Recent Items

Trump’s Imminent War(s) and Economic Damage as His Legitimacy Crumbles

Posted on by

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 661 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser, what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, supporting our expanded daily Links

Since Trump 1.0 suffered sustained frontal attacks on his legitimacy via Russiagate, he has operated his second term with a laser-like focus on making sure that he has his hands firmly on every lever of power he can grab, from having toadies in top Administration position to crippling funding cuts to what he sees as competing power centers, above all universities and the science and medical establishment (recall that Trump regards dealing with climate change as another limit on his freedom of operation) to open jackbootery with ICE raids by masked agents, threats to “flood” peaceful cities like Portland with what he intends to look like occupying forces in the form of National Guard deployments.

As we’ll describe soon, Trump looks to be on the verge of launching wars against one or both of Venezuela and Iran. But he looks to have overplayed his hand with the US military with calling generals and flag officers to Quantico to give them not just a bizarre set of anti-DEI and anti-fat directives, but also to have Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and then Trump himself say that they expected the military to operate against US citizens on US soil, harping on the “enemy within”. Recall that the armed services defied Trump in his first term, when he issued lawful orders to pull out Afghanistan that were simply ignored. Admittedly these directives came at the very end of his time in office.

It is also worth keeping in mind that the armed services have served as checks on trigger-happy civilian leaders. In the Biden Administration, Lloyd Austin repeatedly and often successfully opposed Biden and Secretary of State Blinken’s Ukraine escalation plans, one suspects by pointing oyt the limits of US weaponry and Russia’s retaliatory options. But as Larry Johnson pointed out in a talk with Daniel Davis, the last actual resignation of a general over illegal orders, to his knowledge, was under Bush the Senior, as in decades ago. Hegeseth’s and Trump’s addresses received a very stony faced reception, and YouTuber accounts second-hand from those in the room suggest a combination of gobsmackedness at the pathetic display and horror at the demand to operate domestically against Trump-designated demons. The measured Daniel Davis, in a talk with Colonel Macgregor, pointed out it was obvious that Trump’s definition of “radical left” threats could easily include all of Team Dem.

As these events are happening, Trump is implementing another method for quashing domestic dissent via his new national security directive, NSPM-7, which as Ken Klippenstein describes, looks to have as a major objective stripping not-for-profits that don’t toe the Trump line of their not-for-profit status. And the plan seems to be to target only only ones allegedly engaged in the wildly expanded definition of terrorism (as in challenging the Administration’s version of American values) but also ones that receive funding from purported baddies. Expect the grantees of Soros’ Open Society foundation to be at the top of this new enemies’ list.

In parallel, the evidence of harm from Trump’s economic malpractice is mounting. Payroll processor ADP reported a 32,000 fall in private sector jobs for September, compared to the expected weak gain of 51,000. ADP also revised its August figures to negative 3,000 from an initial report of 57,000 jobs added. Perhaps there was an offset via a rise in state and municipal employment, but with DOGE deploying its chainsaw, one would expect a fall in Federal jobs too. Thanks to the shutdown, BLS reports are expected to be delayed. But will anyone believe them after Trump fired the BLS head for earlier large revisions?

On the inflation front, Trump has kept TACO-ing with tariffs, and has “delayed” putting 100% tariffs on patented and branded prescriptions. But he is still set to impose 25% tariffs on furniture and kitchen cabinets and a 10% ones on timber and lumber on October 14. This sort policy whipsaw leads to stockpiling when possible and makes planning close to impossible, which will deter investment and expansion plans.

More less than cheery sightings:

The problem is that Trump may have gotten far enough with his authoritarianism that no one can stop these freight trains, particularly his rush to war. One possible blindsiding event might be a market meltdown. Trump does not even begin to have a team that could cope adequately, and being at war with the Fed does not help. An AI-bubble-implosion stock market crash would be highly attention-getting and would likely induce a big pullback of spending at the very top which has helped prop up the economy. So the result would be a dot-bomb reply, of a recession and the Fed trying hard to pump some activity back into the economy via a protracted period of negative real interest rates. As we explained long-form in ECONNED, that set the stage for the structured credit bubble which fed both frenzied subprime mortgage lending and too many who should have known better buying CDOs composed heavily of the riskiest subprime bond exposures.

