NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
Gideon levy a rare sane voice in Israel on how Trumps ignorance could easily lead to something very serious indeed.
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
A Labour peer's call to bring in cats to control mice and other vermin in the Houses of Parliament has been rejected. Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble told Lord Berkeley advice given to parliamentary authorities was that cats would face risks from construction activity, self-closing doors and the lack of arrangements for caring for them."
A Labour peer's call to bring in cats to control mice and other vermin in the Houses of Parliament has been rejected. Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble told Lord Berkeley advice given to parliamentary authorities was that cats would face risks from construction activity, self-closing doors and the lack of arrangements for caring for them."
You'd need some pretty big cats to take down all the vermin in the chamber. A pack of hungry leopards released at the start of PMQs would probably do the trick.
On PMQs, now I happen to think or it, I thought Chris Philip's performance today managed the remarkable achievement of being considerably worse than Kemi. Long waffling questions from which Rayner could cherry pick something she wanted to talk about, and ignore whatever part was meant to be the elephant trap. Is he really the best they've got? Or did Kemi put him out knowing he was a dud to make her look better?
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
I'd guess we have to look at the Israeli model of pseudo-control. I.e what they've done in Syria & a little in Lebanon. De fang the country by removing all air defences and long range weapons then periodically bomb the resistance and assassinate leaders. They don't care about a stable countries, only ones that are easily dominated.
Seems Trump will accept peace if the ballistic missiles are gone and the nuclear programme eliminated. Doubt any country could accept this so this one could go for a while.
"Some Iranian leaders, particularly those influenced by Twelver Shi'a eschatology, have been interpreted as believing in an apocalyptic scenario that would hasten the return of the Mahdi, the Hidden Imam. This belief is rooted in the idea that the Mahdi's reappearance will be preceded by chaos and conflict, and that certain actions, including those that might provoke conflict, could be seen as contributing to this process."
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
I'd guess we have to look at the Israeli model of pseudo-control. I.e what they've done in Syria & a little in Lebanon. De fang the country by removing all air defences and long range weapons then periodically bomb the resistance and assassinate leaders. They don't care about a stable countries, only ones that are easily dominated.
Seems Trump will accept peace if the ballistic missiles are gone and the nuclear programme eliminated. Doubt any country could accept this so this one could go for a while.
Trump only says that he wants the Iranian nuclear programme eliminated.
He might still sign a deal that involves the Iranians providing him with a nice, shiny new plane, and also agreeing to not attack American assets in the Middle East.
His deal with the Houthis only involved them agreeing to not attack US ships, while leaving them free to attack Israel.
It's so reassuring that the US President is "frantic and agitated" in a crisis:
The two no longer speak, so Mr. Bolton said he had no idea what Mr. Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr. Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises.
“He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words,” Mr. Bolton said. “He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
Never seen CNN with such a relatively generous headline towards Trump.
"Trump focused on avoiding wider conflict as he nears Iran decision The US president is wary of becoming bogged down in the type of prolonged foreign conflict he vowed to avoid, sources tell CNN"
A Fox host told Trump over lunch two weeks ago that Iran was days from a nuke, which he apparently believed over the denials of the former Fox contributor he made director of national intelligence... https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1935400121153577375
It's so reassuring that the US President is "frantic and agitated" in a crisis:
The two no longer speak, so Mr. Bolton said he had no idea what Mr. Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr. Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises.
“He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words,” Mr. Bolton said. “He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
Michael Kurilla has outsized influence and he is outside cabinet and the advisor circle. Kurilla apparently reported a fairly bullish outlook whilst setting out the strike package options
A Fox host told Trump over lunch two weeks ago that Iran was days from a nuke, which he apparently believed over the denials of the former Fox contributor he made director of national intelligence... https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1935400121153577375
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and how they jump into it by waving it away with some BS, which was Boris speciality.
Even then it was Boris vs Corbyn, or Starmer vs Boris about who should be next leader. That has now changed, it is said, because Labour does not regard Kemi or her party as viable contenders.
Sounds rather hubristic to me. But yes, Labour do seem to be rightly or wrongly focussing on Reform and Farage.
Mistakenly imo because if Labour does harm Reform, the main beneficiary is the Conservative Party.
Donald Trump says "I may do it, I may not do it", when asked about whether the US will join Israeli strikes on Iran
I actually have some sympathy with Starmer when having to try and deal with this kind of thing.
