Wars & Rumours of Wars

[pigfarmer]

The Revolutionary Guard hardliners, who are now in control of the country, also now has control of the Strait of Hormuz,

The IRGC has been in control of Iran for decades, it hasn't been suddenly enabled by what's just happened it's been seriously degraded. That is the legacy media narrative based on hyperbole; its literally spewing out of CNN as I type this. They lost their credibility with me years ago and have a history of fear mongering and innacuracy.

Open source intelligence has suggested the IRGC has been heavily fragmented and is uncoordinated and it sounds like it because were are hearing different things from different groups. They are certainly negotiating with some faction of Iranians in Islamabad, not the people issuing threatening communiques. Oman and the UAE certainly wouldn't agree that Iran controls the strait or even who it is they are dealing with, the IRGC consists of some 30+ independent commands. They can threaten it with the reminder of their dispersed forces but regional states do not want to see tankers paying extortion to them as that's just recreating the problem. The UAE denies it but there does seem to be some evidence that they struck Iranian oil infrastructure in retaliation. If true that certainly would not have happened before, they can only do so now because the threat has been greatly reduced. Victor Davis Hanson has said there is a tipping point in conflicts like this and if that did happen perhaps that's a sign that it's approaching.

I don't expect sunshine and roses but it's way too premature to know how this will end, a lot can still happen and likely will.

 

[pigfarmer]

Ah, I see. Living under threat of missiles from a fanatical enemy that does not value human life.

Congratulations, you now have something in common with every Israeli citizen for the past several decades.

 

[nivek]

First inflation report since Iran war stuns Wall Street as conflict sends shockwaves through the economy​

The government's latest prices report card is giving the US economy an 'F' - that means most of the things you buy every day are getting much more expensive.

The March inflation report showed prices jumped by almost 1 percent in the month - pushing the yearly inflation rate up to 3.3 percent - its highest level in two years.

The Iran war is the main culprit behind the failing grade, as fighting in the Middle East sent energy prices soaring, up nearly 11 percent in the month of March alone, according to the report.

Data from AAA shows the national average US gasoline price surpassed $4 a gallon in March for the first time in four years.

But this 'war tax' is hitting more than just your gas tank: Grocery bills are creeping up again, with food prices gaining 2 percent over the last year.

This is partly because it costs more to truck the food to the store and partly because fertilizer prices are spiking.

When it costs more for truckers to deliver your food to market, you're the one who ends up paying extra at the checkout line.

'The message is clear: inflation remains sticky - and that optimistically assumes the energy surge proves to be temporary,' Brent Kenwell, US investment analyst at eToro, told the Daily Mail.

(More on the link)

.

 

[nivek]

NATO blinked on Iran, and Trump has every right to be furious​

Imagine, for a moment, the alternative. In the hours immediately following a successful decapitation strike, instead of criticism and handwringing, the European Union and NATO leadership step forward in lockstep with Washington and Jerusalem and say: We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and Israel; Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon; and the removal of this leadership has made the world safer.

Think about how Tehran would have processed that — not as a tactical setback, but as strategic isolation. Think about how Beijing and Moscow would have read it: a West that is unified, decisive and willing to act in concert. That kind of clarity doesn’t just end a news cycle — it reshapes behavior.

Instead, what we saw was hesitation. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged, in effect, that some allies were slower to respond than the moment demanded. That matters. Because in moments like this, speed and unity are not cosmetic — they’re strategic.

I’ve spent enough time inside the system — both in business and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union — to recognize when frustration is tactical and when it’s structural. Donald Trump’s irritation with NATO falls squarely into the latter category. It’s not a passing complaint. It’s a fundamental disagreement about what the alliance is supposed to do — and whether it still has the will to do it.

NATO proudly defines itself as a defensive organization. Fine. But let’s be clear about what "defense" actually means in 2026. It does not mean waiting politely until the next missile hits or the next proxy attack kills Americans or Israelis. Defense, in the real world, includes deterrence, disruption and, when necessary, decisive action against actors who have spent decades making their intentions clear.

Iran has been running that playbook for 47 years: dead American soldiers, attacks on shipping and a relentless campaign against Israel, one of the West’s most important allies. This isn’t theoretical. It’s not episodic. It’s sustained hostility.

