It's amazing how the word Trump has already featured about 3,483 times in this thread.
He doesn't even enter my head when I think about Iran and how to treat the regime.
Perhaps but it's American and Israeli military power which is the only sure way (it seems following the collapse of the January protests) to make things happen and Trump is one of the leaders involved.
He's also the one who has used the term "unconditional surrender" today. I don't recall that term being used in Iraq or Libya for example. When it was used in WW2, it was arguably counter productive as it made the Nazis realise they had no option but to fight on to the end.
I'm not wholly sure what it means now - does he expect the theocracy to come cap in hand to beg Washington to stop because he must know that's never going to happen? Would he expect a new post-theocratic Government to surrender or simply seek terms?
With the continued closure of Hormuz, which I suspect the Americans will re-open soon, the Iranians can watch the West and particularly Europe deal with oil prices rising and all that flows (or rather doesn't flow from that).
Whatever it is, it makes it sound a hell of a lot more like a war requiring Congressional assent, than some limited "military operation".
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
The looming mid-terms probably do constraint the timeline. If this hasn't escalated into something much bigger by then, Trump will want to impose some kind of outcome and declare victory in order to claim victory.
This isn't a Bomb/Invade/Occupy/Rebuild operation it's just Bomb. At the rate they're doing it Iran will be floored in short order. Their counterattacking strikes hardly ever get through and they are air-defenceless. Sitting ducks basically.
Donald Trump can stop it any time he wants and (the benefit of undefined war aims) claim a glorious victory. That was Epic Fury. Hope you enjoyed the show as much as we enjoyed staging it. We have obliterated (he likes that word although struggles to pronounce it) the evil old regime and its fearsome weaponry. They are a threat no more. We are America. This is what we do. Next.
That's what I see happening and fairly soon. Certainly weeks not months. The (unpredictable and probably malign) consequences of this will pan out for years but I don't think US military action in Iran will go on for that much longer.
All very well, but I don’t think that’s how Bibi sees it.
Ah yes, that's a different agenda. He'll be wanting to prolong things to the max and he is a master manipulator of this US president. But I don't think he'll be able to keep Trump engaged on this for more than another couple of weeks or so.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I'm sure Spectator columnist Sean Thomas, formerly of this parish, will react to this in a measured and temperate manner
Details of Royal Air Force missions have been published online for years in a “staggering” security blunder, The Telegraph can disclose.
Messages that reveal air-to-air refuelling flight plans and the possible locations of British fighter jets have been broadcast by the the RAF over an insecure aviation messaging system that anyone can read.
Other messages appear to instruct pilots to remove secret documents being carried on a refuelling craft. In another case, a message apparently tells an aircraft where to park before landing in Cyprus on the same day as the Iranian drone strike.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I'm sure Spectator columnist Sean Thomas, formerly of this parish, will react to this in a measured and temperate manner
I think he should be punished by appointing him to the role.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
Wouldn't the Democrats have to win every Senate contest in 2026 in order to get to 67 Senators, and a chance of a conviction in the Senate?
And even then, some of the Democrat Senators might baulk at removing a democratically elected President from office, unless doing so had overwhelming public support (at which point Republican Senators would probably break ranks with Trump and convict anyway).
Point being, Trump would have to become as unpopular as Liz Truss for such an eventuality to be remotely plausible. He is some way off that and I see little prospect of him plunging to such depths. What could be do that he hasn't done already?
I accept it is unlikely, but my thinking is that the odds are not zero... so what are they?
The safest State in this cycle for the Republicans is Wyoming, which is R+23, followed by West Virginia (R+21) and a bunch more in the high-teens.
The only conceivable scenario in which it is possible is one in which war drags on, there's a major MAGA split on the continuance of the war, the Libertarians stand candidates in all the Republican-held Senate contests and split the vote sufficiently to let Democrats come through the middle.
And, even then, I'm sure some of the Republican Senators would have sufficiently strong isolationist bona fides to avoid defeat. All this presupposing that TACO Trump doesn't end the war when it becomes sufficiently unpopular.
I have no difficulty in assigning that a zero probability.
I mean, it shouldn't be a zero possibility. If Trump looks like a one way ticket for unemploymentville for a whole bunch of Republican Senators, then it's possible they might grow a spine.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
Wouldn't the Democrats have to win every Senate contest in 2026 in order to get to 67 Senators, and a chance of a conviction in the Senate?
And even then, some of the Democrat Senators might baulk at removing a democratically elected President from office, unless doing so had overwhelming public support (at which point Republican Senators would probably break ranks with Trump and convict anyway).
Point being, Trump would have to become as unpopular as Liz Truss for such an eventuality to be remotely plausible. He is some way off that and I see little prospect of him plunging to such depths. What could be do that he hasn't done already?
I agree they can’t get a 2/3rds majority by themselves. That said I don’t think it’s inconceivable that Trump gets 25th’d, or even impeached, if the war drags on and the base turns.
