
Anyway, to set the scene: for years, the Mad Mullahs have been enriching uranium and pissing about on the margin of have-we-enriched-it-enough-to-make-a-bomb-soon. Various meeja have produced article along the lines of "were they actually about to do it now" and all of that is wank; it would be impossible to know; it would be reasonable to not be prepared to leave it as a risk.
So, having conveniently smoothed their local environment, the Front Wheels decided to twat the MMs; naturally, the MMs fired back. As far as I can see, the FWs are using precise targetting, the MMs are using scattershot volleys of imprecise missiles most of which get shot down or tracked into the wilderness. The MMs haven't hit anything significant; the FWs by contrast have taken out a lot of the MMs military infrastructure3, and if nothing unexpected intervenes, will go on to win. Quite what "winning" will look like is unclear. Ideally, a revolution. Failing that, just destruction of all their significant military and nuclear stuff.
Should the USAnians join the fun? They are moving piles of air tankers regionwards which would be expensive if it was but a whim; I wouldn't be astonished if the Mango Mussolini decides that the Kikes are winning, so he should join in late2 and claim all the credit. And I bet the US military would love to know whether their bigger bunker-busters actually work for real. Notice how helpful it is that Russia has exhausted itself in Ukraine and has no strength left to meddle elsewhere; relatedly, Syria is being sensible.
A brief note on negotiations: the MMs were never serious about this, presumably because they would have lost face. Even now they are pissing around insisting on a ceasefire-before-talks, which is stupid. I'm not even sure why they are bothering; the Ks are ignoring them, obvs; the EU are paying attention because they love talking, but the Ks are ignoring the EU too, obvs4.
This post notes that Israel is winning with fighters against a country noted for its drones; whereas the twitterati consensus was that fighters are obsolete in an era of drone warfare. That's not quite fair, because the MM's drones are slow-moving bombs; but it does illustrate the point that drones aren't any use against invisible fighters at altitude and speed and range.
What could go wrong? The MMs could actually scrape enough Pu together to make a bomb; but then they'd have to deliver it, which would be tricky given the ~5% suvival rate of their missiles so that seems quite unlikely. They could amuse themselves targetting ships in the gulf, but that's a quick way to bring the USAnians down on their heads, so probably not a good idea; and anyway in a couple of days they won't even be able to do that.
Competition's eatin' the mice
2025/06/22: As the seminal LL Cool J put it in the eerily prescient Mama said knock you out:
Explosions, overpowerin'Over the competition, I'm towerin'Wrecking shop, when I dropThese lyrics that'll make you call the copsDon't you dare stareYou better move, don't ever compareMe to the rest that'll all get sliced and dicedCompetition's payin' the price
Or to put it another way, the USAnians have indeed dropped the bomb. Not The Big One, just a few big ones. Death Star memes are available. I'm charmed by the way the MM ends his twit "Thank you for your attention to this matter"; it is as though he is still remembering his complimentary close from business school. The results of the twatting aren't obviously impressive; doubtless you've seen people trying to interpret the images (or here). The usual useless talking heads have volumes on what-might-Iran-do-now; for example Aunty; all of it worth every penny you paid for it. The Dems are predictably useless. Reportedly, The Iranian Parliament has approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, and doubtless the popcorn vendors are desperately hoping the MMs do try to do this. 2025/06/23: "sadly" it looks like they've wimped out.
Notes
1. I was going to belabour exactly why, but realised it woud be pointless.
2. Like wot they always do.
3. This will become fairly obvious as the MMs run out of missiles and launchers over the next few days.
4. 2025/06/21: for sheer po-faced taking ourselves too seriously, you can't beat Aunty's Huge dilemmas lie ahead for UK over Iran. No-one gives a toss but the political class can wank themselves blind over it. But even there they can't help getting it hopelessly wrong: Other sources describe diplomacy as a "sticking plaster", questioning how effective it can be when Israel...; no, you clowns, the problem is that the MMs, who are losing, refuse to talk about the one important thing, their bomb plans.
37 comments:
You criticise CND but you're just talking too. What are outraged people to do - start killing others? FYI I don't have any bunker busting bombs nor am I vile, money grabbing bully. So what should I do???
The genocidal actions of Israel are not an example I want to follow (toddlers, babies, children are terrorist - oh really???). But what am I to do about that also?
The regime in Israel is evil, the one in Iran indistinguishable so, likewise Russia and Saudi Arabia. America's is heading that way. But none of the peoples of those countries are evil.
Sadly, I have learnt how monsters get into power.
Israel's actions are not genocidal; that is an abuse of language that is, regrettably, becoming commonplace. What are you to do if you don't like what they are doing? BBegin by describing them accurately. After that, consider https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2023/11/care-less.html; there is no reason why you should do anything about a remote conflict that does not really concern you.
The Israeli and Iranian regimes are easily distinguishable; as a hint, consider which one you'd be prepared to live under.
Mad Mullahs... Not Genocide... It's clear that you value these people less. Ot's clear that you use the language of racism.
You've done it before. You claimed that your views matched Richard Hanania, a clear racist viewpoint.
"The Israeli and Iranian regimes are easily distinguishable; as a hint, consider which one you'd be prepared to live under."
This kind of 'they're better' view doesn't make their actions ok. It's a really poor logic. Next you'll start rambling about WMD.
' there is no reason why you should do anything about a remote conflict that does not really concern you.'
So why do you? You're a massive hypocrite. You keep cheerleading the Israelis.
N: I disdain your wilder shores of racism and illogic. And I'm not interested in responding to emoting. If you want to avoid stoat-spam, you'll need to moderate your tone. On hypocrisy I disagree: I do not count merely writing down my thoughts as doing something. If I was marching, or even promoting my thoughts, I would count that as a minor thing.
Nathan, at least you're consistent. You were just as obnoxious a decade ago.
I'm sorry William but they are: ' Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.' and that is what we see in Gaza. Are you blind to what has and is going on in Gaza? So blind you threaten to silence those who's opinion you don't like. To watch how you've changed since you started blogging is a shock to me.
Israel has killed thousands of men, women and children in Gaza. It stops people reporting what is going on there too. It's awful and indefensible.
Let me ask you this. What is Iran to do when they don't like what Israel is doing to them? Iran's survival is at stake (in their opinion) so what are they do to if they feel their survival is at risk?
Where would I choose to live? I reply by saying if the choice was between terminal cancer and terminal cancer the choice is not easy is it....I would fight like mad to stay here if I was threatened with living in either country! There are detestably 'mad clerics' in power in both of them. I would risk death at the hands of the state for one word out of place, in the wrong place, in both of them.
N: your comments moved to spam. It gets tedious doing this; any more that I feel the urge to move, I'll just delete. If you want your comments to appear you need to back off, and you don't seem to be very well calibrated. Any questions, put them over there.
Peter: I agree that genocide is "Genocide: the deliberate killing... with the aim of destroying that nation or group". I disagree that the Israelis have any intent of destroying that group. If they actually wanted to, and had the national will to do so, then they would. But they have conspicuously refraimed from doing so. Your definition would have the Pales guilty of genocide, since it stressed intent.
What is Iran to do: you speak as if Iran is one entity. Of course it isn't. It is a people oppressed by a theocracy; as so often, it is easy for those in power to convince the poor oppressed people that they need to support "national honour" in order to stay in power. Just as Hamxs oppresses the Pales. What the people should do, of course, is to overthrow the theocracy. Failing that, Iran should abandon its nukes.
Where would I choose to live?: I think you are being dishonest. If actually forced to choose, you would like all of us choose Israel. "I would risk death at the hands of the state for one word out of place, in the wrong place, in both of them": this is quite wrong; there is an oppostion in Israel, there are routinely anti-government protests.
Oh, and Tom: warning: don't insult other commentators. I'll do that if needed.
"But they have conspicuously refraimed from doing so".
Not sure why you think this... It's a process, it's ongoing...
"I disagree that the Israelis have any intent of destroying that group. "
Members of the Knesset have openly stated this.
So many organisations around the world, have indicated that they think it is going on.
Why are you convinced it isn't?
I am not being dishonest, thank you... There are places in Israel (thinkany illegal settlers) where, if I said a word out of place, I would risk some religious extremist pot shotting me. The same applies to Iran. As a man life in Iran might be bearable, I would detest life in present day Israel but you are asking me to choose between terminal cancers or between being shot and being shot.
I think the 'Pales' would commit genocide and I think Israel is doing the same. I cannot see where they have shown any restraint in Gaza - the places is one big, bloody, starved bombsite...
Israel IMO is very interested in Hamas. Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields. After October 7th, Israel changed its policy and has begun going after Hamas despite Hamas' genocidal use of innocent civilians as human shields. All numbers coming from Palestine are given to us by Hamas. According to them, apparently Israel is only killing women and children, never Hamas soldiers. I don't know when gullible people in the West started accepting casualty estimates coming from combatants on either side, but I find it laughable.
Tom,
So how many people have died?
The justification 'they made me do it' for what the IDF is doing is laughable.
The idea that killing people leads to success is pretty old... We should look to other means to find success.
Perhaps if Israel had followed through in 1993, we wouldn't be in this mess?
Perhaps if Hamas hadn't massacred more than 1,000 innocent Israelis on October 7th, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Does the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's reluctance to go nuclear on the Gaza bombing relate to its having already passed the combined kilotonnage of Hiroshima & the Blitz,?
How far back do you go? 1917? 1896?
So when and how does it end?
The establishment of Greater Israel, and the expelling of all the Palestinians? Oh, and most of the Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians as well? And a few Iraqis.
Or something short of that? If so, what?
The Pales can end it any time they like, by surrendering; they fought, they lost, the conventional way to end wars is to surrender. I don't see them wanting to do that; they never consider it as an option and their so-called friends do their best to avoid mentioning it.
"The Pales can end it any time they like, by surrendering; they fought, they lost, the conventional way to end wars is to surrender."
They've done it before, and it didn't work - Israel did not follow through on their commitments. Why would it be any different? They're still taking chucks of the West Bank, Syria, they're still bombing Lebanon... Israel keeps making sure peace doesn't happen. They murder the negotiators. They kill their own politicians that work for peace.
Israel has worked against peace as much as the Palestinians and clearly, they want to take it all.
This attitude of might is right is such 19th Century thinking.
Reminds me of recent Richard Hanania nonsense about how we should look to the surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as examples of successful regime change and (I assume) use those examples to propagate regime change in other countries. He just walks past 70 million dead along the way, but hey that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.
We need to find another way, without killing tens of thousands of people.
We enacted regime change in South Africa, without invasion. It's worth a try in the Middle East. No way that Israel can continue this fight without military assistance, stop helping them.
Is it worth it?
This is why surrender is not an option, really... https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/country-reports/ahrc5923-economy-occupation-economy-genocide-report-special-rapporteur
Israel will displace them and replace them
"The Pales can end it any time they like, by surrendering; they fought, they lost, the conventional way to end wars is to surrender."
Israel is demanding surrender, disarm and exile from Gaza.
How else can the Gaza Trump Resort get built?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PslOp883rfI
Surrender and disarm, yes. Exile, no.
I think you're still desperate to find excuses for not considering surrender.
Hamas is a brutal organization. I do not support Hamas.
I can see why Hamas doesn't want exile. I suspect Israel would take a very broad view of who was part of Hamas and needed exile.
Israel wants the land of the non-Jews who live in Greater Israel. I do not support that as well. Taking property from others isn't going to lead to peace anytime soon. You might want to ponder on the roots of property and nations.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120313041336/http://ditext.com/ardrey/imperative/imperative.html
"Meanwhile, Israel has said Hamas must surrender, disarm and exile itself from Gaza." https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-serious-about-reaching-ceasefire-agreement-insists-long-standing-demands
You removed my post?
