But note the qualifiers such as “I think”:

There may be somewhat of a distinction between the people they’ve been talking to and the people in charge of decisions to attack, although Trump doesn’t say that in those remarks. But many of us have speculated that those two groups are not quite the same.

Trump also leaves some wiggle room for negotiations to continue. In other words, we still don’t know where this will go. Trump is highly motivated to keep oil prices down before the midterms, and the Iranians know it. That’s a huge factor in all of this. Note, also, that he’s not threatening to bomb them into the Stone Age (or even the Bronze Age).

The post Trump says talks with Iran are off … appeared first on The New Neo.

The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s demonstrated aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire.

What’s more, there’s this:

President Trump is officially REVOKING the US license that allowed Iran to sell their oil, after the mullahs STRUCK vessels in the Strait of Hormuz — Reuters

The US says Iran’s actions WILL be met with consequences.

How does that get enforced? Does the US once again block Iranian ships from leaving the country and getting through the Stait?

The post Things heat up with Iran appeared first on The New Neo.

They used to make a lot of patriotic movies, and I think it’s high time the genre got a revival. The title of the new film about Washington reminds me of the old chestnut Young Mr. Lincoln, one of my favorites from childhood when I saw it several times on TV. Here’s a scene; you’ll see they made up Henry Fonda to look a tiny bit more like Lincoln, whom he resembled not at all:

Speaking of Fonda and patriotic movies, here’s another one I saw on TV many many times as a child. This one is set in Revolutionary times, when the Mohawk Valley in New York was considered the western frontier: Drums Along the Mohawk. I notice now that both films not only starred Henry Fonda but they were both directed by John Ford and both were released in the magical year for movies, 1939. A busy time for both.

As a very young child I fell in love with Henry Fonda in these films. Do you think children can’t fall in love? I submit that they certainly can. At any rate, if you want to remember what a good actor Fonda was, watch this scene from Drums Along the Mohawk:

The post A revival of the patriotic film genre? appeared first on The New Neo.

Israel’s ban on Palestinian workers has left families hungry and parents unable to pay for their children’s school fees. Still, the ban is being justified in the name of security, and shows no signs of abating.

It reminds me of the old joke about the man who murdered his parents and threw himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.

As Katie Pavlich writes on X:

Israel is a sovereign country and Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank have zero right to work in that country – especially after Israelis who lived on the border with Gaza invited Palestinians into their homes to work and break bread. Gaza Palestinians returned the favor by taking notes about where safe rooms were, layouts of the homes, if there were dogs, etc. in plans for their ultimate slaughter, pillaging and rape on October 7. Dozens of Americans were murdered at the NOVA peace festival down the road.

So yeah, they’re not allowed to work in Israel anymore. Maybe you should be asking the governments of Gaza and the West Bank to foster economies that benefit their people so they don’t have to go work in the country next door.

However, it’s actually more complicated than that. There were indeed early reports that many Gazan workers spied on the kibbutz residents and helped Hamas with gathering information for the slaughter. But this spying was apparently not as widespread as initially reported – or was it? I’m referring to this report:

According to a Channel 12 report on Wednesday, the Shin Bet has investigated some 3,000 Gazans who had permits to work in Israel to assess if they had provided the terror group with information about the communities it was planning on attacking and has concluded that no such concerted effort was made.

The report noted that the Shin Bet did not completely rule out the possibility that some individual laborers had cooperated with the terror group.

“There’s no concern that the people who were investigated passed information to Hamas as a result of their work in Israel,” Channel 12 quoted the Shin Bet as saying. There was no immediate confirmation of the report from the agency, which rarely responds to inquiries.

What is the political bent of Israel’s Channel 12? I’ve read in that past that it’s on the left, and Google AI seems to think it’s center or center-left. At any rate, the issue is that this is (a) a report about a report, with no confirmation (b) a report based on interviews with 16% of the workforce; but who comprised this 16% and how were they made available for interrogation? (c) a report that there was no “concerted” effort.

What does “concerted” mean in this context – does it mean sheer numbers or does it mean coordination? Were the 16% typical of the group as a whole? How did Shin Bet determine whether they were telling the truth or not? Does the report even exist? If it does, is it being fairly represented? Not only is it not available for reading, but Shin Bet hasn’t even confirmed the story.

I don’t know the answers. What I do know is that Hamas is the government of Gaza and at the time of the attack had the support of the vast majority of the people of Gaza. It’s harder to tell how people in Gaza feel now, but I think it’s safe to say that many continue to harbor an intense hatred of Israel. Hamas itself is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Israel is under no obligation to employ any of the people of Gaza.

Another response to the New Yorker tweet asks the question: why can’t Egypt employ the unemployed Gazans? After all, they’re next door and many are of Egyptian descent. But we all know why: Palestinians have been a destabilizing element wherever they go.

In other news of Israel and Hamas, it appears that Israel continues to make inroads in Gaza, if this report is true:

The post Israel and Gaza: you’re mean if you don’t hire your sworn enemies to work for you appeared first on The New Neo.

Rubio’s attitude and the tenor of his message contrasts at least somewhat with that of Vance. Rubio seems more realistic to me in terms of what he’s saying. Of course, neither is in charge; Trump is. And the Rubio/Vance contrast – which is more one of emphasis, I think – may be intentional, with Rubio presenting to Iran as the “bad cop” and Vance the “good cop.”

The video isn’t all that long. But it highlights the important bits, with commentary. I watched it like I watch most talking heads videos: speeded up. But if you don’t have the patience to watch, here’s a very short excerpt I think is important. Rubio has a very clear way of stating things; here he’s asked about the attitude of the current Iranian leaders and whether they are religious fanatics:

The post Rubio speaks on the topic of the Iran MOU appeared first on The New Neo.

The U.S.-Iran summit in Switzerland has run into trouble on its third day, with both sides making conflicting claims. A day after Vice President JD Vance hailed a ‘major milestone’ in talks, declaring Iran had agreed to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country, the Iranian negotiators denied the claim.

There’s much more at the link, if you’re interested.

The post Iran again. Or not. appeared first on The New Neo.

But I wonder whether this has any meaning, or is just some form of theater (I actually think that way about a great many of the statements on both sides):

Iranian ultra-hardliners have launched a fierce campaign against a newly announced framework agreement with the United States, labeling it a humiliating capitulation that betrays the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The strongest backlash has come from the Paydari Front, also known as the Endurance or Steadfastness Front, which is a small but vocal faction of ideological purists. The group positions itself as the guardian of the revolution’s anti-Western principles.

Either they mean it – which is somewhat encouraging, because it might indicate that the “deal” isn’t a total capitulation on our part – or they don’t. If they don’t, they’re laughing at us behind the scenes and celebrating.

The post Iranian hardliners appeared first on The New Neo.

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 60–75 million deaths were caused by the conflict … This represents about 3% of the estimated global population of 2.3 billion in 1940. Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million. Military deaths from all causes totaled 21–25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

Those are estimates, of course. But we won’t quibble here; the point is that a lot of people died and a great many were civilians. Many civilians died from bombing that deliberately targeted civilians, or from killing fields and camps that performed mass murder of the premeditated kind. The US was spared those civilian deaths, but certainly saw the suffering that resulted from them abroad.

Atomic weapons targeting civilians ended the war with Japan. It is a paradox that the enormous number of civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably spared the deaths of many more by hastening the Japanese surrender (see my posts here).

By the time of the Vietnam War, our opponents had learned a thing or two. This was a guerilla war and a war of propaganda. The enemy read the US very well, and realized we didn’t have the stomach to go on and on and on. Also, it was as a result of the Vietnam War that the US draft ended and our military became all- volunteer, which removed most citizens from much knowledge of the calculations involved in fighting a war.

Later, instruments of war became more accurate. Our bombs are now relatively “smart,” certainly compared to in WWII or Vietnam. That doesn’t mean there is no collateral damage in which civilians die. But we don’t target civilians, and we have very little tolerance for the death of civilians even when it occurs by accident. These are not bad things; I think it’s a good thing to have compassion for civilians in war and even to try not to have many military casualties in war, if possible. But the unintended consequence is that it becomes more and more difficult, despite our technology, to definitively end a war against a foe who’s determined to resist and to use against us our reluctance to inflict massive harm on civilians or to put our own boots on the ground.

Terrorists and terrorist regimes have no such reluctance. Au contraire; they target civilians. Not only do they target civilians in terrorist attacks, but they also willingly put their own civilians in harms’ way, the better to accuse us of barbarity when we inevitably kill some of them.

[NOTE: See also this previous post of mine on clean hands in war, as well as this one.]

The post The dilemma of modern warfare appeared first on The New Neo.

President Donald Trump dismissed “false” media claims that the U.S. will be party to a $300 billion fund for Iran, as leaked versions of the initial agreement allege that the regime will receive billions of dollars worth of “cash sweeteners” just to sign a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) on Friday.

“President Donald Trump says the agreed deal with Iran is not final,” BBC reported Wednesday. “Speaking at the G7 summit in France, he adds that the US will “go back to dropping bombs” if he does not like the final agreement.”

