Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 1
God on Earth Trump, took orders from his boss.
Netanyahu said to have asked Trump to hold off on Iran strike
According to the report, Trump and Netanyahu spoke yesterday about the issue, on the same day that Trump announced he had heard “on good authority” that the killing of protesters in Iran had stopped — appearing to back away from his recent threats to attack.
Following The New York Times report, Channel 12 reports that after a series of overnight consultations at the Kirya military headquarters, Israel informed the US that while it supports any US decision, it is not currently pushing for a strike.https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netan...Seems Israel is afraid of a counterstrike by Iran.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually Steve,
both Israel AND Arab nations (not sure which) asked Trump not to escalate with Iran.
No, they are not afraid of strikes by Iran (IMO).
I believe they must have intelligence showing that even if the Iranian Mullahs get overthrown, then it won't mean democracy wins.
Other perhaps even worse factions will vie for control in an endless civil war and create even more instability and a power vacuum in the region.
Better the devil that you know...
No. of Recommendations: 4
both Israel AND Arab nations (not sure which) asked Trump not to escalate with Iran.
Reportedly Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi. But what "Bibi" wants carries a lot more weight. God King Trump did a 180 in a matter of hours. The excuse he used was a report that "the killing had stopped", which the linked report says came from Israeli intelligence. Israeli media had been reporting, for days, that Mossad was active in Iran, stoking up the demonstrations.
No, they are not afraid of strikes by Iran (IMO).
The God King cares not one whit about the welfare of "demonstrators". He has said he would like people demonstrating against him to be shot. So, the reports of an end to the violence, would not change his mind. So why would he stand down the war mongering?
I believe they must have intelligence showing that even if the Iranian Mullahs get overthrown, then it won't mean democracy wins.
The God King cares not one whit about "democracy", not in Venezuela, not in Iran. He, and "Bibi" would rather have "Prince" Reza, a lapdog that has lived in the US, with visits to Israel, since the revolution.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
So why would he stand down the war mongering?
Three reasons:
1) He wants gas prices to stay low;
2) The USS Ford carrier group is in the wrong place for this, off the coast of Venezuela instead of the Middle East leaving us without any aircraft carrier in the region; and
3) His whole foreign policy approach in the area is to try to get people to ignore disagreements and quiet things down so everyone can make money, which he believes will bring stability.
It's not in his interest for the Middle East to blow up into a potential regional conflict. He wants things calm.
No. of Recommendations: 1
2) The USS Ford carrier group is in the wrong place for this, off the coast of Venezuela instead of the Middle East leaving us without any aircraft carrier in the region
Someone must have realized that. The Abraham Lincoln is en-route to the middle east as we type. It's Nimitz class, so very old now. But should still do the job.
He wants things calm.
???
He's like a bull in a china shop, both domestically and internationally. I don't think anyone is calm. Not our citizens (1poorkid informed me last night that ICE is in Phoenix, and there is an "ICE watch" site that tracks them so you can avoid getting randomly shot), not Denmark, not NATO, not Latin/South America, not Canada...maybe Putin is calm**.
**Though he shouldn't be, but that's another thread. Just saw another article about astounding losses in his war.
No. of Recommendations: 1
He's like a bull in a china shop, both domestically and internationally. I don't think anyone is calm.
He wants things calm in the Middle East. The Administration's theory of the case is that everyone should stop arguing about Israel, accept the status quo and get down to the business of making tons of money. In that region, he wants the fighting to stop so that businesses can get down to investing and the U.S. can start cutting more deals with the countries in the region.
As we've seen elsewhere, he's not a "regime change" or "human rights" kind of guy. He's a power and money kind of guy. The problem with the Iranian regime (and others) is not that they're authoritarian dictatorships, but that they're too focused on ideology and trying to foment disruption. Instead of what they should be focused on, which is just being in charge of their own country and making money through deals with the U.S.
It's very different than in the U.S. and environs. Here, Trump very much wants to make things run his way, and is willing to be incredibly disruptive. Elsewhere, I don't think he especially cares about domestic human rights issues in Russia or Iran or Venezuela. All he wants is for those countries to be "open for business."
No. of Recommendations: 6
In that region, he wants the fighting to stop so that businesses can get down to investing and the U.S. can start cutting more deals with the countries in the region.
Let me fix that for you
… so that Trump can get down to scamming and making sham deals in the region to enrich himself.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's not just about the West and Trump "making money."