President Trump has been against military adventures his whole career. He frustrated Neocon attempts to bomb Iran in his first presidency, and ousted John Bolton for being too hawkish.
Added to this, much of MAGA and indeed mainstream Republicans are isolationist. Trump risks fracturing his own base before the midterms.
Trump's problem now is that Bibi as well as the neocons want to lure in American might. Trump so far has stopped at issuing an ultimatum, or at least implying Israel had a de facto ultimatum on Iran.
On May 25 we published an online article “We earn £345k, but soaring private school fees mean we can’t go on five holidays” which included stock photographs and not, as the article indicated, images of the family referred to in the article. In addition, we have not been able to verify the details published.
There has been public speculation the story was created using Artificial Intelligence; this is not the case. We apologise to our readers for these errors which should not have occurred. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/the-telegraph-an-apology/ (£££)
It's so reassuring that the US President is "frantic and agitated" in a crisis:
The two no longer speak, so Mr. Bolton said he had no idea what Mr. Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr. Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises.
“He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words,” Mr. Bolton said. “He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
F1: backed Russell each way in Austria at 8.5. He's consistently good and the car seems easier to get right in qualifying than McLaren. If he qualifies well I'll probably hedge.
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
His one redeeming feature is that he seems to be genuinely scared of war.
Foreign wars
He is gagging for civil war
I don't think he is. I think he'd much prefer the left just cave in to what he wants without a civil war. But I don't think he'd be against one if required, though.
One issue is that I think 'what he wants' depends on who last spoke to him...
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Looks like the site's still afire.
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways: *) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason. *) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Elon Musk is good at blowing things up in slightly unexpected ways.
Dr Anthony Daniels writes about his experience of immigration.
"It is many years since I retired from medical practice, but even in those days I had many illegal immigrants among my patients. They had claimed asylum, and most of them were indeed fleeing from personal situations, not usually of political persecution, that were deeply unpleasant. In my view they were all illegal immigrants rather than true asylum seekers because they had not claimed such asylum in the first safe country in which they had arrived. They preferred to go somewhere else; mere safety was therefore not their first consideration."
This makes no sense and I'm pretty sure it's not a legal thing. If Japan does a goat owner pogrom and I have to flee in a small boat to Korea why would I stop in Korea? I don't know anyone in Korea, I don't speak Korean. Once you're safe from the initial danger you still have to find somewhere to live and figure out how to buy food and everything. You'd go wherever you had the best prospects, that doesn't mean it wasn't the original danger that caused you to flee.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Some people seem to get sucked into an alt right social media bubble and slip 'n slide into more and more extreme views.
Didn't Carswell relocate to the USA to become a MAGA disciple? If so, then his behaviour makes perfect sense. In his world, and with the people he needs to court, that sort of language is simply expected.
I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh
It's so reassuring that the US President is "frantic and agitated" in a crisis:
The two no longer speak, so Mr. Bolton said he had no idea what Mr. Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr. Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises.
“He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words,” Mr. Bolton said. “He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Looks like the site's still afire.
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways: *) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason. *) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
Not even a test, but a refuelling prior to a test prior to a launch.
Probably not there yet, but at what point does it become sensible to cut losses, and try another design ? Is there a plan B ?
I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh
Is there some meaningful chunk of Iranian public opinion that's nostalgic for the Shah or are they only trying to do this because they don't have any other ideas?
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Looks like the site's still afire.
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways: *) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason. *) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
Not even a test, but a refuelling prior to a test prior to a launch.
Probably not there yet, but at what point does it become sensible to cut losses, and try another design ? Is there a plan B ?
Not for SpaceX, as far as we know. All Musky Baby's been promising is even bigger ship stacks, when they cannot even get the current versions working. Madness.
But for the Moon landings? Yes. Blue Origin have a lunar lander design (actually two). They claim they'll be launching a dummy cargo version to the Moon later this year. I'm sceptical about that, but they stand more chance of getting something to the Moon first than SpaceX with SS/SH, given all the extra steps SpaceX need to do to get there.
He used to be a moderate, had an entirely civic view of Brexit, and was scathing about the prejudiced views he felt were held by much of the UKIP base.
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Looks like the site's still afire.
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways: *) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason. *) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
Not even a test, but a refuelling prior to a test prior to a launch.
Probably not there yet, but at what point does it become sensible to cut losses, and try another design ? Is there a plan B ?