I’m not saying we’re anywhere near there yet, but as with any cult or belief system like MAGA, if something snaps, the support could collapse overnight.
I admire your optimism. You’ll find that now Trump is the one going to war a large section of Maga think it’s all wonderful .
A majority of the US public disapprove though, and that tends to increase the more action goes on and the fallout from it (deaths of service personnel, economic indicators) start to filter through.
I’m never tremendously optimistic when it comes to matters Trumpian, but this is by some measure his riskiest move yet, and whilst it would be naive to assume he cannot continue to defy political gravity, all it takes is for a few people to see the emperor has no clothes and the whole thing could go south for him pretty quickly.
The thing is I don't think Trump is that invested in the war. He's not ideologically committed to it in the way that Putin is to the conquest of Ukraine.
So in the politically worst-case scenario Trump simply ends the war, declares victory, and distracts everyone with half a dozen new crazy things.
I'd say there's a better than evens chance that Iran will barely be mentioned in news bulletins by Easter. The circus will have moved on.
If Iran continues to throw missiles and drones in all directions then the war continues - regardless of what Trump wants.
He's so utterly deranged that I can see Farage returning from Florida with a MAGA edict that Farage is made PM by 1 June or Trump will attack UK
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I've never understood this whole "tsar" thing. It's not like the tsars were renowned for effective governance.
Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about exactly this topic. America has no means of imposing its candidate on the Iranians; Iran isn't in the top three most important countries in the region these days, so it won't address the underlying issues anyway; the predominant dynamic in the region is hatred of Israel, which this adventure is playing into; Gulf states are vulnerable; most importantly at some point damage limitation will kick in, which means doing some kind deal with whoever is in charge in Iran.
Whatever were the dynamics and alliances a fortnight ago, they’ve all been flipped on their heads by events of the past few days.
Everyone in the region is now united in seeing Iran as the enemy, and willing on the US and Israel to defeat them militarily. There’s little doubt the GCC states would have responded militarily to the threat.
Everyone wants the Straight of Hormuz open ASAP, including China. I suspect that by early next week there’s mechanisms in place to enable this to happen. It’s simply too important to global trade to be closed, which is why the Iran navy was one of the first targets of the operation.
Nearly everyone in the region already saw Iran as the enemy, so there's not been much change on that front.
The question is whether everyone in the region are up for a protracted war, or will they be ruing the US/Israeli action and keen for it to be over? They might be willing on the US and Israel to defeat Iran militarily, but only if they can do it quickly.
Which is another reason why we should be helping them, not tutting from the sidelines.
A few British planes isn't going to make any difference. I am unclear how UK ground troops would be meant to get there!
Interesting article in Foreign Affairs about exactly this topic. America has no means of imposing its candidate on the Iranians; Iran isn't in the top three most important countries in the region these days, so it won't address the underlying issues anyway; the predominant dynamic in the region is hatred of Israel, which this adventure is playing into; Gulf states are vulnerable; most importantly at some point damage limitation will kick in, which means doing some kind deal with whoever is in charge in Iran.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
The Senate map is still tough for Democrats, even given the latest Trump stupidity.
Let’s say they manage to win Maine, North Carolina and Ohio (probably the most likely three) - that gets them to 50-50 (so a Vance tiebreak). That is assuming they hold on to Georgia and Michigan (not guaranteed).
For a majority you’re looking at them picking up at least one of the next plausible three - Alaska, Texas, Florida. All of those are to varying degrees challenging. Alaska might be the best bet (as Peltola has won a statewide race before). I wouldn’t bet on Florida shifting given how significantly it has swung to the GOP in recent years, and Texas must still be a long shot.
Even if they win all three of those, that’s then 53-47, and some way from the two thirds needed to convict. To get closer they’d need to win seats like Iowa and Montana, far from fertile ground, and then states like Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska - which just look far too insurmountable to me.
Put another way, 67 votes is an incredibly high bar in a partisan setup. The implication is that 33 votes, or 17 states worth of Senators, is a blocking minority.
Falling below that level is essentially Never Going To Happen, is it? That might not matter if Senators could vote with their conscience rather than their partisan label. (Stop sniggering at the back.)
That "in emergency, break open and impeachment" button? In the current climate, it's not really connected to anything effective.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It means getting rid of the Iranian navy (job pretty much done already), then getting sufficient air and sea assets in place around the Straight to defend against anything incoming.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It means getting rid of the Iranian navy (job pretty much done already), then getting sufficient air and sea assets in place around the Straight to defend against anything incoming.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
The IRGC navy is still largely intact, and would be the ones to be doing this in any case.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
OT. As the clouds gather over Europe and the Middle East a small chink of light. The Telegraph is being bought by German publisher Axel Springer. An old and trusted German publisher based in Hamburg and though it won't happen overnight it won't put up with the crap the Telegraph have been spewing out for the last few years. Honesty might return to the British broadsheets again. And more importantly it isn't going to the Mail. The worst news group in the UK
OT. As the clouds gather over Europe and the Middle East a small chink of light. The Telegraph is being bought by German publisher Axel Springer. An old and trusted German publisher based in Hamburg and though it won't happen overnight it won't put up with the crap the Telegraph have been spewing out for the last few years. Honesty might return to the British broadsheets again.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It means getting rid of the Iranian navy (job pretty much done already), then getting sufficient air and sea assets in place around the Straight to defend against anything incoming.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
The IRGC navy is still largely intact, and would be the ones to be doing this in any case.
