on TYT some weeks ago. His segment starts around the 1:03 mark. I listened up to the 1:20 mark, but I need to head out and get some things done, so I have not gotten to the specific part where he calls the negotiations fake. This post is as much to bookmark this video so I can return and review the rest of it later. Again, don't bother with what Cenk says. Just listen to Kent.

Joe Kent LIVE On TYT!! Trump’s Fake Negotiations Are EMBARRASSING. Ground Troops In Iran Soon?!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tygxQFwU3RI

Steve

His segment starts around the 1:03 mark. I listened up to the 1:20 mark, but I need to head out and get some things done, so I have not gotten to the specific part where he calls the negotiations fake.

Spoiler alert: he doesn't.

I pulled up the transcript. He doesn't talk about the negotiations at all. Almost all of his discussion on Iran is spent on talking about the ways he believes Israel and Netanyahu dragged us into the war, and lamenting the perfidious influence Israel has on U.S. policy. There's no discussion that the negotiations are fake by Joe Kent. Or even by the TYT staff - just an offhand comment asserting that since the negotiations aren't direct talks (the Iranians aren't in the room, back then) they're nothing more than Trump shadowboxing with himself.

Curious why the title mentions "Fake Negotiations" when there's nothing in the more than two hours of the episode about the negotiations being fake. Probably that just got the best A/B results in generating clicks.

I agree he wants the Strait to be open, but he also can't have that be the final outcome of the war unless and until his base is (in the main) willing to swallow that as a win. It's far more likely you get a sloppy interim phase where the Strait mostly opens but we're still just under a ceasefire, and hostilities could resume at any minute. That way he doesn't have to face questions about whether the outcome of his little "excursion" was good or bad or worth the cost - it still isn't over yet. All that gets resolved is the temporary status of the Strait.

And that might let him reach his only actual escape valve here: Someone Else To Blame. He can't win the war, so he needs to find someone else to lose the war other than him. And the best candidate for that is Congress. He's not going to get new money for the war without a winning game plan, and he's going to start losing some of those War Powers resolutions at some point. And that's the true endgame. That will allow the U.S. to exit the war with a terrible outcome but allow him to blame the Dumbocrats and the Coward Caucus for making it impossible for him to prosecute the war in the way that would win. He won't have failed, he will have been failed.

Yes, very plausible. It leads to the ultimate scenario that I gave - Trump declares victory, walks away with no agreement, and Iran controls Hormuz. It's a much quicker and worse strategic defeat than Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I pulled up the transcript. He doesn't talk about the negotiations at all.

Sorry to put you through that. Now that I'm back, I did more searches, as that was apparently the wrong interview.

Here's the one I was talking about...I listened to the entire 22 minutes to make sure.

From May 28. At the 1:30 mark, Kent and Ana start discussing how the reports of friction between Trump and "Bibi" are fake, for public/Iranian consumption. 3:00 Kent talks about the US putting "poison pills" in their demands to sabotage the negotiations. 3:50 negotiations are "theater", weeks have I started calling the talks a kabuki dance.

“It’s All Theater”: Trump’s Former Counterterrorism Chief on Why the Iran Peace Talks Are a Sham

https://tytnetwork.substack.com/p/its-all-theater-...

Kent and Ana also start talking about their suspicions there is something else in play, but they don't know what. My theory is that something else is profits for big oil, from the artificial constraint of supply.

Steve

Call it confirmation bias, if you want. But Joe Kent was in the room where the deliberations were going on. He says the negotiations are fake. What he has not put together is my take that this is about enriching the oil companies, as much as serving Israel.

There's a huge gap between what he wanted and how it's going. Yes, he wants to enrich the oil companies. Trump's ultimate model is Putin's Russia - a petro state under the rule of an absolute dictator who's allied with the oligarchy. He thought he could grab Iran's oil the same way he grabbed Venezuela's oil. It hasn't worked, has it? So now he's caught between that fantasy and the reality that his base is rebelling over gasoline prices and inflation. What's he going to do? He doesn't know yet. But every day that goes by makes the fantasy further out of reach and the reality worse. There will be no ground invasion because he knows it will be a disaster, and the U.S. military is not prepared for it. They can't even defend the Gulf States from Iranian missiles.