So when the United States moves to degrade that threat, even in a limited and targeted way, the expectation from Washington — particularly from Trump — isn’t that NATO jumps into the fight. It’s far simpler than that. Let us use bases. Give us airspace. Provide political cover. Stand with us publicly.

And yet, time and again, the response from parts of Europe is hesitation, legal hand-wringing and carefully calibrated distance.

That’s what’s driving Trump’s frustration.

(More on the link)

.

 

[pigfarmer]

Here's a question I haven't heard asked or answered although I highly doubt its original.

The main Iranian threat to the Strait are shore based missiles that they have in abundance, scattered and concealed for miles along their coast. Then comes the mines although I don't think they have any mine layers left, or navy, or Navy leadership anymore.

What does anyone suppose those nice harmless peace loving Iranians needed them for ? What was their intent?

We've taken action in one form or another for more than twenty years against their enrichment program. Obviously they were after a nuclear weapon and we've been told they were close to producing one. I say that the instant they had a single viable weapon we'd see a form of exactly what we are seeing right now: a toll booth. A demand for tribute in exchange for passage. That wasn't something they just thought up in the past month. As a nuclear threat there would be damned little anyone can do about it like North Korea or Russia.

 

[AD1184]

NATO blinked on Iran, and Trump has every right to be furious​

Imagine, for a moment, the alternative. In the hours immediately following a successful decapitation strike, instead of criticism and handwringing, the European Union and NATO leadership step forward in lockstep with Washington and Jerusalem and say: We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and Israel; Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon; and the removal of this leadership has made the world safer.

Think about how Tehran would have processed that — not as a tactical setback, but as strategic isolation. Think about how Beijing and Moscow would have read it: a West that is unified, decisive and willing to act in concert. That kind of clarity doesn’t just end a news cycle — it reshapes behavior.

Instead, what we saw was hesitation. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged, in effect, that some allies were slower to respond than the moment demanded. That matters. Because in moments like this, speed and unity are not cosmetic — they’re strategic.

I’ve spent enough time inside the system — both in business and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union — to recognize when frustration is tactical and when it’s structural. Donald Trump’s irritation with NATO falls squarely into the latter category. It’s not a passing complaint. It’s a fundamental disagreement about what the alliance is supposed to do — and whether it still has the will to do it.

NATO proudly defines itself as a defensive organization. Fine. But let’s be clear about what "defense" actually means in 2026. It does not mean waiting politely until the next missile hits or the next proxy attack kills Americans or Israelis. Defense, in the real world, includes deterrence, disruption and, when necessary, decisive action against actors who have spent decades making their intentions clear.

Iran has been running that playbook for 47 years: dead American soldiers, attacks on shipping and a relentless campaign against Israel, one of the West’s most important allies. This isn’t theoretical. It’s not episodic. It’s sustained hostility.

So when the United States moves to degrade that threat, even in a limited and targeted way, the expectation from Washington — particularly from Trump — isn’t that NATO jumps into the fight. It’s far simpler than that. Let us use bases. Give us airspace. Provide political cover. Stand with us publicly.

And yet, time and again, the response from parts of Europe is hesitation, legal hand-wringing and carefully calibrated distance.

That’s what’s driving Trump’s frustration.

Has this writer forgotten the period between January 2025 and the end of February 2026? Does he remember how Trump treats his "allies"? The Trump admin told Europe to focus "on their own backyard" (i.e. the Russia-Ukraine situation), and suddenly demands it switches focus again to the middle east. Allies were not consulted about the Iran offensive, nor asked to participate, except when it started to go wrong. There are a lot of political lessons for Trump and America to learn with just this. It cannot work tirelessly to undermine the transatlantic alliance and then suddenly demand all its benefits when it realizes it needs them. As for Europe, it has learned that it is not worth it to try to keep Trump on-side. If you kowtow to Trump, you only get treated as less than dirt.

 

[pigfarmer]

Netanyahu rejected French mediation in talks with Lebanon rightly stating they were not a neutral party.

Israel excludes France from talks with Lebanon, sources tell 'Post'

An Israeli official said that “France’s conduct over the past year...has led Israel to view France as an unfair mediator.”


Agreed that Trump was incredibly insulting but considering insanity like this I don't blame him any more than I do Israel for considering all the 'help' we would have received had we politely asked. Our plans would have been instantly leaked and the matter would still be in committee when they touched off their first weapon. I'm sure Israel is just as glad we didn't wait for UK and EU involvement as it seems pretty obvious how that would have gone.