Do we know that? What have the B1 and B52 bombers been doing if not twatting everything that might hold a vessel? Sure, it needs only to be small vessels that can lay mines. But anything getting even a mile off the coast of Iran is a total failure of the US and Israeli air forces and navies.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I've never understood this whole "tsar" thing. It's not like the tsars were renowned for effective governance.
Jobs for influential mates who have access to high paying roles for future ex politicians. Limited accountability and scrutiny. Not political competitors. Know far more about the subject matter than ministers so have some chance of driving change in the civil service. Ticks the something needs to be done box.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
The 'hey just kidding not kidding' technique. Tedious and toxic. That pretentious 'take him seriously not literally' shit when Trump emerged was an example of it. Turned out the opposite would have been better advice. The times (many) when he was ranting in deranged freeform were a pretty good indication of what his presidency would be like.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It means getting rid of the Iranian navy (job pretty much done already), then getting sufficient air and sea assets in place around the Straight to defend against anything incoming.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
OT. As the clouds gather over Europe and the Middle East a small chink of light. The Telegraph is being bought by German publisher Axel Springer. An old and trusted German publisher based in Hamburg and though it won't happen overnight it won't put up with the crap the Telegraph have been spewing out for the last few years. Honesty might return to the British broadsheets again. And more importantly it isn't going to the Mail. The worst news group in the UK
If it leads to a modicum of quality control, even whilst keeping the oddball politics, that would be a real benefit to the nation.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
Is that one whose job will be to be anti-Muslim and hostile? I can think of a candidate for the role.
Are the reports that the volume of Iranian missile and drone attacks are goimg down, correct ?
This seems particularly important to try and understand, to try and get some verifiable information out of the current situation.
There’s variations on the actual numbers, but the trend is definitely down significantly and supported by anecdotal data.
Dubai airport, for example, is up to about 30% of the usual flights, with only Emirates airline and some cargo operators flying. Emirates are hoping to have their full service back up by early next week, which suggests they’re confident of avoiding substantial airspace closures.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
The 'hey just kidding not kidding' technique. Tedious and toxic. That pretentious 'take him seriously not literally' shit when Trump emerged was an example of it. Turned out the opposite would have been better advice. The times (many) when he was ranting in deranged freeform were a pretty good indication of what his presidency would be like.
Agreed but I was thinking more of the algorithmic encouragement of such behaviour. I don't think President Trump would exist without social media.
He also appears to be the only journalist in the country with reliable internet access.
Reporting facts on the ground isn't, I would submit, what Carlson-in-Moscow was most renowned for.
It’s the same hagiographic sycophancy though, look how wonderful this terrible place actually is.
If CNN guy starts talking to people who were tortured or had relatives killed by the Iranian regime, then I shall change my mind. I suspect what’s coming is a bunch of interviews with actors blaming Trump and Netanyahu.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
That's true.
However, if there's one thing we know from 2022 to 2024, it's that voters absolutely hate it when they get poorer because energy prices go through the roof. And if the Straits of Hormuz are closed for more than a couple of weeks, then gas prices in the US are going to be ugly. Electricity prices, it should be noted, are also heading up thanks to data centers and AI.
Edit to add: on the Silver Bulletin Trump tracker, Trump II is trending exactly in line with both Biden and Trump I.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Azerbaijani state media accuses the Iranian IRGC of preparing a terrorist attack in Azerbaijan targeting the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Israeli embassy, and a synagogue, saying the threat was neutralized.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Mark, Realclearpolitics is currently giving an average of 43.4%/54.6% with a huge spread of results, so you can cherry pick your pollsters and draw just about any conclusion you like. The trouble is of course that there is no equivalent of the BPC in the US so even joke pollsters like Trafalgar get thrown into the mix. Even amongst the more familiar names it is hard to know who you can really rely on. I think Quinnipiac are pretty kosher but I'd struggle to name a second I would place great reliance on.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
The problem with this for Trump is that if he wants to dictate to Iranians who their Supreme Leader and head of state and head of government will be and to restore the son of the Shah he will need to deploy US ground troops into Iran. Yet only 12% of Americans want to deploy ground troops, even less than the 31% who back the strikes
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
That's true.
However, if there's one thing we know from 2022 to 2024, it's that voters absolutely hate it when they get poorer because energy prices go through the roof. And if the Straits of Hormuz are closed for more than a couple of weeks, then gas prices in the US are going to be ugly. Electricity prices, it should be noted, are also heading up thanks to data centers and AI.