As for serving Israel, no, not really. Trump doesn't serve anyone but himself. He likes Israel because Beeb tells him that they're friends, and the Evangelicals in the MAGA base are pro Israel. But he'll throw Israel under the bus without a second thought when it no longer suits him. There's an election in Israel in three months that the Beeb is likely to lose. After that Trump will no longer remember how to find Israel on a map.

Beeb tells him that they're friends,

A moment for clarification. When I say "Bibi", I am referring to the Israeli PM. When I say "Beeb", I am referring to the BBC.

Steve

3:00 Kent talks about the US putting "poison pills" in their demands to sabotage the negotiations. 3:50 negotiations are "theater",

Gotcha. Yeah, that’s completely unpersuasive. There’s no real argument or evidence as to why they’re labeling the talks as “theater,” other than the fact that Trump has included some maximalist wishes that Iran will never agree to. Which - has Joe Kent even *met* Donald Trump? That’s like one of his most standard moves. He always asks for insane things well outside the deal space as part of a negotiation. He seems to think it helps. So of course that’s part of these discussions.

Look, Joe Kent is all about the idea that Israel is secretly controlling US foreign policy. Which if one wants to believe that they’ll have a lot of company, since people love to believe in secret reasons why things are happening or hidden controlling cabals.

I’m more of an Occam’s razor kind of guy. Trump has been obviously and consistently claiming that the US can get a ridiculously good deal from Iran for the last eleven years, and that Obama was an idiot for agreeing to anything less than total capitulation from them. Again, that’s been the drumbeat since the JCPOA. He had the chance to test that theory in his first term with his “maximum pressure” period of sanctions, which utterly failed - but Trump doesn’t learn from failure. So after Venezuela made him think that there was an easy win just sitting in the table in Iran for any President with the balls to use force, of course he jumped at it.

That’s it. No secret plan to raise oil prices (which he gains nothing from). No hidden motive to help someone other than himself (which is literally the most un-Trump thing ever). No hidden cabal or secret deals. He thought it would be easy because he is arrogant and unthoughtful, and now that it turns out to be a complicated and no-win situation he’s doing everything he can to try to get Iran to bail him out of his mistake.

Which - has Joe Kent even *met* Donald Trump?

You can ask the net sifter as easily as I did. He advised Trump on security during the 2020 campaign. Ran, unsuccessfully, for the House in 22 and 24. Then Trump offered him the job in security. Kent was apparently not a regular attendee at Trump's cabinet butt kissing sessions, but he was around. In the earlier interview, he talked about how Israeli sympathizers and operatives had access to the administration like he never would have believed, before he worked in the administration.

As I said, I am inclined to give what he says more credit, but, I confess, it could be "confirmation bias".

Where is the hard evidence supporting your position? Of do you take it on faith, that a government of the United States would not act in a manner I have been describing?

We won't know for sure, for 10, maybe 20 years, when the books come out.

Steve

Trump's ultimate model is Putin's Russia

YES! He has made this very obvious.

Where is the hard evidence supporting your position? Of do you take it on faith, that a government of the United States would not act in a manner I have been describing?

As I alluded to, Occam's razor and all that. There's no mystery here. The simplest explanation is that Trump did this because he thought the U.S. would "win," and that if he attacked Iran they would give agree to the things he was demanding.

As a general matter, that's exactly what his personality is like. He believes in the efficacy of dominance rather than mutual benefit as a negotiating tactic, he is so unbelievably convinced of his own skills that he passes through arrogance well into uncontrolled narcissism, and he is utterly disdainful of expertise generally and of the intelligence services generally.

And particular to Iran, it fits entirely with his long history on the topic. He's long criticized Obama's deal as being weak and getting far less than what could have been achieved, has been utterly convinced that he could get more concessions from them, and has previously used limited force against Iran to get what he (at the time) regarded as a major strategic win for virtually no cost. Couple that with the low cost, high perceived reward of Venezuela, and there's absolutely no reason to suspect that Trump didn't genuinely think that Iran would turn out with the regime agreeing to our demands.

I don't take it "on faith" that the government wouldn't act the way you're describing - I'm pointing out that it doesn't make any sense. High gas prices are political poison. Creating an energy crisis that could lead to a global recession is also political poison. Doing something to benefit a foreign country instead of the U.S. would be especially political poison to Trump. Trump's political brand was built in large part on opposition to long-term interventions that benefit other countries. Heck, it's built on the idea that America should never do anything that isn't "America First." And Trump is supremely self-interested - even the most generous spin on that is that he only wants to act in the interests of "his team" and no other people's teams. It's absurd to think that he would be burning his political resources and all his personal lucrative relationships with Gulf State wealth on a deliberate choice to help either oil companies (which he has no personal interest in) or Bibi Netanyahu. That doesn't fit with anything we know about Trump, his Administration, or any of the incentives and political forces that would shape his government.