But more and more unexpected defaults and delinquencies of significant creditors would choke lending and if enough banks took losses, might even induce a crisis. However, unlike the subprime crisis, where the bad action was concentrated in one big sector and one could see the body blows to banks via instruments like asset-backed commercial paper, second mortgages, and CDOs, here more types of loans are coming under strain, and they also involve a lot of non-bank lenders, most prominently credit funds.

But at a certain point, if enough loans look wobbly, the greater opaqueness means no one will know where bad debt sits. That will lead creditors to yank deposits, refuse to roll commercial paper and short-term loans rather than risk loss of access to their funds, even if arguably for a short time.

To return first to the reaction from the top military officers at Quantico to the Hegseth-Trump shtick conjoined with an ugly demand. Judge Napolitano and former Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski discussed how dead the reaction in the room was:

Starting at 6:15:

Kwiatkowski: What I hoped that Hegseth would say, but what I truly expected was that it would be a big nothing. It would be a nothing burger…. And Hegseth, I think, delivered on that. He didn’t have much to say. But Trump actually, he actually moved the ball way far to an own goal. I mean, that that was an own goal. Frankly, everything Trump said was uh hurting us, violating our standards. I’m sure that those generals and admirals that were sitting there, while I don’t agree with most of them, and I really consider them to be a parasitical class on this country, but even them, I think, were shocked at at the kind of lack of knowledge that Trump exhibited. And he spoke forever…

[9:30] Well, clearly uh they noticed they had pauses where they expected applause to happen or punchlines and that kind of thing and they didn’t get that. They didn’t get that applause… a lot of those guys based on uh that they’re currently active duty, they they came of age in uh the Bush 43 wars, you know, in the Middle East. And we know the lessons of those wars, you know, you don’t lie about your intel. You don’t make up stuff. You don’t try to nation build…

[11:10] Weare fomenting wars and ruining our own ability to uh maintain the bare essentials. And and the generals and admirals know this. They know this far better…..bringing all these people back on short notice and you would think you would be coming back for something really important and andit not only wasn’t important, it was it was insane.

Larry Wilkerson, on Dialogue Works, was more pointed. Starting at 1:55:

Wilkerson: It was absolutely bizarre. Um I can’t describe it any other way and as bizarre but welcome in my military professional mind was the stoic response of his audience. I mean, they were truly imbued with what I would say is a an ethic that is pure in the United States military, probably more so than any other military in the world. I don’t say that loosely… And they came in with the idea of we’re just going to sit here. We’re not going to have any facial expressions of note. We’re not going to clap in any particular way. We’re not going to acknowledge anything that’s being said as we’re pro or we’re con and we’re just going to sit here. It really was a spectacular performance in a subdued sort of way by 300 or so of these generals and admirals and it was probably the only performance they could make other than getting up in mass and walking out in resignation. And I had that argument with the general just a few minutes ago before we came on and right after I finished the Judge [Napolitano] because he had sent me an email reprimanding them for not getting up and walking out. And I said back to him, general officer, I said back to him, what would happen to the real security of the United States if they were to do that? because you’d be talking about abandoning all of the key positions in the US military in front of all our enemies on television and you you that would be unconscionable to do that. There would be there’s too much right now. We’re looking at a potential war. I think it’s coming. It’s coming like a freight train with Iran that has the potential to go nuclear.

Other YouTube commentators, such as Colonel Douglas Macgregor, Larry Wilkerson, and Matthew Ho, argued it was disgraceful that there were no walkouts. But notice Wilkerson’s tacit assumption, that the disgust was so widespread that departures would or could have represented nearly all the attendees.

And the same way financial time runs faster than political time, so too here military time runs faster than political time. Even a mass decampment, which would represent mass resignation (Hegseth said that anyone who didn’t want to be part of the new whiter and thinner armed services should leave, as in quit) which would flip out the press and Congress, does not seem likely to impede the war operations Trump has set in motion. If nothing else, Israel is primed to act and the US would have to execute its part of the plan. Large scale resignations at the top would run the risk of only the most Trump loyal and Zionist crazed being at the helm.