This is the reward the regime that has been slaughtering its citizens in droves gets and you wonder why we're skeptical.

Outrage at UN: Democracies Enable Iran, China, Cuba to Oversee Human Rights Bodies

The United States was the only ECOSOC member to object, saying that Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua were “unfit.”

UN Watch today called on all democratic ECOSOC member states — Canada, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland — to explain why they joined in the election of serial abusers of human rights to key UN bodies that oversee human rights.

“Appointing China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia to oversee the work of human rights activists is like putting Al Capone in charge of fighting organized crime,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “It’s truly indefensible, and puts lives at risk.”

“As an organization accredited with special NGO consultative status at the United Nations, and which regularly gives a platform to dissidents from China, Cuba, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua, we are gravely concerned that brutal dictatorships were elected to oversee our work and credentials — and it is scandalous that Western democracies put them there.”

“This means dictatorships will have a majority on the committee in order to deny United Nations accreditation to independent organizations that call out their human rights violations, and to accredit more fake front groups created by the regimes,” Neuer said.

 

[AD1184]

Outrage at UN: Democracies Enable Iran, China, Cuba to Oversee Human Rights Bodies

The United States was the only ECOSOC member to object, saying that Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua were “unfit.”

UN Watch today called on all democratic ECOSOC member states — Canada, France, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland — to explain why they joined in the election of serial abusers of human rights to key UN bodies that oversee human rights.

“Appointing China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia to oversee the work of human rights activists is like putting Al Capone in charge of fighting organized crime,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “It’s truly indefensible, and puts lives at risk.”

“As an organization accredited with special NGO consultative status at the United Nations, and which regularly gives a platform to dissidents from China, Cuba, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua, we are gravely concerned that brutal dictatorships were elected to oversee our work and credentials — and it is scandalous that Western democracies put them there.”

“This means dictatorships will have a majority on the committee in order to deny United Nations accreditation to independent organizations that call out their human rights violations, and to accredit more fake front groups created by the regimes,” Neuer said.

Iran was elected to the Committee for Program and Control by acclamation, meaning that no vote was held as the list of nominated countries was uncontested. There were powers available to the United States to formally force a vote if it wished to do so. All it did was have its mission to the UN release an explanation of position afterwards:

Technical Difficulties

The Russia exclusions UN Watch mentions took advantage of crucial regional dynamics, as nominations are made by regional blocks. If a nomination is made in a regional block which you are not part of, and in which you have little influence, then it is usually futile to object.

I asked ChatGPT a question about the UN Watch article on ECOSOC committee membership voting and it had this to say:

It ignores collective (not individual) responsibility​

Blame framed solely on Western Europe overlooks that:

• ECOSOC decisions are collective unless a vote is forced
• Responsibility is therefore shared by all members who allowed consensus

---

It overlooks political reality​

Countries often avoid forcing votes because:

• They expect to lose numerically
• They want to avoid escalation or retaliation
• They respect regional group autonomy norms

So non-action ≠ active endorsement.

Procedurally, the U.S. is in the same position​

Within the United Nations Economic and Social Council:

• The U.S. had the same formal options as any other ECOSOC member:
  • Request a vote
  • Break consensus
  • Force a recorded outcome

It did not do so
Instead, it allowed adoption by consensus and issued an explanation afterward


So in strictly procedural terms:

• The U.S. participated in the same collective acquiescence as other members

That means the critique applies equally​

The criticism you highlighted (from UN Watch) can logically be extended:

“They could have acted more forcefully, but didn’t.”

That statement:

• ✔ Applies to Western European states
• ✔ Applies equally to the United States

There’s no procedural distinction here.

Bottom line​

• It is not accurate to single out Western European states as the actors responsible
• ✔ It is fair (but incomplete) to say they were among those who allowed the outcome
• ✔ The U.S. did not block or force a vote
• ✔ Therefore it shares in the collective responsibility for allowing consensus
• ✔ Its later objection is political signaling, not procedural opposition
• ✔ The most precise framing would be:

The outcome reflects collective acquiescence by ECOSOC members, not the decision of any single regional bloc.