The real explanation is almost certainly the simplest one. Trump made a bad choice because he is overconfident and doesn't pay much attention to people who know more than he does when they tell him he's making a bad choice. He thought it would be one way, but it's the other way. He now doesn't have a way out of the box canyon he marched himself into, so he's doing whatever he can to try to avoid having to turn around and march out in defeat. He's not being controlled by the Israeli government, he's not committing political suicide by intentionally driving up oil prices so that the American people become enraged enough that he can get Congress to authorize a ground invasion of Iran and completely alienate his base, he doesn't have some 3D super-strategy where this all makes sense. He blew it and doesn't have any path forward but to keep insisting that Iran's going to accede to his demands eventually, and hope that something changes the status quo in a way that extricates him.

Trump never admits he lost and frequently doubles down. That's why the war hasn't ended. Not because Trump cares about Bibi.

Now, if Congress will just tell him he has to stop. Or is it the courts? In which case, whom has to bring the case to the courts?

It's well past 60 days. All hostilities -by law, as I understand it- have to cease without congressional approval.

As a general matter, that's exactly what his personality is like. He believes in the efficacy of dominance rather than mutual benefit as a negotiating tactic, he is so unbelievably convinced of his own skills that he passes through arrogance well into uncontrolled narcissism...

IOW, don't attribute to evil that which can be attributed to stupidity (or, as a corollary, mental imbalance such as toxic narcissism).

Not that I wouldn't put it past him to get involved in something where he thinks he can profit. But I tend to agree with you. He was just an idiot in this case, not evil.

Now, if Congress will just tell him he has to stop. Or is it the courts? In which case, whom has to bring the case to the courts?

No one's in a position to make him stop by simple declaration. Congress has the War Powers Act, but it's almost certainly not going to be enforced by any court, nor would anyone have standing to sue on it. It's almost uniformly been treated as a non-justiciable political issue:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...

Where Congress can "tell him he has to stop" is by simply not giving him the money to keep going. Not by affirmatively trying to stop him, but by simply refusing what he needs in order to keep going. Fighting a war costs a ton of money. At some point, he'll need a supplemental appropriation to fund the war effort. There's a very good chance that Congress is going to put the screws to him before giving him the money - and perhaps insist on an actual authorization of the use of force, which would require his Administration to actually persuade a lot of skeptical GOP Congresscritters that there's a "win" in here somewhere if he's allowed to keep going.

A moment for clarification. When I say "Bibi", I am referring to the Israeli PM. When I say "Beeb", I am referring to the BBC.

Sorry. I thought you meant Netanyahu and I liked it, because I can't bear to use the term of endearment.

Look, Joe Kent is all about the idea that Israel is secretly controlling US foreign policy. Which if one wants to believe that they’ll have a lot of company, since people love to believe in secret reasons why things are happening or hidden controlling cabals.

Yeah, and it stinks of antisemitism.

Not that I wouldn't put it past him to get involved in something where he thinks he can profit. But I tend to agree with you. He was just an idiot in this case, not evil.

So you don't think it's evil to start a war with a country to try to steal its natural resources?

So you don't think it's evil to start a war with a country to try to steal its natural resources?

Sure. But it wasn't for personal profit. That's what I meant. He was just a narcissistic idiot that did something idiotic. There were no plans beyond that.

As I alluded to, Occam's razor and all that.

So, you have no hard evidence? No factual pushback to the facts I have posted links to, like the amount of money Israeli lobbyists pay out to leading US politicians. No pushback to articles in Israeli media, that report on things US media will not, like the importance, to Israel, of the outcome of a House primary in KY.

Well. Maybe we will find out, when the books are published, in 10 or 20 years, when most of today's actors are six feet under.

Steve

So you don't think it's evil to start a war with a country to try to steal its natural resources?

Sure. But it wasn't for personal profit. That's what I meant. He was just a narcissistic idiot that did something idiotic. There were no plans beyond that.