Edit to add: on the Silver Bulletin Trump tracker, Trump II is trending exactly in line with both Biden and Trump I.
Which might suggest a swing of 3% to 5% in the mid terms.
Csn anyone recommend an alternative to Betfair, either an exchange type deal or a regular bookie where one can lay/back against in football markets?
Specifically I want to bet against Cov gaining promotion, ideally laying for a £1000-1500 return, assuming pricing is reasonable. Thanks.
(Betfair have singled my account out for 're-verification' for some reason, and have completely locked me out, despite my sending perfectly good documentation three days ago...)
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
It does appear there have been a couple of incidents.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
I was just listening to Jump by Derek and Clive as part of a study I'm doing on novelty songs based on Anglican chant. One of the funniest and rudest songs ever.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I've never understood this whole "tsar" thing. It's not like the tsars were renowned for effective governance.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Mark, Realclearpolitics is currently giving an average of 43.4%/54.6% with a huge spread of results, so you can cherry pick your pollsters and draw just about any conclusion you like. The trouble is of course that there is no equivalent of the BPC in the US so even joke pollsters like Trafalgar get thrown into the mix. Even amongst the more familiar names it is hard to know who you can really rely on. I think Quinnipiac are pretty kosher but I'd struggle to name a second I would place great reliance on.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
That's pretty much where I'm sitting.
Assuming that the Iran war ends before it sends petrol prices spiralling out of control, you'd expect the Democrats to regain the House, and to pickup North Carolina and Maine. You'd also reckon they have a decent chance in Alaska. With outside possibilities being Ohio and (if the Republicans pick Paxton) Texas. The most likely outcome is probably Dems +2 in the Senate, but it's not impossible they could either fall short in North Carolina, or for Ms Collins to escape political gravity once more, or even for them to drop one or both of Michigan and Georgia.
That said, if it does go on, and energy prices spike, then it could be an ugly night for the Republicans.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Mark, Realclearpolitics is currently giving an average of 43.4%/54.6% with a huge spread of results, so you can cherry pick your pollsters and draw just about any conclusion you like. The trouble is of course that there is no equivalent of the BPC in the US so even joke pollsters like Trafalgar get thrown into the mix. Even amongst the more familiar names it is hard to know who you can really rely on. I think Quinnipiac are pretty kosher but I'd struggle to name a second I would place great reliance on.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
That's pretty much where I'm sitting.
Assuming that the Iran war ends before it sends petrol prices spiralling out of control, you'd expect the Democrats to regain the House, and to pickup North Carolina and Maine. You'd also reckon they have a decent chance in Alaska. With outside possibilities being Ohio and (if the Republicans pick Paxton) Texas. The most likely outcome is probably Dems +2 in the Senate, but it's not impossible they could either fall short in North Carolina, or for Ms Collins to escape political gravity once more, or even for them to drop one or both of Michigan and Georgia.
That said, if it does go on, and energy prices spike, then it could be an ugly night for the Republicans.
But on that Economist link, check out Trump's approval in those critical Senate seats by hovering over them... It's got to be very sobering for the Republicans.
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Well, that doesn't stop the fact that the Captain -and his crew- are not that anxious to be shot at, or droned.
On insurance, remember that the insurers right now will be declaring Force Majeure, and telling shippers that if they want to traverse the straits then the premiums will be sky high.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
That's not unique to social media, or even new, though. It's always been part of the fascist/nazi playbook.
https://newrepublic.com/article/139004/ironic-nazis-still-nazis ...the pretext of irony as a way of furthering bigotry isn’t just a tactic wannabe Nazis of the 21st century have developed. It’s actually indistinguishable from how the actual Nazis of the early 20th century behaved. This role irony plays in providing a protective cover for anti-Semitism was brilliantly analyzed by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in his book Anti-Semite and Jew (1944), published after France was liberated but while the Holocaust was reaching a crescendo in Europe. Sartre observed that anti-Semites often resorted to the cloak of jokiness:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past"...
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Mark, Realclearpolitics is currently giving an average of 43.4%/54.6% with a huge spread of results, so you can cherry pick your pollsters and draw just about any conclusion you like. The trouble is of course that there is no equivalent of the BPC in the US so even joke pollsters like Trafalgar get thrown into the mix. Even amongst the more familiar names it is hard to know who you can really rely on. I think Quinnipiac are pretty kosher but I'd struggle to name a second I would place great reliance on.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
That's pretty much where I'm sitting.
Assuming that the Iran war ends before it sends petrol prices spiralling out of control, you'd expect the Democrats to regain the House, and to pickup North Carolina and Maine. You'd also reckon they have a decent chance in Alaska. With outside possibilities being Ohio and (if the Republicans pick Paxton) Texas. The most likely outcome is probably Dems +2 in the Senate, but it's not impossible they could either fall short in North Carolina, or for Ms Collins to escape political gravity once more, or even for them to drop one or both of Michigan and Georgia.