 

[pigfarmer]

The optics are ridiculous on that and explanations after the fact do not dispel the sense that the UN has grown beyond it's 'sell by' date.

 

[AD1184]

Has this writer forgotten the period between January 2025 and the end of February 2026? Does he remember how Trump treats his "allies"?

I read up on Gordon Sondland to find that he is not a real diplomat, but was rather a one-time Trump appointee as ambassador to the European Union for all of 18 months before his firing (after he testified in Trump's impeachment trial) during Trump's first term. Prior to that he was a businessman.

Europe's position on the Iran war is constrained by its prior moral and strategic commitments in Ukraine. It has taken a position that aggression and violation of national sovereignty is wrong. Participating in what the rest of the world would perceive as a discretionary war in Iran would undermine that. This has a parallel in the Eisenhower administration shutting down the British-Irsraeli-French operation to regain control of the Suez Canal in 1956. One of Eisenhower's grievances with that operation was its perceived undermining of the united Allied position on the opposition to Soviet aggression. In a way, the non-participation of the European nations, even though they have not been as active as the US in 1956, is acting as a reverse-Suez on the US.

The European strategy in Ukraine involves supplying it with advanced weaponry--its own and weaponry that it supplies by buying it off of the US (since Trump's second term, the Biden administration was more forthcoming in providing it directly). Already, its ability to do this is severely constrained by the limited military industrial capacity in all allied nations. Beginning a second conflict in the Middle East further constrains its ability to provide military assistance to Ukraine which, in the European perception, is of greater priority (indeed, the Trump White House gave an explicit instruction to European nations to tend to its own "backyard", before an about-face when it asked them to switch focus again to the Middle East).

Already, European nations have had to expend defensive munitions protecting Gulf allies from Iranian attacks, without being involved in the offensive campaign. The Gulf nations and the US have also expended many of their own munitions. There was that report by RUSI the other week that suggested US stockpiles of several advanced munitions were running low. There is a large market for defensive interceptor missiles, and Ukraine has a large demand for them, but this war in Iran has diverted much of the limited global supply to the Middle East.

 

[nivek]

‘Critical’ threat in Strait of Hormuz as Iran insists on coordinating ship transits, UKMTO warns​

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remained sharply reduced Sunday as talks failed between the United States and Iran, with the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center warning of a “critical” threat.

“The regional maritime threat environment across the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman remains CRITICAL,” the UKMTO said in an advisory.

“The overall maritime threat environment remains at a critical level due to recent attack patterns, continued navigation interference, and persistent operational disruption, to include port facilities, across the region," it added.

The UKMTO also reported that only four vessels transited the strait in the past 24 hours, compared to a historical average of about 138 vessels per day before the conflict.

AIS data further highlights the slowdown, showing “eight transits on April 9, two transits on April 10, and four transits on April 11.”

“Iran continues to assert that transits require prior coordination with its armed forces,” the UKMTO warned.

.

 

[AD1184]

‘Critical’ threat in Strait of Hormuz as Iran insists on coordinating ship transits, UKMTO warns​

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remained sharply reduced Sunday as talks failed between the United States and Iran, with the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center warning of a “critical” threat.

“The regional maritime threat environment across the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman remains CRITICAL,” the UKMTO said in an advisory.

“The overall maritime threat environment remains at a critical level due to recent attack patterns, continued navigation interference, and persistent operational disruption, to include port facilities, across the region," it added.

The UKMTO also reported that only four vessels transited the strait in the past 24 hours, compared to a historical average of about 138 vessels per day before the conflict.

AIS data further highlights the slowdown, showing “eight transits on April 9, two transits on April 10, and four transits on April 11.”

“Iran continues to assert that transits require prior coordination with its armed forces,” the UKMTO warned.

Re-opening the strait was a condition for Iran to avoid their infrastructure being targeted by the US. Re-opening the strait was also a condition imposed by the US on the ceasefire holding. Iran has continued to violate this condition throughout without much consequence, let alone the resumption of offensive bombing operations, as Trump threatened. So what gives?

 

[pigfarmer]

The Giant Death Ray is only at 80% charge, give it a couple days.

 

[nivek]

Iran's secret nuke confession blows reasons for America's war wide open​

An interview with a former Iranian official is making waves online after he admitted Iran had always intended to build a nuclear bomb.