Not for SpaceX, as far as we know. All Musky Baby's been promising is even bigger ship stacks, when they cannot even get the current versions working. Madness.
But for the Moon landings? Yes. Blue Origin have a lunar lander design (actually two). They claim they'll be launching a dummy cargo version to the Moon later this year. I'm sceptical about that, but they stand more chance of getting something to the Moon first than SpaceX with SS/SH, given all the extra steps SpaceX need to do to get there.
I was asking about SpaceX specifically.
How do they deal with failure, if that's what SS turns out to be ?
I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh
Is there some meaningful chunk of Iranian public opinion that's nostalgic for the Shah or are they only trying to do this because they don't have any other ideas?
Part of A, part of B.
Lots of people in Russia and the wider Soviet Union, particularly older people, look back at the days of the Soviet Union with fondness, as times were better back then. Even if they were not. In the same way, some of us on here look back at the past with a fondness, forgetting what we thought of those times back then.
So yes, there are some people in Iran who look back on the times of the Shah with something akin to fondness.
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
Big bang.
Looks like the site's still afire.
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways: *) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason. *) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
Not even a test, but a refuelling prior to a test prior to a launch.
Probably not there yet, but at what point does it become sensible to cut losses, and try another design ? Is there a plan B ?
Not for SpaceX, as far as we know. All Musky Baby's been promising is even bigger ship stacks, when they cannot even get the current versions working. Madness.
But for the Moon landings? Yes. Blue Origin have a lunar lander design (actually two). They claim they'll be launching a dummy cargo version to the Moon later this year. I'm sceptical about that, but they stand more chance of getting something to the Moon first than SpaceX with SS/SH, given all the extra steps SpaceX need to do to get there.
I was asking about SpaceX specifically.
How do they deal with failure, if that's what SS turns out to be ?
They've not said. Now they know that they can land the first stage, they might be able to make a much better/lighter disposable upper stage. But the stack was designed to work together, and doing that would cause a total redesign of the Artemis program.
Musk is too busy looking for the next big thing to con fans and investors, rather than getting what they have working.
I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh
Is there some meaningful chunk of Iranian public opinion that's nostalgic for the Shah or are they only trying to do this because they don't have any other ideas?
The lesson of not a few revolutions is that the most ruthless and organised group comes out on top, irrespective of majority support. And that can be a very messy and protracted process.
Comments
"Douglas Carswell🇬🇧🇺🇸
@DouglasCarswell
Mass deportation is now the moderate position"
https://x.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1935353132633972745
https://jcpa.org/exclusive-the-significance-of-reza-pahlavis-visit-to-israel/
"Cats ruled out as Parliamentary pest controllers
A Labour peer's call to bring in cats to control mice and other vermin in the Houses of Parliament has been rejected. Senior Deputy Speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble told Lord Berkeley advice given to parliamentary authorities was that cats would face risks from construction activity, self-closing doors and the lack of arrangements for caring for them."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjqrddnldgo
On PMQs, now I happen to think or it, I thought Chris Philip's performance today managed the remarkable achievement of being considerably worse than Kemi. Long waffling questions from which Rayner could cherry pick something she wanted to talk about, and ignore whatever part was meant to be the elephant trap. Is he really the best they've got? Or did Kemi put him out knowing he was a dud to make her look better?
Seems Trump will accept peace if the ballistic missiles are gone and the nuclear programme eliminated. Doubt any country could accept this so this one could go for a while.
"Some Iranian leaders, particularly those influenced by Twelver Shi'a eschatology, have been interpreted as believing in an apocalyptic scenario that would hasten the return of the Mahdi, the Hidden Imam. This belief is rooted in the idea that the Mahdi's reappearance will be preceded by chaos and conflict, and that certain actions, including those that might provoke conflict, could be seen as contributing to this process."
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-iranian-regimes-apocalyptic-worldview
He might still sign a deal that involves the Iranians providing him with a nice, shiny new plane, and also agreeing to not attack American assets in the Middle East.
His deal with the Houthis only involved them agreeing to not attack US ships, while leaving them free to attack Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKWUaw75NVE&t=1s
The two no longer speak, so Mr. Bolton said he had no idea what Mr. Trump would decide. He was not sure if Mr. Trump knew himself. But in his experience, Mr. Bolton said, Mr. Trump was “frantic and agitated” in national security crises.
