Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Wile E. Coyote]

Trump is basically saying unless you make a deal with the US to limit your Nuclear development, Israel will strike you again.

Given that Iran has not been able to defend against the first strike, and their response is limited, you are now going to get even further strikes against Iran.

The fact that Hezbollah is already saying that they will not become involved, means that Iran is in awful trouble.

Existential threat to Iran.

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

As events unfold various mysteries are still extant. The basic one is the content of the Monday call between Trump and Netanyahu.

There are a number of possibilities based on the assumption that Israel must have known on Monday they were going to launch the attack since it required careful preparation and nothing happened between Monday and Thursday that changed the situation. [I don't think the IAEA actions had much effect, but it's possible it provided a convenient 'window'.]

1. Netanyahu lied about Israeli intentions and Trump believed him
2. Netanyahu lied about Israeli intentions and Trump didn't believe him
3. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump forbade it
4. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump okayed it
5. Netanyahu announced their intention and Trump just registered the fact
6. They discussed various scenarios, including a nuclear strike, but only one of them knew what was actually going to happen.
7. They discussed various scenarios, not including a nuclear strike, but not ruling it out either, but only one of them knew what was actually going to happen.

Listening to the Washington mood music I'm pretty sure Trump had not given his assent and is now scrambling to show he was the master of events (or at any rate not the dupe). But that conclusion may change as we go along.

[Mick Harper]

Never forget that nuclear weapons are nearly always McGuffins. Israel has had them for sixty years, can anyone say their actions would have been any different if they had not had them?

But then again Israel has never been up against a nuclear-armed adversary. India and Pakistan are currently demonstrating how everyone gets a bit hamstrung when both sides have them. But things are going much the way they were when (a) neither of them had them and (b) when one of them (India) had them.

Iran has had to pay an enormous price to nearly have nukes. Or it may look at things differently, and say everyone has been paying court to her to keep her in the nearly-camp. It is true Israel wouldn't have carried out the current attack if Iran had nukes but then again Israel wouldn't have needed to!

Would Israel/Iran relations have been any different if Iran had the Bomb--both being conscious they couldn't nuke one another? After all this has been the situation in the many and various conflicts between and among America, Russia, China, UK and France and it doesn't seem to have slowed anyone down much.

[Pete Jones]

[Mick Harper]

How is it possible, viewing the same event recorded in real time, to describe two different events depending which side of the aisle you sit?

I tried watching it from my armchair, then from the sofa on the other side of the room but it looked the same. So I tried the experiment again with a hand over one eye, then with my hand over the other eye, but it still looked the same! If only Lord Nelson were with us. He'd know.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Trump is telling ICE not to arrest what he is calling non criminal collaterals at their workplaces as it is damaging farms and hospitality sector.

Whether he is is turning liberal, or backing down, as some of the folks complaining about his crackdown are in fact MAGA supporters who rely on employing undocumented migrants, Wiley don't know.

Either way it's a problem for Trump, because ICE are not going to be able to hit their removal targets without raiding workplaces employing cheap migrant labour, and deporting all those that cannot provide paperwork.

[Wile E. Coyote]

THe 90 trade deals in 90 days just became we are working towards 18 possible deals, by the way we might need to grant extensions before finalising these deals.

Wiley strongly suspects that the US is happy with imposing tariffs for the couple of years it takes to make a sensible deal. Maybe he just wants this as stealth tax.