But then again, the passivity may run deeper than Wilkerson can admit to himself:

In the meantime, in a paler version of the runup to the Iraq War, and similar to right before the 12 day war with Iran, the US is moving military assets to the Middle East, particularly refueling jets. In a talk with Daniel Davis at Deep Dive, Douglas Macgregor said he was hearing that the US was also deploying old Tomahawks and very heavy bombs. He speculated the latter might not be intended for Iran but to complete the flattening of Gaza while all eyes were on Iran.

Later in Larry Wilkerson interview that we reposted above, Wilkerson said he was hearing that forces were being called up to move on Venezuela. Are these reports/orders meant to serve as an attempt at a diversion regarding the timing of a strike on Iran? Is the US really so deranged to think it can fight two wars in two different hemispheres at the same time? Those World War II days are long past, and the Allied win was in a big way due to the costly efforts of Russia and China.

Conventional wisdom had held that the attack on Iran was coming soon, likely before year end, presumably due to concerns that more time would enable Iran to get more equipment from Russia and become better at using it. I’m not sure if this applies to Iran, but the IDF avoided attacks on Lebanon in January and February because the mountains were misty enough to impede air operations.

But the movement of equipment suggests action is more imminent; I believe it was Douglas Macgregor who suggested the timing was days or weeks.

Even if the US intends these deployments to be a show of force, Netanyahu has agency.

Hegseth, in a moment military professionals derided as the posturing of a junior staff officer, taunted US opponents, most of whom actually have no interest in being enemies:

It looks more likely that the US will be the party to find out. But sadly, a world of innocent bystanders will be along for the ride.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
56 comments

  1. Pensions Guy

    Yes, it looks like war with Iran is imminent. Between the movement of refueling planes and rushing interceptor missiles to Israel, with Iran simultaneously beefing up, the stars are aligning for a conflict. Wilkerson yesterday stated that if he were advising Iran, he would tell them to strike Israel first with full force, retaining some missiles, and then announcing that it did not want to go to war with the U.S. If they wait until they are attacked, the odds are that U.S. assets will be part of the attacking force.
    With respect to Yves’ comments on the stock market, it seems to me that the odds are still good that the Supreme Court rules against the Administration in the tariff cases, triggering massive claims against the Treasury to repay the illegally collected tariffs, plus interest. That will be a real windfall for corporate America, and we can all seriously doubt that the money will find its way back to consumers. That should keep the stock market propped up for a while. Trump can then impose some tariffs under other statutory authority, but there will be limits on the amounts and the time involved, unless Congress finds its way to approve them.
    Overall, it’s just a fine mess.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I have spoken to a top tax lawyer (as in at the level of writing tax guidance for lawyers internationally, has also advised governments). Even if Trump loses in the Supreme Court, the tariffs paid will not be refunded. Those wanting refunds would have to sue. It would take years and they would probably lose. Only the ones who were plaintiffs in the case before the Supreme Court would be entitled to refunds. (Bessent made some remarks that this expert deems to have been Making Shit Up, but perhaps his intent was to try to scare the Supremes into ruling for the Administration).

      And Trump’s team has other authorities under which they can impose tariffs and are working to get those launched. Those authorities are narrower but are not nuthin’

      Reply ↓
    2. Safety First

      Two things.

      1. Iran does not have complete agency. It is highly dependent on China for both hydrocarbon exports and for future military hardware deliveries, and is just as highly dependent on the Russians for its nuclear power program, having just signed a deal to build a second 4-reactor site. As well, it has a nuclear security “guarantee”, such as it is – I don’t think there is any actual document signed, just a verbal statement – from Pakistan, itself another big China client.

      I seriously doubt that the Chinese would look kindly to a pre-emptive strike on Israel, or something along those lines. And I seriously doubt that the Iranians would go ahead without making absolutely sure that if things go to pot – i.e. if the US wades in “to protect Israel” or what have you – the Chinese would have Iran’s back at least economically and politically. And that’s even before considering the fairly bipolar Russian position on the Israeli issue, though I have noticed of late the word “genocide” is now being openly spoken across the government-controlled media.

      Which leads us to…

      2. There can be a strategic advantage to being the victim of aggression, even as this leads to a tactical disadvantage in the short term.

