So, how successful were the American strikes on Iran?

The New Neo Posted on by

The goal was to degrade and if possible eliminate Iran’s program to develop nuclear weapons. First up is to determine how much damage was done by the bombs, and second would be whether some of the uranium was moved prior to the strikes. Furthermore, could the regime, or a successor regime, reconstitute the program, and if so how quickly?

And no, I don’t have the answers. But here’s some relevant information.

Iran says the US attack was a were flesh wound, but Israel and the US give preliminary results that are more catastrophic although clearly it’s early and more checking needs to be done.

Commenter “physicsguy” writes:

So I’ve now seen claims by the left that the Iranians moved everything out of Fordow 3 days before, and followed up with a supposed satellite pic of about a hundred trucks lined up there. Anyone else seen that? I assume AI generated to support their argument that Trump was duped, or that he knew and went ahead for political gain.

I can’t believe that the US and Israel didn’t have eyes on the location 24/7.

I’ve seen tons on that from the trolls at Insty and elsewhere. It seems to be based on this sort of thing:

A total of 16 cargo trucks were spotted on the access road leading up to the Fordow tunnel entrance on Thursday, but most had moved to a spot 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) northwest of the access road by the following day, Maxar said.

New trucks and multiple bulldozers had appeared close to the main entrance by Friday, with one truck very close to the main tunnel entrance, the satellite imagery provider said.

The significance of the activity is not yet clear, but Iranian state media reported key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved “to a safe location.”

There’s no reason to trust a thing Iranian media says. So let’s see what Israel and the US say:

However, top US general Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a more muted assessment of the strikes, saying that the full understanding of their effectiveness will “take some time.”

“Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction.” …

Despite wide speculation that the nuclear material had been moved from the sites ahead of the strikes, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US believes that a significant amount of Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium was located in the Isfahan facility when it was struck.

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rubio says that, while “no one will know for sure for days,” he doubts that Iran’s uranium stockpile was relocated before the operation.

“I doubt they moved it,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They can’t move anything right now inside of Iran. I mean, the minute a truck starts driving somewhere, the Israelis have seen it, and they’ve targeted it and taken it out. So our assessment is, we have to assume that that’s a lot of 60% enriched uranium buried deep under the ground there in Isfahan.” …

He allowed that it would take days to know for sure whether the nuclear material was there.

Then there’s this at battleswarm blog:

Before the strike, video shows Iranian trucks lined up at the complex entrance. But the trucks look like open-roofed earth moving vehicles, not equipment transport vehicles. These were apparently used to cover the entrances with dirt.

However, there were a couple more specialized vehicles that may have been used to remove enriched uranium from the site.
“I can’t see everything important being evacuated in a couple of days. There’s bound to have been some equipment, some important equipment, left in here. The centrifuges, for example, can feasibly be dismantled and removed by truck, but is tricky to do, because of a base’s depth and will take time. And I think it’s unlikely Iran would have had enough time to do so. But Reuters does say that the enriched uranium had already been removed.”

More here:

1. Both Fordow and Natanz are under partial surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). … In several cases, the IAEA retained knowledge of infrastructure layouts and could remotely detect large-scale activity, especially if dismantling or evacuation were attempted.

2. This isn’t a warehouse full of sacks of potatoes. We’re talking about highly specialized, sensitive equipment, thousands of IR-1 and advanced IR-2m and IR-6 centrifuges. For context:
•Natanz had an estimated 15,000–20,000 centrifuges at peak capacity. Even after the JCPOA, thousands remained in use or storage.
•Fordow, while smaller, housed over 1,000 advanced centrifuges, some enriching uranium up to 60% purity in recent years.

These are not items that can be boxed up and trucked out overnight. Dismantling a single cascade (a chain of 164 centrifuges) safely requires days of work, if not longer. Multiply that by hundreds of cascades, and you quickly realize this isn’t a quick getaway.