That said, if it does go on, and energy prices spike, then it could be an ugly night for the Republicans.
But on that Economist link, check out Trump's approval in those critical Senate seats by hovering over them... It's got to be very sobering for the Republicans.
Make sure you select 2024 voters rather than all Americans. It doesn't look quite so bad then.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 13m I think the entire political narrative around the conflict is set to shift. This week it's been "Starmer's done well to keep us out". Next week the White House will be tweeting music videos of bombers from Britain hammering Iran. At which point Labour MPs will completely freak.
Labour will also be relieved they remain ahead of the Greens after Gorton and the Iran situation, the Tories will be pleased too to advance a bit as Reform decline
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Is that what insurance companies are for? Personally I have always thought them identical to bookmakers, except for their reluctance to pay out on winners.
Vichy ? I despise Trump, but he's not quite Hitler.
More of a Kermit 2.0 ?
He's not Hitler.
But a foreign country imposing a leader on the people is a bad idea.
If I wanted to be incendiary I would have used Vidkun Quisling.
MAGA seems to be trending in that direction.
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
One of the trends that I think we will come to regret (if we don't already) is the tendency of clickbaity social media to encourage people to say or do pretty horrific things whilst (appearing to) joke around.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
That's not unique to social media, or even new, though. It's always been part of the fascist/nazi playbook.
https://newrepublic.com/article/139004/ironic-nazis-still-nazis ...the pretext of irony as a way of furthering bigotry isn’t just a tactic wannabe Nazis of the 21st century have developed. It’s actually indistinguishable from how the actual Nazis of the early 20th century behaved. This role irony plays in providing a protective cover for anti-Semitism was brilliantly analyzed by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in his book Anti-Semite and Jew (1944), published after France was liberated but while the Holocaust was reaching a crescendo in Europe. Sartre observed that anti-Semites often resorted to the cloak of jokiness:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past"...
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Well, that doesn't stop the fact that the Captain -and his crew- are not that anxious to be shot at, or droned.
On insurance, remember that the insurers right now will be declaring Force Majeure, and telling shippers that if they want to traverse the straits then the premiums will be sky high.
So ?
There's been no shortage of previous wars, including in the Middle East, where trade had to continue through dangerous zones.
Let Trump offer insurance at the normal rate and you'll see the premiums fall back.
If you’re a Chavista in Venezuela, you’ve gone from being in power but unable to sell oil to the US, to now being in power and being able to sell oil to the US. That’s not a bad deal.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
Whilst I think you are right overall, do you not see Rand Paul perhaps voting for impeachment given his increasing hostility to Trump?
This is truly incredible to watch: 5 minutes ago, US crude oil prices surged above $91.50/barrel. Now, we are above $92.50, adding +$1/barrel in 5 minutes. This puts prices up +$12/barrel in 9 hours. We are witnessing a historic short squeeze as we speak.
Britain is to get a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ under plans to be outlined by the government on Monday, which will also include a new definition of Islamophobia
I've never understood this whole "tsar" thing. It's not like the tsars were renowned for effective governance.
Not exactly famous for being against "anti-Muslim hostility" either. Indeed quite big on inciting it, alongside anti-semitism too of course.
The commentary from Washington today has been astonishingly stupid.
I think we will be looking at a large Democrat majority in the House, and it is even possible that the American people might vote for enough Democrat Senators to allow impeachment. What odds are being offered on Trump being forced from office?
It is certainly what this fiasco deserves.
There is essentially no chance that enough Senate seats could fall that would allow for Trump's impeachment.
Right now, the Senate is 53-47.
Only 33 seats are up for election this year, of which 13 are Democrat, and 20 Republican.
If you assume that States with a partisan lean of 6 points (i.e. a 12 point gap in the vote last time around) were to the fall to the Democrats (which would be an incredible result for them), then you would see them gain the following:
Alaska: not a bad shout, Mary Pelouta is popular and only just missed out in the House race in 2024, and the Republicans are likely to do worse than then. Florida: that's a real toughy; it's been becoming Redder and Redder over time. But I put in there for completeness. Iowa: it's possible. Obama won it. And it'll be open because Joni Ernst is retiring. But I'd want decent odds. Maine: Ms Collins luck will run out this year. North Carolina: probably a Democrat gain. Ohio: like with Iowa, it's possible. Sherrod Brown is a very strong Democratic candidate who lost by just 3.5% in 2024, while Trump ran away with the State. Texas: well, the Democrats did the smart thing and chose an electable candidate. And the Republicans look likely to pick Paxton. Nate Silver thinks this makes Texas 50/50.
And that's it... After that, you start looking at States with big Republican leans. And while it's possible one ofthem could end up falling in one way or another (perhaps Louisiana, if the Republicans Primary Bill Cassidy, and then the Dems decide to sit the race out and he wins as an Independent?), it's not likely.
So... on an incredible night for the Dems, you could see them picking up 7.