"Getting down to business" is what the Palestinians should have been doing for the last 78 years.
Instead of building tunnels and missiles to attack Israel, and making billionaires out of Hamas leadership, they should have been using all the foreign aid they were getting to actually try to build the country that they claim they want.
Getting down to business is exactly what they need to do.
Business does not equal wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.
That's the status quo and they need to accept it.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here, Trump very much wants to make things run his way, and is willing to be incredibly disruptive. Elsewhere, I don't think he especially cares about domestic human rights issues in Russia or Iran or Venezuela.
Sure. But, in the process, he is driving business away. His -probably illegal- tariffs, his unreliable behavior...as I think you said earlier, he's forcing other countries to rely on China for stability and predictability in trade.
That is the opposite of the goal you stated (i.e. get down to investing and the U.S. can start cutting more deals). They most definitely DON'T want to do that now. And threatening Greenland/Denmark isn't helping, either.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Instead of what they should be focused on, which is just being in charge of their own country and making money through deals with the U.S.Oh yeah, sure, only ideology is "taking care of business", not disrupting business.
Trump tariffs live updates: Trump floats tariff on countries that 'don't go along with' US acquisition of Greenland
President Trump said on Friday that he may put a tariff on countries that "don't go along" with the US's interest in purchasing Greenland. The president did not reveal any specific policy details about the proposal.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-tariffs-...Oh yeah, a real "calming force" in the world, except where he sees a quick buck by blowing things up.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
Sure. But, in the process, he is driving business away. His -probably illegal- tariffs, his unreliable behavior...as I think you said earlier, he's forcing other countries to rely on China for stability and predictability in trade.
Oh, I certainly agree. I think the effect of his policies is negative. But what he wants is for everyone out there to stop fighting and get down to the business of letting America make money. Or if you're cynical, letting Donald Trump and friends make money.
Not everything he does is about that, of course, and he has other things he wants to do with his office. I just think that for the Middle East, that's what he wants to see happen. He's not looking for an Arab Spring to replace the authoritarian governments there with something freer but more unpredictable, and he's not looking for any particular resolution of the various Arab-Israeli conflicts that he thinks is more or less just. He wants everyone to just stop getting into fights, and make the region open for American business interests to come in and invest with reduced political risk.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oh yeah, a real "calming force" in the world, except where he sees a quick buck by blowing things up.
Again, I don't think he is a "calming force in the world." I was talking about the Middle East, specifically. He doesn't want to see the Middle East catch fire in a regional open war. He's perfectly happy to sow chaos domestically, if he thinks it advances his interests; and he might not mind blowing up trade or business relations, or even NATO itself, over Greenland. But his foreign policy toward the Middle East has been to try to get all the parties to ignore/paper over their ideological or political conflicts and enter into open business and economic arrangements. Open conflict with Iran, or the collapse of the Iranian state, doesn't help with that. So that's why he didn't decide to blow the top off the current unrest with U.S. military action.
Plus, again, we find ourselves with our pants down and no aircraft carrier in the region, at least for the next several days. Since air power projected from aircraft carriers is one of the keystones of our military power, that in and of itself might be enough of a reason not to do anything until we can move one into position.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Open conflict with Iran, or the collapse of the Iranian state, doesn't help with that. So that's why he didn't decide to blow the top off the current unrest with U.S. military action.The Abrams interview is on CNN's site. In the last 45 seconds or so, Abrams trots out his preferred action vs negotiations: further weakening Iran by using naval and air forces to attack their oil exports.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/tv/video/amanpour-i...Plus, again, we find ourselves with our pants down and no aircraft carrier in the region, at least for the next several days. Since air power projected from aircraft carriers is one of the keystones of our military power, that in and of itself might be enough of a reason not to do anything until we can move one into position. As noted before, the attack on Iran last summer, was mounted with B-2s, that flew non-stop, from the US. What a B-2 can't do is hijack tankers. You need surface ships that can operate helos, like the Lincoln's battle group. And, keeping the repressive Iranian regime in place, keeps the sanctions in place, which restrict oil exports, and provides the Pirate King, with an excuse to hijack tankers.
All this leads me to the suspicion that Abrams called Trump, and told him he would make more money, faster, by standing down his plans to attack mainland Iran. So, all the Iranian demonstrators he encouraged, with rhetoric that echoed his January 6 speech, were nothing but expendable meat. He cares not one whit about the hundreds, or thousands, that died, by following his encouragement.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Abrams interview is on CNN's site. In the last 45 seconds or so, Abrams trots out his preferred action vs negotiations: further weakening Iran by using naval and air forces to attack their oil exports.