Additionally, centrifuges are connected to high-pressure uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) lines. Improper disassembly can lead to contamination, equipment damage, or worse, leaks of radioactive gas. Such evacuations would require weeks of preparation under controlled conditions.

3. Let’s not forget that the U.S. and Israel have had persistent, layered surveillance over these sites for years, satellites, high-altitude drones, SIGINT, HUMINT. Every inch of ground around Fordow and Natanz has been watched for telltale signs of activity. The idea that Iran stealthily evacuated multiple facilities without being detected is simply ludicrous.

Doesn’t sound all that likely to me.

NOTE: Please see also this article as well as this one.

Roundup!

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Here’s what many Democrats have been saying about the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities:

Their claim? The White House recklessly bypassed congressional leadership — specifically Democrats — before the operation, supposedly violating the Constitution. It’s a laughable accusation, especially considering that they had no such concerns when Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden launched military strikes without congressional approval or proper notification.

The thing to remember, however, is that the Democrats are not addressing those who pay attention to history or who want the evenhanded application of a principle. They are addressing their base and those in the middle who either are in fact ignorant of history and/or don’t want both sides to be held to the same standard.

Speaking of principles, the Democrats have now simplified their principles to just one: if Trump is for it, they’re against it. It makes for the need to take some “interesting” positions.

(2) There was an attack at a Michigan church, and it didn’t end well for the shooter:

“The Wayne Police Department responded to an active shooter at Crosspointe Church in Wayne this morning,” the department said. “Upon arrival, officers determined that a security guard for the church shot and killed the suspect. One victim was shot in the leg. Please avoid the area. Officers are still actively investigating.”

During a news conference, Wayne Police Chief Ryan Strong shared that they did not know the suspect’s specific motive or why he chose to target the church, but said he was carrying a “long gun and handgun.”

“The gunman is a 31-year-old white male from Romulus. His motivations are unknown, but at this point it appears he was suffering from a mental health crisis,” Strong said. …

The outlet said that the armed suspect was on his way into the Christian church when a person outside the church tried to stop him using a truck.

“Several staff members from the church approached the gunman. A parishioner struck the gunman with his vehicle as the gunman shot the vehicle repeatedly,” Strong said.

He added that at least two staff members shot the gunman, which caused fatal wounds.

(3) Speaking of church attacks, this one was far more tragic:

At least 22 worshippers have been killed and 63 wounded in a suicide bomb attack at a Christian church in Syria.

The bomber opened fire as people were praying inside Mar Elias Church, in the Dweila neighbourhood of Damascus, before detonating his vest.

Some children are thought to be among the wounded, according to state media.

Horrifying footage showed blood splattered over the shattered pews and masonry walls following the blast.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the attack but Syria’s interior ministry said a member of the Islamic State group was behind Sunday’s attack.

ISIS, that is.

(4) Remember – it seems like a long time ago – the two Democrat state legislators in Minnesota who were shot, along with their spouses? One legislator and her husband died, and the shooter Boetler was taken into captivity. The left lost no time saying the shooter was a Trump supporter, but it turns out (in no surprise) that it’s a great deal murkier than that:

Accused Minnesota political assassin Vance Boetler wrote a deranged letter addressed to the FBI in which he wildly claimed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz instructed him to kill Sen. Amy Klobuchar, according to a report.

Boetler, 57, alleged in the rambling, conspiratorial letter that the former Democrat vice presidential candidate directed him to murder Klobuchar (D-MN) as part of a supposed plot for Walz to take her spot in the Senate, The Minnesota Star Tribune reported, citing people familiar with the writings.

(5) Iran attempted a strike on a US air base in Qatar but not too much happened. Some say that it was a face-saving show attack by Iran (can’t find the link now, but it’s certainly possible – ADDENDUM: here’s some info on that) and that Qatar was tipped off.

Israel (and Trump) send a message to the Iranian people

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel bombed some interesting targets today:

Israeli fighter jets on Sunday night struck the administrative compound of Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, media reports suggest.