But, really, only 2 are high likelihood (Maine and North Carolina), then there are 2 or 3 that are 50/50 at best (Alaska, maybe Ohio and Texas). And then it's really distant shots.
+7 gets the Dems to 54 Senators. And yes, you might get Lisa Murkowski voting for Trump's removal, but that's probably about it.
But...you are assuming those Republican Seantors who weren't up for election but have seen the Democrats surge in the House and get the majority in the Senate are going to sit back and let Trump run through to his end of term without trying to do something to save their arses in 2028.
It's worth pointing out that Trump's average favourability in polling is 43%, which is still better than Biden and a smidge better than Trump 1. The assumption on here is that everyone in the US hates Trump now but it's really not the case. I would suggest the polling points to an average mid-terms (e.g. Dems take back the House but not the Senate)
Mark, Realclearpolitics is currently giving an average of 43.4%/54.6% with a huge spread of results, so you can cherry pick your pollsters and draw just about any conclusion you like. The trouble is of course that there is no equivalent of the BPC in the US so even joke pollsters like Trafalgar get thrown into the mix. Even amongst the more familiar names it is hard to know who you can really rely on. I think Quinnipiac are pretty kosher but I'd struggle to name a second I would place great reliance on.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
That's pretty much where I'm sitting.
Assuming that the Iran war ends before it sends petrol prices spiralling out of control, you'd expect the Democrats to regain the House, and to pickup North Carolina and Maine. You'd also reckon they have a decent chance in Alaska. With outside possibilities being Ohio and (if the Republicans pick Paxton) Texas. The most likely outcome is probably Dems +2 in the Senate, but it's not impossible they could either fall short in North Carolina, or for Ms Collins to escape political gravity once more, or even for them to drop one or both of Michigan and Georgia.
That said, if it does go on, and energy prices spike, then it could be an ugly night for the Republicans.
But on that Economist link, check out Trump's approval in those critical Senate seats by hovering over them... It's got to be very sobering for the Republicans.
Make sure you select 2024 voters rather than all Americans. It doesn't look quite so bad then.
But will only 2024 voters be turning out in November ? I'd suggest it's likely differential turnout will play a sizeable role too.
Csn anyone recommend an alternative to Betfair, either an exchange type deal or a regular bookie where one can lay/back against in football markets?
Specifically I want to bet against Cov gaining promotion, ideally laying for a £1000-1500 return, assuming pricing is reasonable. Thanks.
(Betfair have singled my account out for 're-verification' for some reason, and have completely locked me out, despite my sending perfectly good documentation three days ago...)
Smarkets. As a long suffering Cov fan I fear that one is more likely than the pundits think..
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Well, that doesn't stop the fact that the Captain -and his crew- are not that anxious to be shot at, or droned.
On insurance, remember that the insurers right now will be declaring Force Majeure, and telling shippers that if they want to traverse the straits then the premiums will be sky high.
So ?
There's been no shortage of previous wars, including in the Middle East, where trade had to continue through dangerous zones.
Let Trump offer insurance at the normal rate and you'll see the premiums fall back.
My uncle spent 2 years the wrong side of the strait of Hormuz when he was at sea
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
And what happens if everyone just ignores that one drone and sails through ?
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think the issue is that civilian boat captains (and the companies that own the boats) are risk averse. Their desire to put themselves in harms way is limited.
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
Risk is what insurance is for.
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
Well, that doesn't stop the fact that the Captain -and his crew- are not that anxious to be shot at, or droned.
On insurance, remember that the insurers right now will be declaring Force Majeure, and telling shippers that if they want to traverse the straits then the premiums will be sky high.
So ?
There's been no shortage of previous wars, including in the Middle East, where trade had to continue through dangerous zones.
Let Trump offer insurance at the normal rate and you'll see the premiums fall back.
Either of these is quite believable which reflects the softness of the vote for both Labour and the Greens.
Labour FOURTH with FoN
lol
I know this is not a first time, but it's still hilarious. Also surely historic. A government with a landslide result coming FOURTH in polls 18 months later. I doubt we have seen that before in the history of universal UK suffrage - ie ever
We are heading to a world of inflation pain yet again.
Cost of living will be 2029 GE issue and I doubt anything else will get a look in.
Don't worry I'm sure Labour has a cunning plan involving more welfare for those who don't work and more tax for those who do.
Well to avoid inflation shocks it'd help enormously if vanity old men tyrants like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would refrain from starting wars. But there's little point Labour or any other UK political party putting that in their manifesto.
Either of these is quite believable which reflects the softness of the vote for both Labour and the Greens.