Ali Motahari, who served as Parliament deputy speaker from 2016 to 2019, made the statements in 2022 while speaking on Iranian news media outlet ISCA News, saying: 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'

Motahari noted that Iran had no plans for detonating the bomb, only using it as a deterrent, meaning a weapon intended to discourage enemies rather than immediately use it, citing the Quranic verse: 'Strike fear in the hearts of the enemy of Allah.'

Having a nuclear bomb for deterrence purposes, Motahari said that it 'would not have been a bad thing... All I am saying is that since we started, we should have proceeded to the threshold.'

According to Motahari, the plan failed because Iran could not keep its nuclear activities secret, particularly after the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) leaked confidential reports, bringing international attention.

However, he added toward the end of the interview that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei opposed the idea of building a bomb, deeming it 'forbidden.' Khamenei was killed by US-Israeli strikes in Tehran on February 28.

Motahari's 2022 interview contradicted Iran's long-held insistence that it never sought to build nuclear weapons, and resurfaced amid the US-Israeli war in Iran.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that the current attacks were primarily meant to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, destroy its ballistic missile and military capabilities and counter what his administration described as a long-term threat from the Iranian regime and its proxies.

(More on the link)

.

 

[nivek]

Europe draws up plans for a new NATO without US​

Europe is speeding up a fallback plan for Nato in case Washington pulls out of the alliance as anxiety grows over America's reliability.

Officials working on the plans, dubbed 'European Nato', are reportedly attempting to supplement US military assets with European ones.

The plans, drawn up last year, are also seeking to place Europeans in Nato's command-and-control roles, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Those involved have stressed that it is not intended to rival the current alliance, but rather preserve deterrence against Putin, nuclear credibility and operational continuity even if the US withdraws forces from Europe.

Last week, it was revealed that Donald Trump was considering punishing members of Nato that he believes were unhelpful to the US and Israel in the war against Iran by pulling American troops out of the country's bases.

The proposal would involve moving troops out from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member countries deemed uncooperative with the military campaign, and transferring them to nations who are more supportive of Washington.

Trump has in recent weeks repeatedly threatened to withdraw America from the 32-member alliance, after several Nato countries rejected his calls to help reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz through which 20 per cent of the world's oil and gas flows.

The President's belief that the nations didn't do enough to help the US during Operation Epic Fury is threatening to tear apart the trans-Atlantic alliance, creating what is perhaps the greatest challenge it has faced in its history.

(More on the link)

.

 

[pigfarmer]

Congratulations, they've won the Race to Irrelevancy.

I see in this release they now have the economic and military might of Trinidad and Tobago behind this and with that juggernaut at their side how could they fail to achieve whatever it is they are trying to achieve ? Now then, they'll have to do a carbon footprint impact statement and have several more conferences so this should be ready by Christmas or so - hopefully this year.



Joint statement from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and others on the Strait of Hormuz: 19 March 2026

 

[AD1184]

What a difference a day makes:

US and Iran announce Strait of Hormuz open, Trump hints at wider deal

Iran and US declare Strait of Hormuz "completely open," but Iran adds that passage is on a "coordinated route" set by Tehran.

www.euronews.com

Trump slams NATO claiming it was too late in offer to help clear Strait of Hormuz

Earlier Friday, President Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened, though Iran said the opening would only last as long as the ceasefire in Lebanon

www.independent.co.uk

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/trump-says-he-has-good-news-iran-no-clarity-peace-deal-2026-04-18/

 

[pigfarmer]

At the end of the day it was a few *******s in those fast boats with machine guns that 'closed the Strait' again. Not their recently departed and unlamented 'navy', not missiles, speedboats. I don't doubt the US Navy has the correct medicine on hand for that sort of thing. Whatever is going to happen next the multinational force just created isn't going to deploy that fast and I'd bet at least some in that group have quailed realizing now they actually have to do something.

Obviously the IRGC is fractured and the reports of Mohammad Shirmohammadian identified as a commander of a Basij base in Tehran being stabbed to death by masked attackers may be evidence of this - reports on that are a bit thin but it did make the news cycle briefly. Even if the group we are supposedly negotiating with are sincere they lack the ability to enforce whatever they may agree to. Very likely this ceasefire has been used for rest, maintenance and replenishment for both sides and the targeting list we and the IDF have refined to a degree the IRGC isn't going to like very much.