“Footage from the attack shows one strike hitting the entrance gate to the prison,” The Jerusalem Post reported Monday. “The strike was deliberately targeted at the entrance gate so as to avoid hitting the inmate housing,” the newspaper reported, citing Iranian sources.

Evin Prison, which detains opponents of the regime and kidnapped foreigners, is infamous for rape and torture of inmates by the the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) thugs that runs the facility and answer only to Iran’s tyrant Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

There are undoubtedly more political prisoners in Evin Prison than there were in the Bastille. Perhaps the attack was more than symbolic, but it was symbolic at the very least.

Plus:

Other regime targets struck by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) include the headquarters of IRGC-affiliated Basij militia and the so-called “Destruction of Israel” clock in the heart of Tehran. …

The Tehran’s landmark digital clock was counting down to the destruction of Israel in the year 2040, a reference to the prophecy made by Khamenei, the dictator of Iran and the ‘spiritual leader’ of Shia Muslims across the world.

The clock was erected in 2017.

Israel wasn’t finished. These targets were also hit:

“A short while ago, the Israeli Air Force fighter jets, guided by precise intelligence from the IDF Intelligence Directorate, struck command centers and assets belonging to the Internal Security Forces and the IRGC in Tehran, Iran,” the IDF said in a statement Monday. “These forces consist of various corps and command centers, and are responsible, on behalf of the Iranian regime’s military, for defending the homeland security, suppressing threats, and maintaining the regime’s stability.”

The strikes also targeted the regime’s most loyal Basij militia. The 600,000-men strong Shia-jihadist militia within the IRGC is often used by the regime to terrorize the population and crush street protests.

Again, that is very clearly directed in a way that should hearten the opposition groups in Iran.

And Trump added this message for the Iranian people:

It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!

And no, that doesn’t mean that the US is going to act directly to change the regime – although Israel might get a tad more aggressive on that.

None of this means the Iranian people have the will or the power to act, or in what way they might act. And of course the final result would be unknown – as is true of all shakeups and revolts. But to those who say “something worse than the present regime could come to rule Iran,” I’m trying to imagine what that might be. Worse than a leading state sponsor of terrorism around the world? Worse than an entity that believes it has the deity-driven dictate to destroy Israel, the US, and the West? I’m having trouble picturing just what that would be. Maybe the same goals, but more competent? And yet actually, helped along by the Obama and Biden administrations, the mullahs were seeming pretty competent until last summer, when Israel decided that they’d had enough of Iranian proxy Hezbollah. The rest is history – so far.

The US has bombed Iran’s nuclear sites, including Fordow

The New Neo Posted on by

It had to be done. And now it has been:

In a major strike after midnight local time, U.S. B-2 stealth bombers targeted and destroyed three of Iran’s most fortified underground nuclear sites.

The mission followed reports of six B-2s taking off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri around midnight. While initial chatter suggested the aircraft were headed west toward Guam, Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin noted the true flight path was likely east, directly toward Iran, in what appears to have been a calculated deception. …

The Fordow complex, buried deep beneath a mountain near Qom and considered the crown jewel of Iran’s nuclear program, was the primary target. Griffin reported that multiple passes were likely needed to deliver two 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs or Massive Ordnance Penetrators, into each of the site’s two known entrances.

Each B-2 carries two such bombs. President Trump confirmed in a Truth Social post that a “full payload” was dropped on Fordow.

Natanz and Isfahan, both core to Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure, were also hit. Israeli aircraft had tried and failed to penetrate the underground Natanz facility earlier in the week, but U.S. bombers appear to have succeeded.

Those are the initial reports. More details should be coming soon.

And of course, there’s the question of what Iran will do next – or what it can do next. Iran has been at war with us – at a low level, although not a “cold” war – since 1979. Iran has been threatening to annihilate us as well as Israel for that same amount of time. It apparently was close to obtaining the means to do so in terms of Israel. Our attack on their nuclear facilities is the very definition of a preemptive strike.