Labour FOURTH with FoN
lol
I know this is not a first time, but it's still hilarious. Also surely historic. A government with a landslide result coming FOURTH in polls 18 months later. I doubt we have seen that before in the history of universal UK suffrage - ie ever
The closest analogy is probably Teresa Mays Tories 4th with YouGov 2 years after she 'almost' won a majority
I'm making nice money from my flints, young and old, and I want to spend some
I've run out of room in my tiny flat to put antiques, or Georgian glasses, or antique Spode, or Russian silver spoons, etc
So I might be a really beautiful fossil. I have a Murano chalice which would really cradle a fossil exquisitely. Where the fuck does one buy great fossils? Willing to spend a couple of grand or more
Either of these is quite believable which reflects the softness of the vote for both Labour and the Greens.
Labour FOURTH with FoN
lol
I know this is not a first time, but it's still hilarious. Also surely historic. A government with a landslide result coming FOURTH in polls 18 months later. I doubt we have seen that before in the history of universal UK suffrage - ie ever
The closest analogy is probably Teresa Mays Tories 4th with YouGov 2 years after she 'almost' won a majority
Well, exactly. She didn't win in the first place
Labour have set an unenviable record. The first British party to win a majority at a general election then come FOURTH in polls 18 months later
Similarly this guy https://bsky.app/profile/robin-j-brooks.bsky.social thinks it takes just one drone attack on a tanker as it passes by Iranian territory to bring the trade to a halt, and there is no way America can stop that single drone attack.
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It means getting rid of the Iranian navy (job pretty much done already), then getting sufficient air and sea assets in place around the Straight to defend against anything incoming.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
The IRGC navy is still largely intact, and would be the ones to be doing this in any case.
Do we know that? What have the B1 and B52 bombers been doing if not twatting everything that might hold a vessel? Sure, it needs only to be small vessels that can lay mines. But anything getting even a mile off the coast of Iran is a total failure of the US and Israeli air forces and navies.
I heard this from an ex military geopol expert today.
Comments
Here’s Brandon Herrera, now the Republican nominee in Texas’s 23rd District after Rep. Tony Gonzales dropped out, showing off his copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “I got the 1939 edition printed in English.”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2029944872543686748
Fine squash player too.
The Guardian article I linked above has a picture of him playing Jonah Barrington, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Barrington_(squash_player)
Which implies Hormuz will only be open again if the Iranians want it to be. And that implies in turn a deal between America and whoever is in charge in Iran.
It's just very, very unlikely.
Not our war
Falling below that level is essentially Never Going To Happen, is it? That might not matter if Senators could vote with their conscience rather than their partisan label. (Stop sniggering at the back.)
That "in emergency, break open and impeachment" button? In the current climate, it's not really connected to anything effective.
In practice that means first taking out all known fixed launch facilities, then getting in to place a number of warships, with aircraft and helicopter support, as well as ground-based and sea-based SAM air defence systems, overseen by AWACS and satellite-based surveillance.
The US could do it, and the GCC states would be happy to assist if it keeps the oil flowing.
I am not averse to a joke in very poor taste. I remember with fondness the old Derek and Clive recordings.
But the ability for those making a living on social media to make outrageous comments on film to garner outraged clicks and then to pass off such scenes as 'jokes' intended to 'own the libs" or similar does a huge amount to normalise that which should not be normalised.
There will, I think, be a reckoning for this.
https://x.com/fpleitgencnn/status/2029566336591106151
He also appears to be the only journalist in the country with reliable internet access.
This seems particularly important to try and understand, to try and get some verifiable information out of the current situation.
Limited accountability and scrutiny.
Not political competitors.
Know far more about the subject matter than ministers so have some chance of driving change in the civil service.
Ticks the something needs to be done box.
The fact that flights are starting up again would seem to support that .
Ultimately the US did a deal with the Houthis.
Dubai airport, for example, is up to about 30% of the usual flights, with only Emirates airline and some cargo operators flying. Emirates are hoping to have their full service back up by early next week, which suggests they’re confident of avoiding substantial airspace closures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBwmVM6wNkg
If CNN guy starts talking to people who were tortured or had relatives killed by the Iranian regime, then I shall change my mind. I suspect what’s coming is a bunch of interviews with actors blaming Trump and Netanyahu.
However, if there's one thing we know from 2022 to 2024, it's that voters absolutely hate it when they get poorer because energy prices go through the roof. And if the Straits of Hormuz are closed for more than a couple of weeks, then gas prices in the US are going to be ugly. Electricity prices, it should be noted, are also heading up thanks to data centers and AI.
Edit to add: on the Silver Bulletin Trump tracker, Trump II is trending exactly in line with both Biden and Trump I.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
38% approval, 58% disapproval.
Azerbaijani state media accuses the Iranian IRGC of preparing a terrorist attack in Azerbaijan targeting the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Israeli embassy, and a synagogue, saying the threat was neutralized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPDS1k9lAq8
Given that Iran has so far been able to sink precisely zero ships it might suggest that Iran's actual military capacity is, once again, being over estimated.
I think all you can say for sure is that the trend has been unfavorable for Trump for some time and that the favorability gap is big, but not necessarily big enough to suggest a wipe out in November.