Fascist oligarchy is a system. Those who support the dictator get to enrich themselves in return. The oil companies did their part to prop up Trump, and they profit in return. He needs their support to stay in power, so that he can enrich himself.

So, you have no hard evidence? No factual pushback to the facts I have posted links to, like the amount of money Israeli lobbyists pay out to leading US politicians. No pushback to articles in Israeli media, that report on things US media will not, like the importance, to Israel, of the outcome of a House primary in KY.

The Israeli lobby is pretty desperate, facing a PR debacle for Israel in America. They are pretty futilely trying to bolster whoever still shows a glimmer of support for Israel's fascist government. For such a secret society that you claim controls America, they are failing miserably.

For such a secret society that you claim controls America, they are failing miserably.

It's hardly a secret. I have posted before, the link to "Open Secrets" listing the US Senators by how much they have pocketed from the Israeli lobby. #1 was Biden. #2 is Bob Menendez, who is in prison for taking bribes, not from Israel, but from Egypt. #3 is Hillary. #4 is Kamala Harris. What caught my attention was Hillary's speech at AIPAC, either in 08 or 16, and the exceptionally servile language she used. I have been watching more closely since then.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cyc...

Steve

A moment for clarification. When I say "Bibi", I am referring to the Israeli PM. When I say "Beeb", I am referring to the BBC.

Go easy on him. We’re adopting your nomenclature as fast as we can.

But I tend to agree with you. He was just an idiot in this case, not evil.

The two often go together.

Some of the greatest disasters were caused by evil idiots.

Some of the greatest disasters were caused by evil idiots.

I'd be interested in a few specifics.

There was a radio show (back when I listened to drive-time radio) that featured stupid criminal stories. Many of those folks were evil, but they were also idiots. Which made it funny. They mostly just hurt themselves. Two I remember were the guy that robbed a McD's and then went back to get his order because he had forgotten it (the cops were already there), and another a suspect was running from the police and managed to crash the gate of Homestead Air Force base...the MPs were not amused.

The Felon is that kind of an idiot. I tend to agree that this action was more as albaby described than as something nefarious (at least on his part...who knows what Putin or Bibi or Xi were whispering in his ear).

So, is this House measure meaningless? Symbolic, and nothing more?

The House passed a measure directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win approval from Congress to continue the war. The 215-208 vote is a remarkable rebuke of Mr. Trump and his handling of the conflict.

The House passed a measure directing President Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win approval from Congress to continue the war. The 215-208 vote is a remarkable rebuke of Mr. Trump and his handling of the conflict.

Maybe Trump should hire Obama to negotiate a deal with Iran?

So, you have no hard evidence? No factual pushback to the facts I have posted links to, like the amount of money Israeli lobbyists pay out to leading US politicians. No pushback to articles in Israeli media, that report on things US media will not, like the importance, to Israel, of the outcome of a House primary in KY.

What does that have to do with anything? No one denies that there is significant lobbying on behalf of Israel. You don't have to wait 20 to 30 years to discover that - it's like observing that the pharmaceutical companies or realtors or health insurance firms or tech companies are spending a lot on lobbying and PACs. Of course.

But none of that is evidence - at all - of the specific claim that we were discussing. Namely, that Donald Trump is secretly motivated by a desire to extend the war and drive up global oil prices, preferring to burn up his own political fortunes in order to favor Bibi and the Israelis. Which, again, doesn't make any sense.

If you want to make a general claim that because a ton of money is spent on lobbying and campaign donations on behalf of Israel in federal elections, issues of concern to Israel receive more solicitous reception than those of countries who don't similarly engage in such lobbying and donations....of course! They spend almost as much as the crypto PAC. But that's very different from the specific assertion that Donald Trump wants to war to be going badly, destroying his political capital and alienating the wealthy Gulf States that have personally enriched him.

"Israel has influence due to lobbying" does not equal "Israel secretly controls Trump."

What caught my attention was Hillary's speech at AIPAC, either in 08 or 16, and the exceptionally servile language she used. I have been watching more closely since then.


Was it particularly different from how political actors will speak about the host of an event they're speaking at? How did it compare to how politicians will speak about, for example, the teacher's unions when they speak at a conference put on by teacher's unions? Or gun control when speaking at a gun control rally? Is it especially unusual for politicians to speak effusively about an organization when they are speaking at an event hosted by that organization?

So, is this House measure meaningless? Symbolic, and nothing more?