Dance: it’s the attack

The New Neo Posted on by

Please watch this video. I’m not keen on this style of dancing; it ordinarily doesn’t interest me. But the reason I’m featuring this is that it’s an excellent demonstration of an element of dance called attack.

Attack isn’t necessarily hostile, although it sounds that way. However, it’s aggressive in the sense that it’s a harnessing of energy in which the entire body moves very quickly and as one. It’s sharp and incisive, almost like a karate chop although not destructive. I’m talking about the lead dancer:

You may have noted that although his fellow dancers are doing the same steps, they don’t have the same attack.

Pakistan recommends Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize

The New Neo Posted on by

Who saw this coming? Not I. Not even me.

And yet:

ISLAMABAD: The government has formally decided to recommend US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, praising his decisive diplomatic intervention and leadership during the recent Pakistan-India standoff, according to an official statement released Friday. …

In formally backing Trump’s Nobel nomination, the statement said: “President Trump’s leadership during the 2025 Pakistan–India crisis manifestly showcases the continuation of his legacy of pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building.”

He should have gotten it for the Abraham Accords during his first term.

Israel’s infiltration of Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

There is no question that Israel has penetrated Iran in the sense of getting good intelligence on which to act. How this has been accomplished is one of those Mossad secrets, and I’m certainly not privy to them. But I can certainly speculate.

One thing many people may not realize is that Jews have a very long history in Iran (originally Persia):

The history of the Jews in Iran dates back to late biblical times (mid-1st millennium BCE). The biblical books of Chronicles, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, contain references to the life and experiences of Jews in Persia. In the book of Ezra, the Persian kings are credited with permitting and enabling the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple; its reconstruction was carried out “according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra 6:14). This event in Jewish history took place in the late 6th century BCE, by which time there was a well-established and influential Jewish community in Persia.

As I said, a long history. I’ll skip to recent history; here’s an article written in February of 2025:

Despite rising antisemitism and diminishing tolerance, Iran’s Jewish community maintains a strong sense of cultural pride and national identity, according to David Nissan, an Iran expert and former Israeli intelligence officer who was born and raised in Tehran. …

When asked to shed light on Iran’s Jewish community, once the flagship of Middle Eastern Jewish communities, Nissan noted that despite significant emigration from the 1979 Islamic Revolution to the present day, the community still maintains a complete Jewish way of life. …

The main challenge for the Jewish community today is separating Zionism from Judaism,” said Nissan.

“They must prominently demonstrate this separation and prove their loyalty to Iran, which views Zionism as illegitimate and reprehensible. The difficult economic situation in Iran also affects the Jewish community, most of which already belongs to a lower socioeconomic status,” he explained. …

Following the revolution, the Jewish community, which at its peak included almost 100,000 Jews, shrunk to just 9,000 Jews currently residing in Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan.

So these are mostly poor – and I would guess predominantly elderly – Jews whose ancestors probably have been in Iran for millennia and who are not Zionists and must make that clear. I doubt that they are a significant source of the intelligence Israel gets on Iran, although of course I don’t know for sure.

But note the first paragraph I quoted, which is that the speaker, Nissan, is “an Iran expert and former Israeli intelligence officer who was born and raised in Tehran.” So this “former Israeli intelligence officer” is an Iranian expat, and there are many such expats in Israel today. I would guess that some of them are the source of the Mossad’s intelligence on Iran, either by being on the ground undercover in Iran and/or by communicating with Iranian informants who are not Jewish but who are insiders in the government.

Which brings us to the second source of information and I would guess the largest one: Iranian insiders who are not in tune with the mullahcracy and who are giving the Israelis important information on the movement and location of important government figures as well as nuclear scientists, munitions, and plans.

In addition, there is also the usual electronic surveillance. The Israelis are no doubt adept in the most modern versions of that.