Indeed; please refer to stoat-spam.
https://x.com/GozukaraFurkan/status/1942013129388421558
Israel has never supported a two state solution.
Awww, Nathan. I knew you were full of it but I checked with ChatGPT just to be sure; That assertion is not accurate. Israel has, at multiple points in history, officially supported a two-state solution, though the degree of support, conditions, and interpretations have varied widely by government, prime minister, and political context.
Here’s a timeline and key evidence:
🕊️ Historical Support for a Two-State Solution by Israel
1. UN Partition Plan (1947)
Israel accepted the United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which proposed two states—one Jewish, one Arab.
Arab states rejected the plan and launched a war after Israel declared independence in 1948.
2. Oslo Accords (1993–1995)
Under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israel signed the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian Authority and recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.
These accords implicitly endorsed a two-state framework, though they did not finalize borders or statehood.
3. Camp David Summit (2000)
Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a two-state proposal including most of the West Bank, Gaza, and a shared Jerusalem.
Yasser Arafat rejected the offer without a counterproposal. This failure was followed by the Second Intifada.
4. Road Map for Peace (2003)
Endorsed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the Road Map was backed by the U.S., EU, UN, and Russia.
It explicitly called for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.
5. Annapolis Conference (2007)
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas engaged in detailed negotiations on final status issues.
Olmert proposed a nearly complete withdrawal from the West Bank, land swaps, and shared control of Jerusalem.
Abbas did not sign, and talks broke down after Olmert left office.
6. Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan Speech (2009)
Benjamin Netanyahu, traditionally opposed to a Palestinian state, declared in a major speech:
“In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples will live freely side by side, in amity and mutual respect… a demilitarized Palestinian state.”
— Bar-Ilan University, June 2009
This was seen internationally as Israel’s endorsement of a two-state solution, though later comments and policies from Netanyahu have backtracked.
Literally evil... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/israeli-minister-reveals-plan-to-force-population-of-gaza-into-camp-on-ruins-of-rafah
Tom
Israel never followed the Partition Plan. They declared themselves a nation before the date the partition was supposed to happen. They didn't follow the plan. They expelled people from towns by force.
1993
They murdered their own Prime Minister, voted out the Govt that signed the accords and then didn't follow through with the deal.
2000
"Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a two-state proposal including most of the West Bank, Gaza, and a shared Jerusalem."
All of the deals after 1993 were styled to create failed states - Israel had been taking land in the West Bank illegally since the mid 80s, and wouldn't hand it back. Why would the Palestinians make deals that would likely just result in them losing land to the Israelis as had happened in the past.
"This was seen internationally as Israel’s endorsement of a two-state solution, though later comments and policies from Netanyahu have backtracked."
Israel has often provided verbal assurance, but as in most politics it's actions that speak louder. They have never done anything in support of a two-state solution and are actively working against it. Look to the activities in the West Bank
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/palestinians-fear-razing-of-villages-in-west-bank-as-settlers-circle-their-homes
Not supporting a two-state solution
Changing the subject, Steven E. Koonin, John Christy, Roy Spencer are now in the USA Energy Department.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/climate/trump-climate-energy-department.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VE8.aeY4.dHN1SEKJTDAe&smid=url-share
How do you think that is going to work out?
Add this: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/07/melange-a-trois/
I'm surprised by how little the denialists got out of Trump 1, in terms of power and positions; and this seems pretty small beer from Trump 2; Christy isn't even being paid, no-one can work out what they are even doing.
Meanwhile All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed seems to be of questionable veracity, or at least highly misleading. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, mean dismissed from their federal jobs; just told to stop preparing the report.
S+C of course get many Stoat mentions in the olde dayes for MSU. Kooning gets Happer, Koonin, Lindzen vs Alsup for the trial that all the nice people now prefer to quietly forget; and Vaclav Smil and Steve Koonin.
"Meanwhile All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed" is just part of the whole story. Do keep up. The authors were mostly not federal employees, the federal employees working on the report were fired separately, and the web pages with past reports were taken down.
This report is required by law see https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/169.
Post a Comment