The president also rejected the $300 billion fund claim, calling it “false.” “People can invest if they want. I mean, what am I going to do — say nobody’s ever allowed to invest? We’re not investing. We’re not putting up ten cents,” he told reporters.

I’d say it’s about 50/50 that any agreement will be signed at all and released on Friday. Of course, that’s a pretty safe bet; you sort of win either way, because you’ve really predicted nothing except that it will be one or the other.

UPDATE 5:40 PM:

Just a few moments after I wrote and posted the above, I saw that there’s been a briefing from the White House on the deal. It says basically what I wrote yesterday, strangely enough, which was this:

At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?

About today’s White House briefing:

“We’re not going to be taking their word for anything,” a senior U.S. official said when asked about “compliance” for Iran’s adherence to the deal, particularly when it comes to nuclear development, adding that the U.S. will “work very closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].”

Some provisions: a ceasefire (already in effect anyway, I would say), some blather about “mutual respect” (absurd, I would say, but typical diplospeak), more negotiations for 60 days for a “final” deal (which can be extended, so is basically meaningless), opening Hormuz – and the rest of it is mostly just things that might happen in a final agreement. A wish list, as it were.

What will happen more immediately is this:

The United States of America undertakes, but immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking, transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

There’s also this, which is somewhat opaque as to when it would happen:

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen, or restricted funds, and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of the MOU, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will usually agree on the procedures related to the relief of these funds during the negotiation. Such funds, whether retained in the original accounts or transferred, government may be fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The opaque part is whether this happens right away or is contingent, like so much of the rest, on further agreement.

It’s about what I expected, and I still find it troubling. It also still seems to me to be a way to get oil prices down in order to help the economy and the midterms. It seems to me to signal weakness, and since it depends on Trump’s now-uncertain readiness to go back to war if things don’t work out, that signal seems like an invitation to Iran to declare it has made the US capitulate. And in this case I think Iran would be correct.

I’ve written a great deal about Iran, both in the past and recently, and I’ve always seen it as an intractable problem. The Iranian government will stop at nothing – literally nothing – to stay in power. Our resolve does not include all-out war or boots on the ground. Modern technology and targeted bombings can only do so much.

ADDENDUM:
Professor Jacobson at LI says it more bluntly than I, but I’m in agreement with him:

It’s an embarrassment and sell out of our national interests. And that’s the nicest thing I can say about it. No reason to sugarcoat it. We went from sweeping military success to capitulating because Iran threatened to destroy the world economy and drive energy prices higher.

What a shame.

One of the many reservations I had about Trump at first, and have retained right along, is Trump’s mercurial nature and his loose-cannon tendencies. This can go either way; he’s unpredictable. Sometimes he’s rock-solid and sometimes he says or does things that make a person cringe. He is never completely reliable. The explanation for what is happening now with this deal – and the cause of my own uneasiness since the negotiations and ceasefire phase began – is not clear. But I agree that it has to do with economics. I would add, however, that Trump’s narcissistic desire to make a deal is probably some part of it. I’ve expressed that fear before: that the idea of himself as dealmaker extraordinaire would cause him to make a bad one. This seems to be that bad one, unless there’s a whole lot that I’m missing.

Another thing that has made me more and more uneasy as time has gone on is that Vance has become more visible as spokesperson compared to Rubio. This did not, and does not, bode well.

At the moment, this appears to rank up there with Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan – or worse. I hope I’m overreacting.

The post Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE] appeared first on The New Neo.

But how can this possibly be reassuring? Is it even correct, though? It’s based on Israeli sources, and I imagine Israel knows quite a bit, but who are those sources and what is their agenda?

Anyway, here’s some of the story:

Newly revealed details of the secretive US-Iran MOU lay out that it would extend the cease-fire to Lebanon, allow Iran to manage the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily waive Iranian oil sanctions and establish a pathway toward a comprehensive peace agreement, Israel’s Channel 12 reported Tuesday.

The framework, which would serve as the basis for broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran, outlines commitments on nuclear issues, sanctions relief, maritime security and the eventual withdrawal of American forces from the region.

Channel 12 is called both mainstream and center-left, but the NY Post reporting the story is on the right.

At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?

There are 12 points listed at the article, but the points were revealed by Axios. That doesn’t automatically make them wrong. But we’ve had so many articles and supposed revelations of this type that have turned out to be wrong, and so I refuse to believe the report until the official word comes out.

Trusting Iran on anything seems like a fool’s errand to me, however.

I hate reading articles like that. But my Inbox is bombarded with them, with titles like “worst deal ever.” I remind myself that we still don’t know. But all the reports resemble each other, and so I wonder if that’s because they’re based on the real thing.

The post More on the Iran deal – maybe appeared first on The New Neo.