      From Iran’s perspective, they’ve already taken Israel’s best shot, and survived. Absorbing the next shot before responding a) without question paints Iran as the victim in the eyes of the global majority; b) provides the Chinese or whomever ample cover for not participating in any economic blockade of Iran by the US and its allies, never mind weapon sales; and c) justifies whatever magnitude of a response Tehran opts for, all the way up to nuclear weapons development. Also, too, d) the last thing Tehran wants, I suspect, is to give the Israelis an excuse to unsheath their own nuclear arsenal. Also, too, part two, e) Marandi has been hammering home the point that the way the 12-day war has unfolded really reset the sentiments of Iran’s younger generation insofar as whether it is possible to have friendly relations with the Israelis or the Americans. Iran’s domestic politics is far from my strong suit, but I suspect there is that angle to consider as well.

      Thus, Wilkerson is not wrong that tactically, it would be more advantageous to strike first. But Iran is not the US, i.e. not a great power that had been the world hegemon for the past 30 years plus. And it has to be mindful of the consequences of its actions. And, part two, one of the conclusions drawn, rightly or wrongly, from the 12-day war is that there is a limit as to how much damage even an out-of-the-blue Israeli strike can actually do. An even stricter limit this time, as Iranians, if they have any sense, must have spent the past few months rectifying some of their vulnerabilities.

      Reply ↓
      2. Mikel

        “…if the US wades in “to protect Israel” or what have you – the Chinese would have Iran’s back at least economically and politically.”

        I’ll bet that, considering the damage to Israel that the USA puts itself on the hook for, the USA doesn’t “wade in” this time. Front and center from the jump start this time.

        And China hasn’t exactly stopped backing Israel economically and politically. They are covering a lot of backs in the region. Kind of in a covering one’s bets way.

        Reply ↓
  2. ambrit

    One of the talking heads recently also mentioned that Iran was making noises that, if the war breaks out anew, that they would also target American regional assets. America has a lot of bases and troop concentrations in the Middle East that are not considered to be adequately defended against arial attack.
    The wild card here is Israeli atomic weapons. The Ultras in Tel Aviv are just crazy enough to use nuclear warheads against their “enemies” if the looming war goes against them. Then the Third Party nuclear assets might come into play. Particularly, Pakistan recently declared solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and said that they would use their nuclear weapons against anyone attacking Riyadh.
    See: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/17/saudi-arabia-signs-mutual-defence-pact-with-nuclear-armed-pakistan
    For what it is worth, I believe that those in the corridors of power in Washington do not understand just how bad their standing is in the World today. This upcoming war could be the catalyst for the complete collapse of the American Hegemony.
    Stay safe. Find that potassium iodide folks! Who knows how far the radioactive fallout will spread. Just look at the radioactive fallout patterns after the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power station back in 1986.
    See (click on the map function): https://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/IRSN14dayPlume.html
    Armageddon is supposed to start out in Israel after all.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yves Smith Post author

      I think I heard the same vid and it was Larry Wilkerson..

      The problem is Iran really does not want to kill Americans. That becomes a bloody flag. Wilkerson did say we’d removed a lot of our personnel. We’s also fly the planes out. Airstrips can be repaired quickly. But if radars were destroyed as opposed to damaged, I think that would be a different matter.

      Iran’s best play IMHO is closing the Strait of Hormuz. That takes just a few lousy little boats with explosives on them, although it can be done more elaborately. Would piss off the Gulf States but what have they done for Iran?

      Reply ↓
      1. ambrit

        I wonder if there are alternate routes to supply oil from Iran and the Persian Gulf to China? That would be the main impediment to closing the Straits of Hormuz. Has China been stockpiling oil recently? For that matter, doesn’t Japan get most of its oil from the Persian Gulf region?
        There are so many moving pieces to this puzzle that it is a real time lesson in World governance.
        Stay safe in the tropics.

        Reply ↓
          1. Polar Socialist

            There’s a railroad link from China to Iran, but the logistics to transfer the 4,700 thousand barrels per day from the Gulf by train would be, shall we say, challenging.

            China is building another rail link (Five Nations Railway Corridor) trough Afghanistan, but I don’t think it’s yet operational.