Not meaningless, just not legally enforceable. There's a difference. Jockeying over the war power is an inter-branch political fight. These sorts of things are relevant steps in those political fights. Getting to a majority in the House willing to put themselves on record is political action, and one that can affect things (though perhaps only in a small way).

Note that House actions alone almost never have any legal effect - you need both the House and Senate to act in order for Congress to act in virtually all cases. And even if a War Powers resolution got out of Congress, Trump would just veto it. So all of this is relevant to the political struggle over exercising war powers, but not really relevant to a formal legal action.

Go easy on him. We’re adopting your nomenclature as fast as we can.

Yeah, let's see: I was watching TYT this morning and Cenk was really tearing in to Bibi about the renewed destruction of Gaza that was just reported on the Beeb. But of course, this will only help the billionaire JCs with their continued exploitation and grifting of the Proles. But sadly, we old pharz can only sit back and watch in awe. 😊

Yeah, let's see: I was watching TYT this morning and Cenk was really tearing in to Bibi about the renewed destruction of Gaza that was just reported on the Beeb. But of course, this will only help the billionaire JCs with their continued exploitation and grifting of the Proles. But sadly, we old pharz can only sit back and watch in awe. 😊

Excellent!

But that's very different from the specific assertion that Donald Trump wants to war to be going badly, destroying his political capital and alienating the wealthy Gulf States that have personally enriched him.

He is actually threading a needle right now. He appears to be going for stalemate. That keeps Iran's head down, but minimizes collateral damage to Gulf states, while keeping the Strait closed, to support high oil prices. In spite of the attacks and counter-attacks over the last couple days, he keeps insisting talks are going well, and declines to make an end to the war, by either bailing out, or "bombing Iran into the stone age". Saudi, and his buddy MBS, benefit greatly from the current situation, because they can get their oil to market, and enjoy the high prices.

Here's today's entry.

Oil prices fall 3% on report Trump reluctant to restart Iran war

Trump told his aides that the weekslong ceasefire with Iran is holding despite sporadic clashes, unnamed U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal. The president said he would consider ending the truce if Iran kills American troops, the officials said.

The White House declined to comment on the report when asked by CNBC. A White House official said while Trump “always prefers a diplomatic solution, he has been clear about the consequences if Iran refuses to make a deal.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/04/oil-price-today-ir...

Carry on with the kabuki dance.

Steve

He appears to be going for stalemate.

Of course, but not because he wants a stalemate.

Again, he wants a win. He wants Iran to accede to a deal that is better than the JCPOA. He wants the Strait to reopen. He wants oil prices to go down. He wants the UAE and Kuwait and Qatar and Saudi to be able to resume normal energy exports instead of being hindered by this conflict - so that he can go back to enriching himself with deals in those countries.

The reason he's continuing the stalemate is because he can't get that win. Iran is not going to agree to anything as good as the JCPOA at this time. His theory of the war has failed. Going into Iran and "tuning them up" has not made them more compliant. Neither has the blockade. Killing the leadership hasn't made them timid or fearful. Their oil pipes and tanks did not "explode" within a few days of their exports being reduced.

He's not trying to get a stalemate, he's not trying to have high global oil prices, he doesn't want to have to deal with the fallout of gas prices being well above $4.00 per gallon for the July 4th and possibly Labor Day weekends. He doesn't want that. But he can't get what he wants, which is for all those things to disappear in the rosy afterglow of a victory in Iran. So he is forced in the interim to accept a stalemate and try to talk the oil markets down....

Again, he wants a win. He wants Iran to accede to a deal that is better than the JCPOA. He wants the Strait to reopen. He wants oil prices to go down. He wants the UAE and Kuwait and Qatar and Saudi to be able to resume normal energy exports instead of being hindered by this conflict - so that he can go back to enriching himself with deals in those countries.

Israel doesn't want a deal with the current regime. They want the regime destroyed. Trump has said Iran could "change it's mind" at any time, implying any agreement is not as reliable as destroying the regime. The oil companies allegedly paid Trump a $1B bribe to make them richer. Reopening the Strait, and restoring oversupply to the market would work against their profit interest.

We will find out when the books are published.

Steve

Israel doesn't want a deal with the current regime.