 

[nivek]

The real Iran threat is in black and white: It's even in their Constitution​

As the conflict with Iran continues, many elements of an ultimate deal have been explored. Issues such as nuclear weapons development, missile production, uranium divestiture and enrichment, foreign proxy financing, as well as activities in the region by Israel and Arab nations, have been scrutinized. In the meantime, it is well recognized that any deal with the Iranian regime is suspect; compliance has always been questionable, and efficient monitoring creates an even greater set of problems.

From the beginning, the notion of "regime change" has received much attention. For some, it means the termination of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For others, it entails the complete elimination of all who have led and participated in the Iranian Revolution for decades. For others, it can be satisfied with a mere leadership change on the assumption, as with the US intervention in Venezuela, that new leaders may emerge who will lead the nation to greater cooperation with the US, turn away from fueling terror through proxies in other nations, and, because of an improved economy, be open to granting the general population greater individual freedoms.

One focus that has been completely absent from the public discussion concerns the regime’s own Constitution and whether amendments, if not a full overhaul, should be on the table. Of course, a change in a document does not guarantee a meaningful change in behavior. Nonetheless, the failure to agree to specified amendments, if not a totally new framework, demonstrates that true change of the type much of the world would appreciate is unlikely.

The existing Constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence. It also gives meaning to what has often been mistaken for mere hyperbolic cheerleading: "Death to America."

While America was built on notions of liberty, individual freedoms, and limited government control, the Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law. It sets out to help all similar revolutionary efforts across the world, justifying its support for its proxies and other activities abroad. In addition, it was hoped that this vision would be realized by the end of the 20th century, which certainly explains the unquenchable appetite for nuclear weapons as the optimum, most accelerated pathway toward overtaking all other forms of rule.

Here are just a few passages from the Preamble and the Articles themselves (italics added):

"The Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me’ [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world."

The Constitution was framed "with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards "will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world…"

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad."

"…framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria, fraternal commitment to all Muslims, and unsparing support for the freedom fighters of the world."

The Constitution dictates not only activities within the territory; it is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles. It was Iran that declared war on America decades ago; it has been the US, until the current administration, that has minimized its importance while hoping to peaceably negotiate Iran away from its mission. For those who question how Iran is a threat to the US, its prime goal requires the "downfall" of the US.

The Constitution is based on the belief, in part, in "the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God." The official religion is the Twelver Ja’fari Shiite school, which is to "remain eternally immutable." This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered.

Negotiations are difficult and, generally, only those directly involved have a full view of all the concerns, issues, relative leverage, and risks at hand. Consequently, the public is often unaware of many true constraints and opportunities the parties hold. Consequently, many necessary tradeoffs are often not understood by those outside the central negotiators.

Nonetheless, the last century, as well as the beginning of this one, has taught us the necessity of trusting how the enemy describes itself. From Hitler and Stalin to all Western Communists, Mao to the CCP, and the Islamists, we have learned it is important to believe what they tell us. The Iranian Constitution does just that, telling us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks, and meaningful public discourse must be fully informed by it.

Any deal with this regime is suspect given its history and its adherence to the Prophet Mohammad’s treatment of truces; nothing ensures compliance. Yet, more importantly, the failure of Iran to agree to address many provisions in the Constitution will make clear exactly what kind of "regime change," if any, will result.

Failure to adequately address the Constitution will ultimately be perceived as acceptance and ratification of the extreme principles underlying all of its terms. And should it be determined that the best path forward is an agreement with expiration dates, the Constitution, unchanged, tells us exactly what will be faced once those expiration dates have passed.

Again, changes to the Constitution are no guarantee of true change, but the failure to make changes will likely guarantee no true change. It is therefore imperative that public attention be so focused before any final agreement is reached.

Bill Siegel is the author of "The Control Factor — Our Struggle to See the True Threat."

.

 

[AD1184]

At the end of the day it was a few *******s in those fast boats with machine guns that 'closed the Strait' again.

And that's all it takes. Short of a ground invasion of the southern coast of Iran, there does not seem to be a military solution. This is what they call an asymmetric threat.

The USS George H.W. Bush is also taking the long way around Africa rather than taking the Suez Canal, apparently to avoid the Houthi threat in the Strait of Bab Al Mandab.