            During the 12-day war China used the tanker fleet as a buffer; the travel time is 30-40 days, so pre-loading the “tanker pipeline” can give them up to two months worth of oil “on the way”.

            China seems to import “only” about 50% of it’s crude from locations outside of the Gulf, but even Russia wouldn’t be able to replace the possible shortfall.

            Reply ↓
            1. Glen

              Here’s more on the rail link:

              China-Iran Rail Corridor Defies West’s Maritime Rule https://fountainbridge.substack.com/p/china-iran-rail-corridor

              I agree that this link will not replace tankers carrying oil, but Western elites should be much more worried about what can come FROM China and Russia via this link.

              It certainly looks like the Western war planners are somewhat more aware:

              The Odd Case Of ‘Russian Air Defense Vehicles’ Showing Up On A Train In Ohio https://www.twz.com/the-odd-case-of-russian-air-defense-vehicles-showing-up-on-a-train-in-ohio

              Reply ↓
      2. Mikel

        This is a first cup of coffee in the morning speculation, but I was wondering if a play against Venezuela is connected to a possible closing of the Strait of Hormuz?

        Reply ↓
            1. Mikel

              I was thinking more about whatever bit they are exporting – control of that. It may be petty, but dealing with petty people.
              Not necessarily drilling.

              Reply ↓
            2. Yaiyen

              I think Alex Krainer mentioned that Western banks support wars in countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran because they want to convert these nations natural resources into bankable assets. To them, the actual cost of refining the oil doesn’t matter.

              Reply ↓
              1. Yves Smith Post author

                I hate to tell you but what I have heard Alex Krainer say about the global financial crisis and other banking related matters is so often flat out false that I never listen to him. And more specifically here, banks do not drive foreign policy nor are they in the business of resource development. Even in Japan, where banks were sometimes the lead members of zaibatsu, later kairetsu (as in more powerful than Western banks), they did not drive business policies.

                Reply ↓
            3. jsn

              Yes, but it’s not hard to imagine some Top School MBA looking at Iran shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, causing the price of oil to spike, and assuming that’s all it takes to get the oil out of the ground, refined, shipped, and into gas pumps in the Midwest: it makes the numbers work in Excel.

              Even that stupidity doesn’t really top what they’ve already done with tariffs. The spreadsheet is the world to these clowns with Masters Degrees and PHDs.

              Reply ↓
      3. abierno

        Would be very interested in your perception of changes in the situation as a result of Iran having detailed information regarding contents, et al of Dimona, military planning, defense structures, cybersecurity. Would assume information was shared with Russia, China. Could be expected to seriously inflate Israel’s heightened sense of existential geopolitical insecurity? Accelerate impulsive, poorly considered moves?

        Reply ↓
    2. panurge

      Are we about to discover whether we are transitioning from the “gradually” phase to the “suddenly” phase of the rules based order demise? Looking forward to it! /s Stay safe indeed!

      It’s also remarkable the pacing convergence between war preparations and the frantic attempts to prop the AI bubble, until the upcoming war contractors bubble is in place to envelope the former one before it explodes.

      Reply ↓
  3. albrt

    I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere, but October 1 was a military payday.

    Unless somebody came up with a workaround that hasn’t been announced, all the folks being deployed to the vicinity of Iran and Venezuela (and all those generals in the meeting) have already missed a paycheck.

    Reply ↓
    1. raspberry jam

      I was wondering about this – how realistic is a war if the troops aren’t getting paid? Are there exceptions/carve outs so they can still deploy all these forces during a government shut down? Ordinarily I’d add if there was even legal basis for any of this but that horse has long been out of the stable, so…

      Reply ↓
      1. Mildred Montana

        I don’t ordinarily comment on military matters and the intentions of the USA when it comes to its multifarious “enemies”. It’s all speculation so what’s the point. Let’s stick to the certainties:

        1. The USA is in no shape to fight a major war, anytime or anywhere. Its last decisive military victory was in 1945 when it had allies the world round. Since then…a ten-war losing streak?

        2. If troops are fighting for a paycheque, they ain’t fighting—they’re waiting for the paymaster’s window to open. They’re only really fighting if they feel they’re fighting for a CAUSE—as in WWII. Otherwise, they’re shirking in the backlines and ducking for cover in the frontlines, waiting to cash out.