The entire apparatus must strike some sort of fear into the Iranian rulers. It’s a sort of “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” – not that the Iranians are necessarily familiar with that jingle, but “He sees you when you’re sleeping/He knows when you’re awake” must be the way they feel right about now. Plus, note the first line of the song: “You better watch out.”

The Founders and Islam: sound familiar?

The New Neo Posted on by

According to this:

PBS released a 30 minute documentary on “How Muslims influenced Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers” without even once mentioning the Barbary slave trade.

“Romanhelmetguy” – the author of the tweet I just linked – goes on to quote from this document written to John Jay by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1786 when negotiating on the Barbary pirates issue. Here’s a longer quote:

… [W]e took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make War upon Nations who had done them no Injury, & observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation —

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their profit, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, & to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise —

That it was a law that the first who boarded an Enemy’s Vessell should have one slave, more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate Valour and Enterprize, that it was the Practice of their Corsairs to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger, in each hand, & another in his mouth, and leap on board, which so terrified their Enemies that very few ever stood against them — that he verily believed the Devil assisted his Countrymen, for they were almost always successful —

I didn’t watch the program, nor do I intend to, but I’m using the occasion to repeat a post I first wrote in 2016, about the Founders and Islam. Here it is:

There’s been a discussion in the comments section about the attitude of the Founders towards Islam, and how it relates to freedom of religion, and I thought I’d add some background.

At the outset, when the principles of freedom of religion were being established in Virgina in 1779, and Jefferson and Madison were discussing them (later to be the basis of the First Amendment of the US Constitution), Jefferson felt that freedom of religion should:

…comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

This was despite the fact that the Founders must have known, for example, the history of the Crusades and later of the Gates of Vienna.

In 1786, when the fledgling US was dealing with the Barbary pirates, by whom many US and European ships were seized and their crews sold into slavery, the initial reaction of the US was this:

Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson’s friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen.” This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute…

…Jefferson and John Adams [later] went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Later, as president, Jefferson launched [dead link?] a war against the pirates and was successful. But he never had to deal with anything approaching large numbers of Muslim arrivals to this country; at the time, Muslim immigrants were few and far between, nearly nonexistent. The fight was almost wholly an external one, and so the question of whether Islam’s tenets disagreed with our Constitution, and what to do about that in terms of immigration, did not really come up.

And then there was John Quincy Adams, not exactly a Founding Father (although we might call him a Founding Father’s Son). In 1830 he wrote, in the context of discussing the Russo-Turkish wars:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. ”¦He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

Between [Islam and Christianity]”¦a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture”¦While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him”¦(Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.)”¦.

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274)”¦

I’ve been able to locate the entire passage, and the rest of the essay is an elaboration on the differences between Christianity and Islam, as well as a discussion of Russia’s (a Christian nation’s) war with the Ottomans. In the essay, Adams does not discuss the prospect of Muslim immigration to this country, still extremely rare at that time, and what it might mean. So he never had to come to any conclusions about freedom of religion in this country, and whether it included the freedom to practice a religion he had described in such a manner.

[NOTE: In a footnote to his essay, Adams describes (page 379 in the complete text) the negotiation of a Barbary War treaty in Algiers, when the American signers assumed that the English and Arabic translations were the same. Wrong! The Arabic translations apparently contained an extra clause omitted in the English version, which required payment of the very sort of tribute the treaty was meant to end.]

What about the Strait of Hormuz?

The New Neo Posted on by

Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and I’ve seen some online buzz speculating that Iran may decide to close it in order to punish the west. If so, what might happen?:

Sven Moxnes Harfjeld, President and CEO of DHT Holdings suggested that there would be a scramble by oil buyers and traders to replace the approximately 15 million barrels per day of crude oil coming out of the Gulf, adding that buyers were already looking around at possible replacement sources.

Frontline’s Barstad followed up, saying: “We’ve been close to this situation before… I actually seriously doubt that the Strait can be closed for any prolonged period of time.”