There's a lot of room for guesswork, and if I had to guess it would be along the same lines as Gareth - a good night for Democrats, but not dissimilar to normal midterm results.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cnn-poll-59-of-americans-disapprove-of-iran-strikes-and-most-think-a-long-term-conflict-is-likely/ar-AA1XnrFy?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Polling from BMG mirrors the recent dip for Reform (4 to 5 March)
Ref 27 (-5)
Lab 20 (=)
Con 18 (+1)
Grn 14 (+1)
LD 12 (+1)
What you probably need is for the first few tankers to get through with heavy escort, so that the risk from Iranian drones, etc., can be properly calibrated. If they are unable to mount a serious threat, then people will begin to relax, and tankers (and oil) will start to flow.
We are heading to a world of inflation pain yet again.
Cost of living will be 2029 GE issue and I doubt anything else will get a look in.
Norman Schwarzkopf.
Specifically I want to bet against Cov gaining promotion, ideally laying for a £1000-1500 return, assuming pricing is reasonable. Thanks.
(Betfair have singled my account out for 're-verification' for some reason, and have completely locked me out, despite my sending perfectly good documentation three days ago...)
And the oil in those ships is now worth a lot more.
https://x.com/fgaitho237/status/2029965312418775521
https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/2029960445306544573
Assuming that the Iran war ends before it sends petrol prices spiralling out of control, you'd expect the Democrats to regain the House, and to pickup North Carolina and Maine. You'd also reckon they have a decent chance in Alaska. With outside possibilities being Ohio and (if the Republicans pick Paxton) Texas. The most likely outcome is probably Dems +2 in the Senate, but it's not impossible they could either fall short in North Carolina, or for Ms Collins to escape political gravity once more, or even for them to drop one or both of Michigan and Georgia.
That said, if it does go on, and energy prices spike, then it could be an ugly night for the Republicans.
On insurance, remember that the insurers right now will be declaring Force Majeure, and telling shippers that if they want to traverse the straits then the premiums will be sky high.
It's always been part of the fascist/nazi playbook.
https://newrepublic.com/article/139004/ironic-nazis-still-nazis
...the pretext of irony as a way of furthering bigotry isn’t just a tactic wannabe Nazis of the 21st century have developed. It’s actually indistinguishable from how the actual Nazis of the early 20th century behaved. This role irony plays in providing a protective cover for anti-Semitism was brilliantly analyzed by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in his book Anti-Semite and Jew (1944), published after France was liberated but while the Holocaust was reaching a crescendo in Europe. Sartre observed that anti-Semites often resorted to the cloak of jokiness:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past"...
@DPJHodges
·
13m
I think the entire political narrative around the conflict is set to shift. This week it's been "Starmer's done well to keep us out". Next week the White House will be tweeting music videos of bombers from Britain hammering Iran. At which point Labour MPs will completely freak.
Just about sums her up.
Ref 27 (+1)
Green 21 (+3)
Con 17 (-1)
Lab 15 (=)
LD 10 (-2)
There's been no shortage of previous wars, including in the Middle East, where trade had to continue through dangerous zones.
Let Trump offer insurance at the normal rate and you'll see the premiums fall back.
This is truly incredible to watch: 5 minutes ago, US crude oil prices surged above $91.50/barrel. Now, we are above $92.50, adding +$1/barrel in 5 minutes. This puts prices up +$12/barrel in 9 hours. We are witnessing a historic short squeeze as we speak.
https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2029976892854427952?s=20
Leavitt now saying that unconditional surrender means whatever Donald Trump decides it means.
It doesn't actually have to involve a surrender.
This is bloody alice in wonderland and the Red Queen world now.
I'd suggest it's likely differential turnout will play a sizeable role too.
When half the electorate voluntarily tell the pollsters that thinking isn't their thing one has to worry.
AXIOS: RUBIO TOLD ARAB FOREIGN MINISTERS THAT WASHINGTON'S GOAL IS NOT REGIME CHANGE AND THAT IT WANTS DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO RUN THE COUNTRY
The Opposition demands action and governments get the blame for the consequences of that action.
lol
I know this is not a first time, but it's still hilarious. Also surely historic. A government with a landslide result coming FOURTH in polls 18 months later. I doubt we have seen that before in the history of universal UK suffrage - ie ever
No other BPC pollster has ever had them above 15% (yet)
General Sir Richard Shirreff, NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2029743059861397764
I'm making nice money from my flints, young and old, and I want to spend some
I've run out of room in my tiny flat to put antiques, or Georgian glasses, or antique Spode, or Russian silver spoons, etc
So I might be a really beautiful fossil. I have a Murano chalice which would really cradle a fossil exquisitely. Where the fuck does one buy great fossils? Willing to spend a couple of grand or more
Yet that might be no bad thing as long as your side knows what its aiming to do and how it is trying to do it.
Labour have set an unenviable record. The first British party to win a majority at a general election then come FOURTH in polls 18 months later
Rubio is another fxckwit .
"Different people leading the country" != Regime Change
Alterative Facts.