 |
| Teherán, Azadi Square, Azadi Tower, Írán |
 |
| Peace Through Annihilation |
I hope it doesn't come to that, and I don't think it will, but Iran really needs to smacked down and smacked down hard.
Stolen entire from Bravo Blue:
HOW NOT TO GUARANTEE STRATEGIC DEFEAT by retired Colonel Jim McDonough
No sooner had the levers of economic sanctions against Iran been strengthened when cries from the left and the right turned up the volume to call for our surrender.
The left’s are better orchestrated, essentially an almost frothing set of talking points that the current engagement with Tehran has been a needless and unsustainable departure from what recent Democrat administrations had already solved with skilled diplomacy. The right’s positions, as usual poorly organized, offer a mixed bag of regrets that so much has gone badly (list of horribles to follow) it is now time to throw in the towel. Both, however, stem largely from political and ideological motivation.
Oddly enough, they have a common objective. They want to get out of the conflict – and to get out fast, at any cost. In essence this would be a guarantee of strategic defeat.
Bringing war to a conclusion is always dicey. Often, great slaughter is undertaken even when it is foregone how it is going to end. Consider the final months of the Civil War, the last day of WW I (more than a thousand doughboys were killed before 11 a.m.), and the closing campaign to take Berlin (by the Soviets) in WW II. How to end a war when you have the upper hand is always a problem for national leaders. They are torn between the temptation to increase the killing or to diminish the efforts to achieve the original goals of the war. Such is the tension today for us as the Administration faces a stubborn and fanatical foe in Iran determined to fight to the end. What is the road to surrender, and who surrenders?
Insights to the answer may lie in the final days of the war against Japan. By the summer of 1945, the allies were unchallenged in the skies (save for kamikazes), the Japanese navy was at the bottom of the sea, and the Soviets were about to unleash their armies into Japanese territories. Yet Japan’s military leaders were determined to carry on, mobilizing the entire population to fight on with whatever they had at hand. They ‘bravely’ referred to it as the One Hundred Million campaign, meaning the numbers they expected would die --most of them Japanese civilians (see Evan Thomas’s excellent book, Road to Surrender: Three Men and the Countdown to the End of World War II).
The Americans had their own estimates of military casualties it would likely suffer (hundreds of thousands to millions) and spoke in terms of facing endless replicated battles on the scale of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. In lieu of that, we elected the option of the atomic bomb, the first on Hiroshima on the 6th of August and Nagasaki on the 9th. Even then, the Japanese hardliners (read military leaders) held firm, advancing their plans for a political coup should the peacemakers (referred to as ‘traitors’ by them) prove dominant. Nonetheless, despite surrender terms offered that allowed for the emperor to remain in place unharmed, the Japanese would not budge.
This impasse led the Americans to begin moving forward to drop a third bomb (then being assembled), this one on Tokyo. Our leaders were reluctant to do so (aghast at the demonstrated destructive power of the first two) but saw no other option. The Japanese did not know we had only three bombs, so they expected more were coming. This threat of more atomic bombs and the continued saturation of fire-bombings mattered to Emperor Hirohito, however, and to aother peace advocate — Foreign Minister Togo. Both knew how terrible the war had been for Japan (its people now in the early phases of starvation, the military being the only ones adequately fed) and had had enough. Their military, however, was dismissive of the reality, and divorced from any empathy for the suffering of their own people.
In the end, as the third bomb was being uploaded, Hirohito and Togo gathered their courage, denied the generals and admirals their idiocy, and signaled their readiness to surrender.
We did not know then what was going on in the Royal Palace just as we do not know now what is happening in the corridors of power in Iran. But we do know that we have great leverage over the conditions that can influence their decisions.
The first of these is our military prowess amply demonstrated in Operation Epic Fury in the spring and in the Straits of Hormuz now. The second is the economic stranglehold which has been greatly enhanced in recent days.
We also know that the Iranian people are suffering. Their economy is staggering and the rial has become virtually worthless. Everywhere (save for the political elites) deprivation is worsening.
Containing the internal unrest that might otherwise rear up has been a major concern of the fanatical IRGC leadership. So far, they have repressed it after a short but bloody uprising in the spring, but have the seeds of that rebellion gone away? Only time will tell.
We need to take that time, using the threat (and actual use) of military power when necessary and the application of severe economic sanctions to continually increase the pressure on Iran and its leaders. Now is not the time to seek an ‘exit ramp’ and surrender the goals with which we entered this conflict. Iran’s efforts to become a nuclear armed nation cannot be allowed to continue. Its endless terrorism by its regional and worldwide operatives must be dismembered.
The arguments to cease and desist using the levers we have at hand — many of them motivated by short term political objectives — are not the way ahead. Patience, strength, and calibration are what is needed. Conditions will change constantly, the power centers in Iran will bluff and deceive endlessly, and factions within our own political structures will cry out “enough” repeatedly. None of these should become a call for retreat.
Many believe the IRGC is too fanatical to fold. That was also thought to be the case with Japan’s military leadership in 1945. But when the pressure becomes so great that it is impossible for leaders to demand that their subjects ‘bear the unbearable’ any longer, those leaders start to think about their own skins.
Stay the course; apply the pressure. That is a more certain path to bring strategic positives from this trying but necessary face-off.
 |
| 1943 Tehran Conference |
Left-to-right:
[Treasury Secretary Scott] Bessent, channeling WWII, compared the Trump administration’s economic strategy to the 1943 Tehran Conference where Allied leaders plotted the downfall of Nazi tyranny. But this time around, the target is Tehran.“For 47 years, the Islamic republic of Iran has been a malignant force in the world,” Bessent declared. “Within Iran, a corrupt regime has consigned what would be one of the world’s strongest economies to ruin and its enterprising people to repression. Beyond its borders, the Iranian regime maintains a network of proxies that perpetuate its terror.”
Bessent then turned to the nations that have covertly or overtly supported the despotic Iranian regime.
“The regime’s final refuge now lies in the self-deception of fearful nations that still believe accommodating aggression can secure a durable peace,” he wrote. “Iran’s enablers purchase and transport its petroleum. They facilitate the flow of its finances through exchange houses and free trade zones. They welcome Iran’s flights and maintain registries on its behalf. They turn a blind eye to seaborne fuel transfers and the illicit use of their banks, all while concealing the extent of their complicity.. In short, these countries calculate appeasement of the regime to be the safer course. But they would do well to consider the consequences of sustaining it.”
However, the world is full of shitheads who would sell their mother for mess of pottage, so excising the Iranian mullahs is no doubt going to take longer than anyone expects.
 |
| A woman in Tehran, Iran, walks past a mural featuring Iranian drones on May 26 [File: Majid Asgaripour/West Asia News Agency via Reuters] |
 |
| Press conference with a couple of missile mockups |
 |
| Anti-U.S. mural depicts American military aircraft being caught in a fishing net by Iranian forces |
 |
| Far Side 1987 |
 |
| Strait of Hormuz |
Based on reports as of April 2026, Iranian forces around the Strait of Hormuz have not been fully destroyed despite significant damage from U.S. and Israeli strikes because of the asymmetrical, dispersed, and unconventional nature of Iran's maritime capabilities, which are designed specifically to withstand such an onslaught.While U.S. and Israeli airstrikes have destroyed key Iranian missile launchers, ships, and infrastructure, several factors prevent complete neutralization:
- Asymmetric "Mosquito Fleet": Iran's primary threat comes from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, which relies on a massive, dispersed network of fast attack boats, drones, and uncrewed vessels. These small assets are hard to target compared to large, conventional naval vessels.
- Geographical Advantages & Hiding Spots: Iran uses its rugged coastline, small islands, and underground naval facilities to hide launchers, making them hard to completely wipe out.
- Mobile and Low-Cost Drones: Many of Iran's disruptive weapons, such as sea drones and missiles, are launched from mobile platforms on land, making them difficult for intelligence to track and destroy in their entirety.
- Persistent Naval Mines: Iran has deployed acoustic mines that are challenging to detect. Clearing these would require an extensive and slow-moving mine clearance operation, even while IRGC forces are hunted.
- The "Human Shield" of Shipping: The Strait is extremely narrow, with shipping lanes running close to Iran's coast. Full-scale destruction of all Iranian capabilities risks civilian collateral damage or catastrophic, immediate oil market shocks.
- "Destroyed" vs. "Deterred": While US officials aimed to destroy the Iranian navy to remove the threat, the IRGC continues to operate in a guerrilla-like fashion.
As of mid-April 2026, despite a US naval blockade, Iran still maintains a "strict control" posture over the waterway, using the threat of its remaining capabilities to disrupt traffic.
 |
| Ray Castle |
Rey Castle was an ancient fortification that dates back to the Median kingdom, over 2,300 years ago, although the settlement of Rey itself has archaeological evidence of continuous habitation since as early as 6000 BCE.
 |
| Tehran Iran |
 |
| Drone, Coast Guard Cutter and US Navy Ships in Strait of Hormuz |
Introduction:
The Strait of Hormuz is twenty-one miles wide. Two shipping channels, each two miles across, separated by a two-mile buffer. There is no alternative. Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline to Yanbu and the UAE’s pipeline to Fujairah can handle maybe five million barrels combined. The math doesn’t work. The bottleneck is not political. It is geological and hydrographic.
Every TV analyst in America is talking about minesweepers and carrier strike groups. They are asking the wrong questions. The binding constraint on Hormuz was never a minefield or insurance. It is the US Navy’s willingness and ability to reopen it.
Every talking point suggests the White House and Navy are working hard to reopen the strait but progress is slow. A new post on Truth Social suggests we may have to consider a new hypothesis.
“I wonder what would happen if we “finished off” what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called Strait?” wrote President Trump in a post this morning. “That would get some of our non-responsive “Allies” in gear, and fast!!!”
The article goes on to talk about insurance and the politics thereof. It's a little complicated. Hell, it's very complicated.
 |
| CMA CGM Tower Marseille |
One thing stood out and that is CMA CGM. Why are they getting mentioned in this story about geopolitics and high finance? Because CMA CGM, otherwise known as Compagnie Maritime d'Affrètement - Compagnie Générale Maritime, is the third-largest container shipping company in the world.
Via Marcel at MONDAY EVENING
 |
| Hilux - The Evolution of Revolution |
I made a 4D god's eye replay of the Iran strikes using public OSINT data.
— Bilawal Sidhu (@bilawalsidhu) March 3, 2026
When I turned on the orbital layer in worldview something jumped out.
You can see satellite passes stack up over the strike zones in the hours before & after impact. Everyone was watching. Some of them… pic.twitter.com/1yW2CiueKY
UK, US and allies accuse Iran of cross-border assassination plots
UK and 13 allies have accused Iran of plotting killings and kidnappings on Western soil.
The United Kingdom and 13 allied nations have publicly accused Iran’s intelligence services of orchestrating a wave of assassination attempts, abductions and intimidation campaigns against individuals residing in Europe and North America.
In a joint statement issued on Thursday, governments including the United States, France, Germany and Canada denounced Tehran’s alleged extraterritorial operations as a flagrant breach of national sovereignty.
What's even odder is that other countries joined in on these accusations, other countries that are well known for denouncing Israel if not outright coddling terrorists.
Did God want Trump to bomb Iran?
Invoking God to bomb Iran, Trump is reviving a deadly tradition of religiously justified US violence.
Like Iran's mullahs haven't been promoting religiously justified violence since forever.
“The extirpation of the Assassins or Ismaelians of Persia may be considered as a service to mankind.” - Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776)Ismaleans are the largest branch of Shia Islam. Shia Islam itself is in some respects comparable to Catholic Christianity, at least insofar as it grants great authority to Imams, who are honored as successors to Mohammed, the Prophet, much as Catholic Christians grant great authority to Popes, who are honored as successors to Jesus, the Christ. Sunni Islam on the other hand is in some respects comparable to Protestant Christianity because it is grounded on the scripture of the Koran and hadith.The Order of Assassins to whom Gibbon refers was an Ismaelian sect that flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth century. Although dispersed throughout Syria and Persia (Iran), the Order of Assassins operated with the discipline and policy of an organized state. Its capital was a mountaintop fortress known as Alamut Castle, located north of Tehran, wherein dwelt a dictator known to West as the Old Man of the Mountain. This Old Man did not, however, give law to a large territory, but rather to a large network that spread through neighboring states, much as veins of blue mold spread through cheese. There were “knots” in this network—minor fortresses subordinate to Alamut—and the whole might be likened without originality to a spider’s web.The Order of Assassins (or Nizari Ismaili state) is of course best remembered for eschewing open battle and employing the stealthy strategy of targeted assassination, a word that is derived either from the first Old Man of the Mountain, Hassan-I Sabbah, or from their rumored use of hashish. So, as Gibbon goes on to say,
“Among the hills south of the Caspian, these odious sectaries had reigned with impunity above an hundred and sixty years; and their prince, or imam, established his lieutenant to lead and govern the colony of mount Libanus [that is to say Mount Lebanon, on the Syrian coast] . . . . With the fanaticism of the Koran, the Ishmaelians had blended the Indian transmigration, and the visions of their own prophets: and it was their first duty to devote their souls and bodies in blind obedience to the vicar of God. The daggers of his missionaries were felt both in the East and West: the Christians and the Moslems enumerate, and perhaps multiply, the illustrious victims that were sacrificed to the zeal, avarice, or resentment, of the old man (as he was corruptly styled) of the mountain.”
He goes on to talk about assassination and Israel's recent targeting of Iran's nuclear scientists.
Which reminds me of an old story about a man going to visit a scientist at his home. The scientist is working on building some fearsome new weapon. The man tries to dissuade the scientist from completing his weapon, as the leader to whom the new weapon will be entrusted is seriously deranged. The scientist refuses on the basis that he is not responsible for what fearless leader does. While the scientist is distracted, the man slips into the scientist's imbecile child's room and places a loaded revolver in the kids bed. He then leaves. The scientist discovers the gun and asks 'what kind of lunatic would give a loaded gun to a imbecile?'
Meanwhile, France denied Israel permission to participate in their air show, and here's Israel's response:
 |
| Israel Defense Industries |
The whole story is very entertaining.
Iran’s economy minister impeached as inflation rises, currency falls - Aljazeera
"In 2015, the Iranian rial was worth 32,000 to the United States dollar, but by the time Pezeshkian took office in July, it had plummeted to about 600,000 to the dollar on the open market."
This bit gives a little insight:
"Rampant local mismanagement and corruption paired with decades of US-led sanctions have battered Iran’s economy. Amid the expanding fallout of Israel’s war on Gaza and blows dealt to the Iran-led “axis of resistance” in recent months, public concern over further economic instability has only risen.
"For the past three months, Iran has been forced to shut down key services across the country due to a lingering energy crisis."
.svg.png) |
| Mideast |
The Ayatollah is a dirty commie. He may not proclaim himself a commie, but by his actions you may know him. Doesn't it say something like that in the Bible, the Christian Bible? According to the Ayatollah, it's either his way or prison, which is the modus operandi of ever good, er, dirty commie. It doesn't matter whether his way makes any sense or not, which is why they have a hard time putting together a military force that is powerful enough for anyone to consider it a threat. Anyone who has a brain is going to be insulted by the Ayatollah's bullshit. The only way anything gets done is if you have slimey weasels to run interference, people who can takes the Ayatollah's blabber and translate it, transform it, or possibly even deflect it before it reaches the ears of those who are actually capable of doing the work. That would be a tough job, I don't think I could do it, and I certainly don't want to be in a position where I would be compelled to.
Israel, you may have heard, has killed two top terrorists in the last few days. One was a leader of Hamas and the other was a big shot in Hezbollah. I couldn't be happier, especially when I read the nonsense coming out of Al Jazeera.
I've been wondering why someone doesn't quash some of these tin-pot dictators and set up a new system of government, like we did with Japan and Germany in WW2. Then I realized doing something like this generally means war, and wars are expensive. These days it has become a question of economics. If you invade and take over some country, are you going to be able to extract enough money to make it worth while? I mean the chief-jerks-in-charge would be fine with it as long as it doesn't impact their whores, toot and private jets, but with inflation the cost of whores, toot and private jets ranks right up there with funding a small army. So as long as North Korea and Iran are just spouting off and aren't seriously bothering anybody, it's easier and cheaper to just let them go along their merry way.
Hamas went over the line and Israel is angry, they are going to continue their war against Hamas and Hezbollah until they are eliminated from the face of the earth. At least I hope they are. It certainly doesn't make any sense to stop now. Iran might get involved, but I think they are just going to continue doing what they are doing, which is spouting nonsense and funding terrorists. They are unlikely to do anything serious, even assuming they are cabable of launching a competent attack, given that the USA might take offense. But that's all idle speculation and I'm not going to worry about it. It would be a shame if someone carpet bombed Tehran, but it's no more than they deserve. It could be an opportunity to create a new society in Iran, one that wasn't hell bent on picking fights with its neighbors.