He saw escorted convoys as one potential solution. “You are actually sailing in Omani waters… I think that we can be exposed to delays as we proceed here – the first would be daylight only navigation – you could see convoys.”

Reassurance can also be found here:

Hotheads and hardliners within Iran’s government may get their way and impose an irrational closure. But considering all the factors, the Iranians are unlikely to initiate such a move. Iran would suffer because of its loss of revenue-earning capacity. Iran would permanently lose its export markets, with China switching to more dependable, alternative suppliers, particularly at a time when there is crude over-supply. China, the last Security Council member with an inclination to support Iran but never a huge admirer, would likely abandon Iran politically. The battle to keep the strait open which would ensue would see Iran’s entire petrochemical infrastructure destroyed. This would please the Russians very much, because it would force oil prices higher, needed to fund their war in Ukraine.

Closer to home, Qatar has shared commercial links with Iran over jointly-owned gas fields. Oman has always maintained cordial links with Iran. Any attempt on Iran’s part to enforce a closure – for example by laying sea mines – would upset what are essentially neutral relationships, particularly if territorial waters were infringed. For Oman in particular, any Iranian attempt to interdict shipping on the Omani side of the Straits would be catastrophic for a carefully-nurtured relationship which is of greater value to Iran than Oman – any trust would be destroyed should there be armed clashes or drone strikes across meridian lines.

And yet the rumors persist, mainly because Iran has made the threat:

“If the United States officially and operationally enters the war in support of the Zionists (Israel), it is the legitimate right of Iran in view of pressuring the U.S. and Western countries to disrupt their oil trade’s ease of transit,” Ali Yazdikhah, a senior Iranian lawmaker, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency on Thursday.

Closing the Strait would basically amount to attacking ships trying to pass through it; it cannot be literally closed.

Sunny Hostin regrets asking Kamala Harris a real question

The New Neo Posted on by

It was meant to be the easiest of questions to answer. A layup. Softball. Sunny Hostin of TV’s “The View” had no intention to stump Kamala Harris or to surprise her when she asked, “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?” And yet Harris’ answer was that no, there wasn’t anything – a response so inadequate that it helped sink her candidacy.

Now Hostin looks back and reflects:

Speaking on the “Behind the Table” podcast posted Wednesday, the incendiary host said she feels “terrible.”

“It’s Sunny’s fault she [Kamala] didn’t win,” Joy Behar quipped, trying to be funny but figuratively stabbing her co-host in the back. Sunny put her hands to her face in shame, then responded [when asked if she knew it would be a viral moment]:

“I knew it instantly when she answered it. … Which is why I asked the follow-up question, ‘is there one thing?’ Because I knew, I could see the soundbite and I knew what was going to happen, but I thought it was a really fair question and I thought it was a question that she would expect. …

“I feel terrible.”

She feels terrible that she asked a question that elicited an answer that hurt Kamala’s chances. Obviously, she still wishes Harris had been elected.

But here’s my question for Hostin: does she wonder why Harris gave such an abominable answer? I assume that Hostin – like so many people confronted with the flaws of their favored candidates – would make some sort of excuse. Was Kamala having a bad day, for example? But that doesn’t wash, because this was a question so basic, so obvious, that Harris should have had an acceptable answer memorized even if she couldn’t come up with one on the spot. Her answer wasn’t a fluke; it was emblematic of what was wrong.

To me, Harris had many many major flaws. The first set could be grouped under the heading “she’s a leftist.” But the second set was different, and even those who liked her leftism – such as Sunny Hostin – should have been alarmed by this second group, which could be grouped under the heading of “she’s utterly incompetent, mentally disorganized, and incapable of the most basic communication of ideas.”

What I find worthy of mention is the fact that Hostin and so many others never saw that or will not admit it even if they did see it. They cannot afford to do so, either to others or even to themselves. A mind is indeed a difficult thing to change.