So what? Trump cares very little about what other people want. Perhaps moreso than any other person who has ever held that office. Israel doesn't want a deal with the current regime - Trump doesn't care. Virtually every country in Europe and Asia wants Trump to cut a deal with the current regime - Trump doesn't care. The other Gulf states that Trump very much wants to keep in his good graces because they will personally enrich him far more than the oil companies will all want Trump to get the Strait open as soon as possible and get Iran to stop attacking their infrastructure - and Trump doesn't care. None of their "wants" are going to matter much to Trump. Israel has the ability to directly attack Iran which complicates the deal-making process, of course, but at the end of the day Trump doesn't care whether they want a deal or not.

The oil companies allegedly paid Trump a $1B bribe to make them richer. Reopening the Strait, and restoring oversupply to the market would work against their profit interest.

Who cares that they already made $1B in campaign contributions to Trump to get elected? Not Trump. He already got elected. He already gave them their money's worth 10x over with all of the regulatory and executive actions he took long before this current misadventure. That's not going to weigh the least bit in his calculations.

And of course that's inconsistent with what we see in the markets - if Trump was trying to help the oil companies at the expense of his own political interests (hah!), he'd signal to them (either privately or publicly) that the long-term strategy is to keep oil prices elevated so they could increase their production and make more money. Instead, we've seen virtually no change in supermajor production - indicating that they do not see increased oil prices as anything other than a short-term thing. Which is probably why the oil majors' stocks (like XOM and CVX and SHEL) are trading at around where they were right before the war started. A few months of high oil prices is a bit of a nice windfall, but there's no expectation that Trump is aiming to keep the Strait closed for beyond the very short term.

Instead, we've seen virtually no change in supermajor production

Did you see Ford's May sales report? A contributor to their sales drop was the discontinuation of the Escape. The Escape had been a good seller for Ford, for decades. But, they dropped it. Ford's business model is to escalate ATP and GP. The Escape, being a lower priced model, dragged those metrics down, so they dropped it. VW is using the same playbook as Ford: move "upmarket" with progressively bigger, more expensive, models. Management says they don't care about volume or market share. Effectively, their plan is to make more profit, while doing less.

Maybe big oil bought the same plan from McKinsey? They are loath to invest in increased production, because the extra supply would only reduce prices.

there's no expectation that Trump is aiming to keep the Strait closed for beyond the very short term.

Define "short term". Most "JCs" are old phartz, so their retirement, in only a handful of years, is the longest horizon they care about.

This chart shows how the invasion of Iraq throttled production. It took nearly 5 years for Iraqi production to return to the level it had been before the invasion. And, keep in mind production in 2000-02 was limited by sanctions. The speed with which Iraq produced the documentation of the destruction of their WMDs, and the fact that Saddam had recently signed new development contracts with several non-US oil companies, tells me they were about to apply to the UN for repeal of the sanctions, so Iraqi production could be increased even more. The invasion obstructed all that.

https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=iq&prod...

Which is probably why the oil majors' stocks (like XOM and CVX and SHEL) are trading at around where they were right before the war started.

Actually, they aren't. The XOM I added last January is up 28%. Not bad, for a few months hold. Trump constantly manipulates crude futures up and down by alternately threatening to bomb Iran into the stone age, then announcing "peace is at hand", for the umteenth time. There has been considerable chatter about crude futures activity suspiciously well timed to his pronouncements.

We can speculate all day. We may find out, when the books are published.

Steve

Actually, they aren't. The XOM I added last January is up 28%.

Actually, they are. Almost all of that gain would have happened before the war started. XOM increased a fair amount before the war started, rising from about $120 in early January to $150 right before the war. Heck, most of that gain happened even before we had relocated resources to the middle east in late January and started pressuring Iran for more talks - XOM had hit $140 by the end of January. By the time the Gerald Ford was ordered to head out there, all the gains had already happened. The war itself, and the blocking of the Strait, has had no discernible benefit for XOM's stock price.

We can speculate all day.

It's not just speculating. Your theory of Trump's motivation simply doesn't make any sense. It's completely inconsistent with everything we know about Trump, the political incentives he and his Administration face, and what would benefit him personally. There's no plausible reason at all why he would want to fail to reopen the Strait, and would be deliberately trying not to succeed at negotiations.

There's no plausible reason at all why he would want to fail to reopen the Strait, and would be deliberately trying not to succeed at negotiations.

We should be able to agree that Trump is an absolute whore for money and praise. He would do anything, and sell out anyone, for money and praise.

What is incentivizing him, may be exposed, when the books are published.

Steve

What is incentivizing him, may be exposed, when the books are published.

What could it possibly be? What plausible incentive would be sufficient to cause him to deliberately suffer all these problems? Deliberately causing one of the worst energy crises in history results in massive political unpopularity which undermines every single other thing he's trying to do (from his IRS grift to the ballroom to you name it), jeopardizes all the billions of dollars of sweet sovereign wealth money from Gulf States who know have huge holes punched in their budgets and raw feelings towards Trump for blowing up their spot, makes him personally unpopular and appear unable to achieve his goals (which he hates), and gets virtually every country in the world ticked off at his policy.

What possible incentive could possibly exist?

What possible incentive could possibly exist?

What has he done?

-roughed up Iran enough to provoke them to close the Strait to traffic, except their own.

-declared a blockade of Iran's traffic.

-called a cease fire. The cease fire has lasted longer than the "war". He has resisted all calls to "finish the job", and ignores occasional flair ups of shooting, while declaring the cease fire still in force.

Conclusion, closing the strait was the objective. Once attained, he stopped the "war".

MBS is tickled because he can get oil to market, and enjoy the higher prices. Putin is tickled, because Trump suspended sanctions, so Putin can take full advantage of the elevated prices.

He might be tipping the Kuwaitis, Emirates, and Qataries to his market manipulating pronouncements, so they can make as much on crude futures, as they would make if they actually shipped crude or LNG. There has been a lot of suspicious activity in crude futures, but by who, is unknown to the public, so far.

As for the Proles in the Gulf states that are occasionally bombed, or the USian Proles who are paying higher prices, he doesn't care. He said it out loud, he doesn't care about the financial situation of USian Proles. He got what he wanted from the Proles a year and a half ago. The moment they gave him what he wanted, they became expendable. This is typical "JC" behavior.

Steve

What could it possibly be? What plausible incentive would be sufficient to cause him to deliberately suffer all these problems?

I think Steve has been answering this question by suggesting that Trump is owned by Mossad. Between the influence of AIPAC and MOSSAD in American politics, we have a serious problem.

Conclusion, closing the strait was the objective.

What? No. That's just what's happened - it doesn't mean that was his objective. His objective was to get Iran to agree to a better deal than the JCPOA and be considered a brilliant wonderful leader.

The reason the ceasefire has lasted longer than the war and because he hasn't "finished the job" is because he's put himself in a box that he can't get out of. He can't get what he wants (a better-than-JPCOA win), but he doesn't want to admit defeat, so he keeps the war in stasis. That in no way means that it was his objective to close the strait.

He gains nothing by closing the Strait. What possible incentive for Trump do you think exists for him to close the Strait? Even if he doesn't care about the proles, it still hurts him to have the Strait closed. It alienates all the people in the Gulf whose economies are being devastated by the disruption, it hinders his ability to work grifts here in the U.S., it interferes with every other thing he wants to happen in the U.S. (IRS Slush Fund! Ballroom funding! Lower interest rates!). Etc.

Again - what is the plausible reason why Trump would have closing the strait as his objective, rather than something he didn't want to happen but doesn't have a solution for?

I think Steve has been answering this question by suggesting that Trump is owned by Mossad.

He hasn't said that. But is that even slightest bit possible? How could Mossad "own" a U.S. President? Why would Donald Trump have to give a rats patoot about what Mossad wants?

I think Steve has been answering this question by suggesting that Trump is owned by Mossad. Between the influence of AIPAC and MOSSAD in American politics, we have a serious problem.

Actually, I am proposing a bi-partisan alliance, Israel and big oil. I would be inclined to think big oil is in the driver's seat, with Trump then leveraging "Bibi's" 40 year wet dream to made the war look legitimate.

Steve

I would be inclined to think big oil is in the driver's seat, with Trump then leveraging "Bibi's" 40 year wet dream to made the war look legitimate.

Again, you keep failing to explain how. Why on earth would Trump do what big oil wants, instead of what Trump wants? How is it slightly plausible that big oil gets to be in the driver's seat, when Trump is the least likely President in history to ever share the driver's seat with anyone?

Why on earth would Trump do what big oil wants, instead of what Trump wants?

As discussed before, Trump wants whatever provides the most money and praise for him.

We will find out when the books are published, unless the Ministry of Truth buries everything.