        3. Currently, USA available troops (enlisted or draftable) are, variously, overweight, out-of-shape, and/or addicted to the Internet. And so, responding to demand, what lean, mean, fighting machine insists that its troops overseas have access to Wi-Fi and McDonalds or Burger King? Why of course, that would be the US military! We cannot attack until we’ve checked our notifications and eaten a Whopper.

        4. So forget the ground troops. What’s left? Aerial bombardment (Gulf War I showed us TV watchers how entertaining this can be), drone operators who think they’re playing a video-game, or…nukes. Those limited possibilities show why the USA has become such a dangerous nation.

        Reply ↓
    2. paul

      Martial organisations are organised around sacrifice.

      TOC in the MIC says follow orders unless you are seeking a dishonourable discharge .*

      * which is just below what the zealot war dept moron managed.

      Bronze star with no valour.

      Pentagon HR is top of the game in this instance.

      Reply ↓
      1. hk

        Unpaud soldiers in the Low Countries were a critical contributor to the fall of Spanish Empire (by helping make the Dutch Revolt successful and forestalling another invasion of England.)

        Reply ↓
  4. raspberry jam

    Ever since the Doha strike I’ve wondered if it was a test run for Israel to do long range air fired ballistic missile strikes on Tehran (they claim this is how they bypassed Saudi and Qatari air defenses when firing from the Red Sea).

    From the link:

    Israeli jet fighters, eight F-15s and four F-35s, flew to the Red Sea, on the opposite side of the Arabian Peninsula from Qatar. From there, some of the planes fired the air-launched ballistic missiles into space over Saudi Arabia at Doha, several U.S. officials said.

    Maybe they think they can do a decapitation strike on Iranian leadership at the outset?

    ETA: More technical details on the strike in this link:https://www.twz.com/air/new-info-on-how-u-s-military-was-caught-off-guard-by-israeli-strike-on-qatar

    Reply ↓
  5. ciroc

    When Trump started ordering the killing of Venezuelan fishermen, I thought some high-ranking officers would refuse the orders or resign in protest. However, I haven’t heard of anything like that happening yet. This makes me wonder if American generals have any sense of ethics.

    Reply ↓
    2. Louis Fyne

      ummm, 2003 Iraq War? (Shinseki was the lone voice of timid questioning the bipartisan pro-war line)

      Under both Dem. and GOP administrations, a colonel doesn’t get promoted by being the vocal “truth to power” at the Pentagon

      Reply ↓
    3. Steve H.

      > However, I haven’t heard of anything like that happening yet.

      That sound you are hearing is the lack of crickets. Nothing. Only grand-scale logistics crossing continental lines. Not one of the worst outcomes is off the docket. If a General or Admiral were fired, we’d hear about it, right? Right?

      Reply ↓
  6. hamstak

    I mused (if one may call it that) that one purpose of the Quantico spectacle might be to use video cameras to record the general staff and run the frames through AI to evaluate individual mood, facial expressions, posture, reactions, etc. in a “friend-or-foe” detection exercise. Were that the case, given what was described about the meeting above, it was a pointless exercise.

    If I were to guess timing for an attack on Iran (and perhaps Venezuela as well), I might say after US stock market close on some Friday. If precedent serves (the recent 12-day war), resolution will then occur prior to the market opening on the Monday of some following week.

    Reply ↓
  7. ISL

    It could be posturing, but moving air fuelers to where a pre-emptive attack by Iran could cripple these critically needed assets by Israel – no tankers, Israel cannot reach Iran, so there is a non-zero risk for posturing.

    It’s not as if posturing will create the negotiating space for Iran to surrender unconditionally (the US demand) after the US used the white flag of truce for negotiations for a sneak attack.

    So, posturing only has a downside with no upside.

    Reply ↓
    1. lyman alpha blob

      Posturing costs money. Money that goes from the government to defense contractors. I’m not saying it is posturing, but if it is, there are upsides for a few at least – kaching!