Sure, but Elliot Abrams is one of those old-school longtime members of the hawkish faction of the Foreign Policy Blob. The sort of guys that Trump was talked into taking on board in his first term, but the sort that were intentionally kept out of the second term Administration because they don't match up with his foreign policy views. Abrams never met an intervention he didn't like, and his pedigree in that goes all the way back to Iran-Contra.
He certainly has his own views on what we should do on foreign policy, but I wouldn't look to him for any insight into (or correlation with) what Trump thinks or wants to do on Iran.
No. of Recommendations: 1
but the sort that were intentionally kept out of the second term Administration because they don't match up with his foreign policy views. I would say Trump's actions in Venezuela, and the Caribbean, render previous statements against military intervention no longer operative. As I posted several weeks ago, the NeoCons are back in town.
Here's a Wiki piece about the Biden administration's snatch of an Iranian cargo near Singapore.
St Nikolas (ship)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nikolas_(ship)
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
I would say Trump's actions in Venezuela, and the Caribbean, render previous statements against military intervention no longer operative.
I'm not talking about "military intervention" as a general concept. Trump's foreign policy, like his domestic policy, isn't bound to adhere to any coherent theory, or even the mere basics of internal consistency. He's going to do what he feels in his gut in any particular circumstance. So if he wants to go into Venezuela but doesn't want to go into Iran, that's what he'll do.
I don't think Trump especially wants to go into Iran. Not because of any commitment to any coherent "MAGA" ideology on intervention. It's just that there's no real upside for his goals in the region, and a ton of downside. I think he's considering it, because Iran is big and important and can't be ignored in the region - and I think he wants to shape the outcome if the regime collapses, and getting in early might allow that. But having the tensions in the region explode into actual war between the Iranian and opposing forces? Hard to see how that helps him do anything he wants to do there....
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't think Trump especially wants to go into Iran. Trump's decree wrt Iran, from one year ago:
(ii) implement a robust and continual campaign, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and other relevant executive departments or agencies (agencies), to drive Iran’s export of oil to zero, including exports of Iranian crude to the People’s Republic of China;https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/20...Now that the Pirate King has resorted to hijacking tankers, and gotten away with it, I would not be surprised to see the Lincoln's group start wholesale piracy against Iranian cargoes in the Indian Ocean.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump's decree wrt Iran, from one year ago:
(ii) implement a robust and continual campaign, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and other relevant executive departments or agencies (agencies), to drive Iran’s export of oil to zero, including exports of Iranian crude to the People’s Republic of China;That's what he decreed. Here's what then happened:
Iran’s oil exports in October reached their highest monthly level of the year. This highlights the continued failure of the Trump administration to cut Tehran’s key financial lifeline.https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/11/05/irans-octo......because simply declaring it your policy to end Iranian exports (almost entirely to China) is not the same as actually doing it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Iran’s oil exports in October
...because simply declaring it your policy to end Iranian exports (almost entirely to China) is not the same as actually doing it.
The Pirate King had not resorted to hijacking on the high seas, yet. The first ship, the Skipper, was assaulted on December 10. The US has now hijacked 6 tankers. I suspect the attacks on "drug boats" was practice. He got away with the "drug boat" attacks, so he started attacking tankers in the Caribbean. He got away with that. Now, with the UK firmly on board with the program, he is moving assets into the Indian Ocean to expand the piracy program. It would be a lot simpler to bomb Kharg Island, but he may have TACOed, for the reasons discussed in this thread.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Steve,
There you go again with the hyperbole. Trump isn't hijacking anything. The seizures are lawful under American law which is all that counts.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
hi·jack
/ˈhīˌjak/
verb
unlawfully seize (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
"three armed men hijacked a white van"
Similar:
commandeer
seize
take over
take possession of
skyjack
appropriate
expropriate
confiscate
snatch
noun
an incident or act of hijacking.
"an unsuccessful hijack attempt"
No. of Recommendations: 4
But his foreign policy toward the Middle East has been to try to get all the parties to ignore/paper over their ideological or political conflicts and enter into open business and economic arrangements.
I don't suppose there's any way to list all the pending deals the the Trumps, Kushners, and other real estate developers now in the administration, have?
It's less risky starting a project when/where bullets aren't flying.