Steve

As discussed before, Trump wants whatever provides the most money and praise for him.

What plausible reason is there for believing that doing what Big Oil wants, instead of what Trump would otherwise want to do, will provide money and praise for Trump?

What plausible reason is there for believing that doing what Big Oil wants, instead of what Trump would otherwise want to do, will provide money and praise for Trump?

*sigh* You tell me what could reap more money and praise, than making good on a billion dollar bribe, so he will receive more billion dollar bribes.

Steve

*sigh* You tell me what could reap more money and praise, than making good on a billion dollar bribe, so he will receive more billion dollar bribes.

Sigh.

Two things. First, they didn't pay him a billion dollars. He said they should pay him a billion dollars because he was going to rewrite the environmental laws to help oil companies. The entirety of oil and gas contributions to all Republicans running for office in 2024 was about $250 million, and the amount that went to elect Trump was about $96 million.

Second, he already made good whatever campaign contributions and election assistance the oil companies gave him. Ten fold. He gutted virtually all of the environmental regulations that hindered their business. He repealed the endangerment finding that undergirded the entirety of our climate change regulation. He eliminated all of the federal subsidies for electric vehicles and tore out nearly all of the alternative energy/decarbonization funds appropriated during the Biden administration.

He never promised the oil majors he would shut down the Gulf or precipitate a global energy crisis. They never would expected him to. They neither had nor have any claim that they were owed that for him to have "made good" on their support. And no other person considering a bribe to Trump, a billion or otherwise, would ever look at all the stuff he did to benefit oil companies before the war and think that he hadn't "made good" on their support, either.

So, no. There's absolutely no possibility that Trump ever thought to himself that closing the strait was the least bit beneficial to him for that reason. Not in the least. It's completely implausible.

Anything else?

So, no. There's absolutely no possibility that Trump ever thought to himself that closing the strait was the least bit beneficial to him for that reason. Not in the least. It's completely implausible.

This discussion has become repetitive. No need to continue it.

Steve

Why would Donald Trump have to give a rats patoot about what Mossad wants?

Because they have dirt on him?

Not that I think he's doing the Mossad's bidding. But it is an answer to your question.

I saw a chart today about Russian oil revenues. They are up substantially, even as their shipments have declined by about 40% (IIRC) due to drone strikes on refineries and terminals. It's because oil has doubled in price. So, if any conspiracy exists, it's probably Putin asking the Felon to do this for him so he can fund his war in Ukraine. Not the Mossad.

So, if any conspiracy exists, it's probably Putin asking the Felon to do this for him so he can fund his war in Ukraine. Not the Mossad.

Recall, Aramco's Q1 profits were up 26%, and only one month of the Q enjoyed the war price increase. MBS is happy.

Saudi Aramco first-quarter profit jumps 26% as key pipeline reaches capacity amid Iran war

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/10/saudi-aramco-q1-pr...

Not that I think he's doing the Mossad's bidding.

A Million dollar bribe to a House member, who was previously a car salesman or a sheriff, is a lot of money. Congress is about to give Israel an open door to DoD's highly classified R&D programs. The vote in the House committee, that I posted about last night, shows people of both parties, in influential positions, are willing to compromise US national security, for a bribe from Israel. Trump the Magnificent is looking for Billion dollar "incentives" these days. Would Israel pay that? Of course, there is the Epstein honey pot theory. Given Epstein and Maxwell both had close connections to Mossad, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Steve

Because they have dirt on him?

Why would he care if they have dirt on him?

Oh, sure - like any person, he'd probably prefer a timeline in which no one had dirt on him to one where someone did. But seriously, there's nothing plausible they could have on him that would have more of a negative impact on his personal interests than what keeping the Strait closed is doing. To say nothing of the fact that the U.S. government's national intelligence apparatus is just as likely to have dirt on Netanyahu, or Gofman personally, as they are on him.

It's just conspiracy thinking - and one that rhymes with some very nasty antecedents.

It's just conspiracy thinking - and one that rhymes with some very nasty antecedents.

Not if it's actionable. Something that could land him in prison, even with POTUS immunity.

Wild speculation. I don't really spend much time thinking about it. I was just providing a possible answer to your question.

But I will say this war is benefiting some parties that have a history with the Felon (e.g. Putin). Could be coincidence. Correlation doesn't -necessarily- equal causation. It's just interesting.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.