      Reply ↓
  8. Anthony Martin

    If for every action there is to be expected an equal and opposite reaction, then perhaps, the masses who were promised the US First may be testy If Trump persistently and consistently offers Israel First to them instead. If the US generals take their marching orders from Netanyahu, hari kari , not a walk out, would be the appropriate response. Ribbons aren’t awarded for shamelsss cowardice.

    Reply ↓
  9. paul

    I have to ask myself;

    Has every western country abandoned it’s responsibilities and obligations to it’s electorate .

    My reply:

    Yes

    Reply ↓
  10. Peter Pan

    I wonder if all this US military activity would sufficiently motivate “Vlad the Bad” Putin to have some Orishnik missiles ready to perform decapitation strikes on Kiev and Lviv. It could be possible during an inflamed news cycle to make it so and not get the extensive news coverage while the media is otherwise engaged reporting on US military war activity.

    Such an action by Russia would let the world know without a doubt that Russia is a mean ass Bear and not a Paper Tiger.

    Reply ↓
  11. Carolinian

    Thanks for the good report. Trump may be moving tankers to fuel Israeli planes but I can’t imagine what pretext he would use for joining in. After all didn’t he already “obliterate” or wishful thinking obliterate their nuke program? What are the signs that he wants to fight Iran?

    More likely is an attack on Venezuela but polls show the majority of the public oppose that too. The post 9/11 take vengeance on the world moment seems to have passed.

    And all this jackboot activity inside the US is a surefire political loser even among many or most Republicans who see themselves as the underdogs just like, say, immigrants. If Bibi and Don want to make war on the world they are going to need more troops.

    Reply ↓
  12. Glen

    Yeah, let me consult my AI data center on this (gives Magic 8 Ball an especially vigorous shake):

    OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD

    Reply ↓
  13. Mikel

    “Is the US really so deranged to think it can fight two wars in two different hemispheres at the same time?”

    The US and Israel aren’t exactly isolated. It takes a good deal of global cooperation for them to be able to move they way they do in region. Türkiye, for instance, just threw in its two cents worth of sanctions.
    Still, it remains to be seen how far things can go in Venezuela.

    Reply ↓
  14. Old Jake

    All this huzzah about Trump leading us to a totalitarian fascist dictatorship has me thinking about how that would end, or whether it might perpetuate itself. Rome’s Imperial structure certainly lasted a while, and you might say the Holy Roman Empire did, but more recent regimes did not outlast the cult of personalities that fostered them. From Hitler to Peron to Franco, modern dictators often don’t build empires or lasting regimes. Trump is not long for this world. Even if he lives to 100 yrs that would be less than 12 years. What are the chances his clownship lives on?

    Reply ↓
    1. Permanent Sceptic

      Since Trump is 79, he would be 100 in another 21 years, not 12. Can the US hold off collapse under Trump for that long? My magic eight ball is fuzzy on that one.

      Reply ↓
      1. Old Jake

        Oops, math error (mental error really). Point taken, even a totalitarian must be somewhat competent. Else their own supporters will remove them.

        Reply ↓
    2. Mikel

      The big donors pull candidates out of a trick bag. And don’t get me started on what crawls out of the woodwork to make policy…

      Reply ↓
  15. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

    Quoth our host: “…the disgust was so widespread that departures would or could have represented nearly all the attendees.”

    And this would be bad beeeeecause?

    I appreciate what Col. Wilkerson is claiming, but I strongly suspect, from years of experience, that the attendees are more likely on board with the plans … or at least on board enough not to rock their rice bowls.

    I recall reading/hearing that the last star that resigned due to moral/legal convictions was back during one of the Bush eras – and that resignation made zero difference to the planned illegal ops.

    Reply ↓
    1. Acacia

      Or perhaps Executive Action or even The Parallax View ;)

      And there is that military phrase repeated in Apocalypse Now — “terminate, with extreme prejudice” — which I first heard from the clique of military otakus at my H.S. (before their careers as LEO) lol

      Reply ↓
  18. Palaver

    Nobody seems to be talking about the country whose name we shall not speak, Iraq. That Shia dominated country is a cultural ally of Iran, who wields significant influence over their militias. They’ve been kept in reserve so far, but the various 67 factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq could be activated. It’s probably one of the many reasons why Khamenei is still alive. Religious conflicts can easily spiral out of control.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *