What’s Trump up to now with the talks with Iran?
Beats me. So you can skip the rest of this post.
Just kidding. Not knowing doesn’t seem to stop anyone else. So I’ll opine, too.
Trump has apparently fingered Iranian Speaker Mohammed Ghalibaf as the one we’re talking to or are about to talk to:
Iran escalated its attack on infrastructure by striking a water and electrical plant in Kuwait, and an oil refinery was set ablaze in the northern Israeli city of Haifa after the Iranian missile attack. Asked for his response on the strike, he told The Post: “You’ll see shortly.”
As Trump brings more military might to the region that could inflict catastrophic damage on Iran, he encouraged what’s left of Iran’s regime to make a deal before it’s too late. …
He exclusively told The Post that the US will find out whether the speaker is willing to work with Americans –soon.
“We’re gonna find out,” Trump told The Post when asked about Iran’s Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. “I’ll let you know that in about a week.” …
“There has been total regime change because the regimes of the past are gone and we’re dealing with a whole new set of people,” Trump said. “And thus far, they’ve been much more reasonable.”
I read that as not saying we’re talking to Ghalibaf yet, but that we expect him to reply. As I see it, Trump is purposely vague in his public statements.
Ghalibaf – whom I doubt wants a target on his back at which other people in the regime might want to take aim – has been denying talks with the US, as have
others in the government. That doesn’t tell us much either, because they would have reason to lie about it if they were talking.
As far as I can tell, none of these leaders is anything but a hardliner. I think Trump knows that, but I don’t know what he’s willing to concede. It may be that he’s aiming for something like the current Venezuela situation, with a cooperative leader in place who was formerly on the regime’s side. I don’t think this is possible in Iran because of the fanaticism and willingness to lie – but I assume (and certainly hope) that Trump, and the Mossad, know a lot more than I do.
A few weeks ago there was this curious set of statements by Trump, made only a few days after the war began (my emphasis):
Trump said he’s confident of the near-term success of his joint war with ally Israel — though he remains concerned about ensuring there’s a less bellicose leader in the long haul to turn Tehran around. …
“These are bad people. These are people that killed, I guess, it’s 35,000 [protesters in January]. The leader of the pack is gone. And as you know, 49 [officials] were taken out in the first hit. And I guess there was another hit today on the new leadership, and it looks like that was pretty substantial also.”
Trump insisted — without naming any names — that “a lot of the people you would least suspect want to quit. They want to have immunity. They’re asking for immunity, and probably at some point they’ll be dropping — as you would say, laying down their guns.”
But Trump said that he believes the “worst case” scenario could manifest years from now after he leaves office if someone “as bad as” Khamenei takes power.
“I guess the worst case would be we do this, and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person,” Trump told reporters.
“That could happen. We don’t want that to happen,” the president said.
“That would probably be the worst: You go through this, and then in five years you realize you put somebody in that was no better. So we’d like to see somebody in there that’s going to bring it back for the people.”
He certainly seemed aware of the problem even back then – including the problem of knowing whom to trust to turn power over. Maybe no one.
Trump’s bottom line must be that Iran can no longer be ruled over by a theocracy and must renounce all pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.
Maybe the more a regime type speaks, the more obvious his movements are…..
Trump wants a deal; Trump wants to win. Both in Iran, and in the US midterms. His negotiations are a key issue — he wants a deal. But they’re also effective at in sowing doubt about what he will do.
Trump knows that a big build-up with a surprise attack is the least costly way to win. He is sure to expect only a 10, or 5, or just 1% chance that Iran will really make the deal he’s willing to make.
So there will be some attack, plus a call for the Iranian people to come outside and oppose the IRGC. So far, the Iranians, the local boots on the ground, haven’t been protesting much. Wisely, and mostly safely, staying indoors. Hopefully planning on what to do when they do decide to do something.
My guess is that Trump does put Marines on one or more of Islands, along with a massive bombing campaign & with serious coordination of Israel.
Will such a Final Blow actually be final enough, heavy enough, to convince more Persians to come out and fight, & die & kill, against the regime? None know. But the heavier the blow, the more likely it will be seen as enough to win, so far more of those wanting to join the future winners will join — which is what is needed to win.
Trump likes to win.
(Thanks to AesopFan & Art Deco for some prior responses, this last week my 3 grandkids & their parents were visiting us so I’ve been really busy. I’m wondering if Trump is offering to pay Iranian generals to switch sides, & possibly some immunity / comfy exile. Money is often effective at getting others to do what you want. Not effective when it’s fanatics wanting to do what you oppose.)
In the near-immortal words of a now-departed AZ Senator McCain, who sang/said in, what, 1984? “Bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran”
@ Tom Grey > “Thanks to AesopFan & Art Deco for some prior responses, this last week my 3 grandkids & their parents were visiting us so I’ve been really busy. I’m wondering if Trump is offering to pay Iranian generals to switch sides, & possibly some immunity / comfy exile. Money is often effective at getting others to do what you want. Not effective when it’s fanatics wanting to do what you oppose.”
I hope you enjoyed the time with your family!
As for your speculation, I said as much to AesopSpouse a few days ago.
I would suspect that the generals are less committed to Twelver ideology than the mullahs (if any of them genuinely were, and not just posturing for the masses), and more interested in preserving their assets, as the IRGC appears to own or control most of the Iranian infrastructure and businesses.
Trump wouldn’t even have to pay them, just promise not to confiscate their bank accounts (Iranian and elsewhere) and not pursue them outside the country as long as they didn’t attempt to have any influence on, well, anything affecting Iran or Iranians .
If I were one of them, I would certainly take the money and run.
“Ghalibaf – whom I doubt wants a target on his back…” It’s “who I doubt wants a target on his back.” Using “whom” there is the grammatical equivalent of saying “I doubt him wants a target on his back.”
David:
I looked it up before I wrote it. This was the answer:
Good lord. This is is “Donnie from Queens” calling it in, except he actually had enough money to get himself elected president.
As always bauxy is fact-free, Hillary probably outspent Trump 2or 3 to 1 in 2016. Could you make it just a *little* more obvious you’re a paid troll lol
Neo, you are wrong. It appears that you got the answer from AI, which is often wrong. I guarantee it is wrong here. The “who” is the subject of the clause that starts with “who wants,” and must be in the subjective, not objective case.
It’s been a long time since I took grammar but I suspect David is right. Especially if AI is involved. In my admittedly limited experience you get more wrong answers than right answers from AI.
When I was studying engineering at UC Berkeley someone had an essay posted on their door about “knowledge-based expert systems”, a forerunner to AI. The essay suggested that an ignorance-based expert system would be more cost-effective since while ignorance of course is not as good as knowledge it is so much more freely available! I believe we are now seeing this play out in real time.
Fauxy bauxy always fact free
Fauxy bauxy not clever not he
Thank you, FOAF. After reading Neo’s mistaken reply, I asked ChatGPT for an answer. It began by giving me the incorrect one that she perhaps relied on, but when I pushed back, it conceded I was right. Should she be interested, I’d be happy to email her the thread, which is too lengthy to put here. Since “Language and Grammar” is one of her Categories, I was a bit disappointed.