“He talks to a lot of people and he’s looking for somebody who will say the magic words,” Mr. Bolton said. “He’ll hear something and he’ll decide, ‘That’s right, that’s what I believe.’ Which lasts until he has the next conversation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/trump-iran-iraq.html?unlocked_article_code=1.QE8.Ws80.OSOLwYsYNbhW&smid=url-share
"Trump focused on avoiding wider conflict as he nears Iran decision
The US president is wary of becoming bogged down in the type of prolonged foreign conflict he vowed to avoid, sources tell CNN"
https://edition.cnn.com
https://x.com/MattGertz/status/1935400121153577375
https://x.com/GozukaraFurkan/status/1935413387644555470
2,000 more National Guard troops being deployed to Los Angeles, Pentagon says.
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/1935185703488324026
Relatedly, this.
WHAT IS KRISTI NOEM COVERING UP???
She's trying to rewrite the **law** permitting members of Congress to conduct oversight in her detention centers.
https://x.com/emptywheel/status/1935474976783544512
The US administration is appears determined to erode the constitutional checks that might prevent, and to build the apparatus for a police state.
America-first backers such as Steve Bannon urge restraint, while Republican hawks push for intervention
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/18/trump-iran-israel-maga-policy
What I said. No-one voted for Trump to start a new war.
On May 25 we published an online article “We earn £345k, but soaring private school fees mean we can’t go on five holidays” which included stock photographs and not, as the article indicated, images of the family referred to in the article. In addition, we have not been able to verify the details published.
There has been public speculation the story was created using Artificial Intelligence; this is not the case. We apologise to our readers for these errors which should not have occurred.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/the-telegraph-an-apology/ (£££)
He is gagging for civil war
F1: backed Russell each way in Austria at 8.5. He's consistently good and the car seems easier to get right in qualifying than McLaren. If he qualifies well I'll probably hedge.
I've been very bearish about SS/SH for several years now - and not just because I dislike Elon. It's a massive ask, and I think engineering-wise they're chasing a receding target. They cannot reach their required payload mass, so are having to institute changes that make the ship more fragile or increase weight.
Allegedly it blew up whilst being fueled, not even during a static fire.
I hoe everyone's okay. It'll be interesting to see what's left at the test site.
Imagine what that would be like with both SH and SS...
One issue is that I think 'what he wants' depends on who last spoke to him...
Lots of Copium being spread in the forums. "At least it was only the test site, not the launch site" or "at least it didn't happen during launch."
Which are both true, but there's potential damage to the program in two ways:
*) Without the test site, it is harder for them to test. They might be able to use the launch pad for that, but they had a test site for a reason.
*) They will have to work out what went wrong and fix it. It *might* have been ground equipment rather than the ship, which would be the best cause. But still problematic and a massive delay.
It's a bit like saying: "I'm having my foot removed rather than my entire leg." Yes, that's 'better', but better still neither.
Probably not there yet, but at what point does it become sensible to cut losses, and try another design ?
Is there a plan B ?
But for the Moon landings? Yes. Blue Origin have a lunar lander design (actually two). They claim they'll be launching a dummy cargo version to the Moon later this year. I'm sceptical about that, but they stand more chance of getting something to the Moon first than SpaceX with SS/SH, given all the extra steps SpaceX need to do to get there.
NEW THREAD
He used to be a moderate, had an entirely civic view of Brexit, and was scathing about the prejudiced views he felt were held by much of the UKIP base.
Very odd.
How do they deal with failure, if that's what SS turns out to be ?
Lots of people in Russia and the wider Soviet Union, particularly older people, look back at the days of the Soviet Union with fondness, as times were better back then. Even if they were not. In the same way, some of us on here look back at the past with a fondness, forgetting what we thought of those times back then.
So yes, there are some people in Iran who look back on the times of the Shah with something akin to fondness.
Polling in Iran is obviously difficult, but there's the following:
https://gamaan.org/2022/03/31/political-systems-survey-english/
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Clearly lots of people have decided to WFH and not bother given the heat.
Musk is too busy looking for the next big thing to con fans and investors, rather than getting what they have working.
I have no idea. It's obvious there's widespread opposition to the regime, but no obvious group that leads it, as this article suggests:
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/who-makes-up-irans-fragmented-opposition-2025-06-18/
The lesson of not a few revolutions is that the most ruthless and organised group comes out on top, irrespective of majority support.
And that can be a very messy and protracted process.