Khameini Declares Victory
Iran came "this close" to ending the Zionist regime.
CNN (“In his first comments since truce, Iran’s supreme leader says country ‘crushed’ Israel“):
In his first comments since the Iran-Israel conflict ended in a ceasefire, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei congratulated “the great nation of Iran” for its “victory over the fake Zionist regime.”
“Despite all that noise, and with all those claims, the Zionist regime almost collapsed and was crushed under the blows of the Islamic Republic,” he was cited as saying by state-run IRNA news agency.
He said the United States entered the conflict with Israel “because they felt that if they did not enter, the Zionist regime would be destroyed.”
“However, the Americans did not gain anything in this war.”
A variant of the “declare victory and go home” approach, I guess. If this means the war is over, I suppose I’ll take it.
The degree to which both the US and Iranian leadership are making maximalist claims at odds with reality would be amusing if the stakes were lower.
Everyone won so lets all hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and then go home.
The Trumpiest Ayatollah evah!
How many different ways – words and deeds – does Trump need to demonstrate that he has far more in common with autocrats, from tin pot and to brass ring, than he does recent Presidents, before a few of his supporters catch on?
These people are taking an exam, sitting between an A student and a clown has to pay for a D. They choose to copy off the clown.
Based on what JKB says about education, he thinks that makes him smart.
Alas, Trump and the MAGAs get to experience what the rest of the world does when a consummate bullshitter grabs the microphone.
@Kurtz: Indeed.
It is indeed troublesome that our leadership is no more believable than this guy. Baghdad Bob is now played by the Stepford Wife in the Press Briefing Room.
Missed it by *that* much!
@Daryl: LOL. That reminds me that I have4 a Baghdad Bob T-shirt. Will wear it today.
Steve
@Scott:
They should begin exchanging love letters in a few months.
I believe that I heard Trump say yesterday on the radio that the entrances to the underground nuclear facility in Iran that the United States bombed were blocked and that there was no access.
Did I hear a news report this morning on the radio when Trump said that Israel had men on the ground at the site and were able to get inside and see the damage?
I have yet to track this down on the internet.
Trump makes bold claims that many take as just boasting. But if you watch with open eyes, you see Trump’s enemies in the media, and even the IC, suddenly admit that Iran not only was working to enrich uranium for a nuclear warhead, but is only weeks a way at most, even after the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites.
Of course, Iran has the problem that if people in Iran get access to the internet, they will see the media content about Israel owning the Iranian skies, the MOB delivery, the reports of the deaths of general and nuclear scientists….
@JKB: Trump
makes bold claims that many take as just boastingmakes claims that are blatantly false because he is a pathological liar with no morals, integrity or credibility. It’s just you’re not allowed to call Trump’s lies lies because, as a bootlicking MAGA slave who can’t think for yourself, you have to spin yourself into knots blindly making excuses for everything Trump says and does, like an obedient little brownshirt.The IC admitted no such thing, from a look at any distance. But bootlicking liars gonna bootlick and lie. Spin spin spin, to cover for your flailing, lying, rapist God-king.
IC professionals who refuse to lie on behalf of Trump like you do are not doing so because they’re Trump’s “enemies.” It’s impossible for a dishonest, brainwashed cultist like you to understand, but not all people calibrate their ability to tell truth based on what’s good and bad for Trump.
@Kurtz:
They realize it. Trump supporters want autocracy, not a constitutional republic and representative democracy.
I am with James and Bill J on this one…if we are at a point where both sides get to say they won and we can stop talking about regime change in Iran I will take it.
You could also say Israel was this close to getting their wish to see the U .S. take care of Iran for them, although technically we kinda did for them.
Thank God, Allah, the Great Raven, and Tubro (Panamanian God of Money as noted on Married With Children) that things only went as far as they did and we can just chill out now and call it a day.
Anyways, based on James’s post on declining prison populations and the big beautiful bill I think the mainstream media and right wing infotainment complex are ready to change the subject.
In less than two weeks folks will look at you funny if you try to discuss Iran like it is still a current subject.
@DK: Jake is conflating actively building a warhead with not enriching uranium. He said, “But if you watch with open eyes, you see Trump’s enemies in the media, and even the IC, suddenly admit that Iran not only was working to enrich uranium for a nuclear warhead, but is only weeks a way at most”. That they were weeks or a few months from having enough material for a warhead has been “suddenly admit(ted)” every now and again since a year or so after Trump killed the JCPOA. Admittedly it hadn’t been a big deal in the news, but that’s because it was a “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead” story.
This, incidentally, is why I find Ukraine so heartbreakingly frustrating. My mental picture of Russian society is Mississippi, with a FOX “News” monopoly and secret police. Putin controls Russian media. He can get away with declaring victory and quitting anytime.
@gVOR10:
Putin actually wants to control Ukraine tho. It’s not just performative for him. He actually does not believe Ukraine should exist. He is an imperialistic, genocidal warmonger who wants to erase Ukrainian identity and absorb their nation.
@DK:
I qualified with “a few” for a reason.
You know as well as I do that some of the aphorisms among devout Christians sound Orwellian to secular ears. They believe that freedom can only exist via surrender to God’s plan/control/will.
In my view, it seems reasonable that many do not see their political preferences as authoritarian in nature or a political leader shaping government according to specific interpretations of Scripture as autocratic. Rather, they see it as the only path to freedom.*
Moreover, that is a reason for the considerable effort made to make the [a]historical case that the US was founded as an explicitly Christian nation just as there was an equally painstaking effort to link laissez faire economics as the linchpin to every other form of freedom. At some point, some individuals begin to see Christian fundamentalism, market fundamentalism, and freedom not as linked, but as a Trinity.
It should also be noted that most of us take a similar approach to government. It isn’t enough to place limitations on the government, but to preserve freedom, the government must uphold the rule of law and enact policies that protect individuals from fellow citizens who seek to exert control over others.
Of course, the two approaches are different on multiple levels beyond specific institutions. But there are similarities that must be acknowledged.
*Beyond religion, many individuals apply similar logic to other rights. Some 2A absolutists make the claim that it is the only thing that protects other cherished liberties. The same argument gets made for speech, freedom of assembly, etc. Of course, those claims rely on consequentialism for their status as foundational; rigid religion is totalizing-in-itself, existing prior to every other concept.
Sadly, it doesn’t mean anything even close to “the war is over.” It only means we’re returning to network central for in-depth analysis before the next period starts.
And sad to say, Kurtz’s analysis of the student copying from the “D”-student is a lot truer to really life than you know. Most of my students caught cheating on tests were caught copying from the same friend that they hung at the mall with while they weren’t studying the material to begin with.
One time, I asked what was going on and the students agreed that they had to copy off of each other. The “good” students wouldn’t let them copy.
@JKB: who said that? Zero hedge?
@gVOR10: When I first started lurking here, Jake was a lot more interesting and made better arguments. A fair amount was novelty (his schtick hasn’t grown with the complexity of the issues), but I like to think that a lot of the change has to do with conservative media dulling one’s mental processes and ability to reason. I don’t know why it happens (or even that it really does), but I’ve seen it over and over and not just with Jake.
@Kurtz: We see our preference as authoritarian. We don’t object to “submitting” to the particular “authority” in question. Why we transpose the identity of that particular authority figure to some flawed, temporal human figures and not to others is a disconnect to me. Why we invariably choose the most flawed among many marginal choices is the part that’s got me really stumped.
But thank you for the generosity of spirit of your explanation as to how we become authoritarian.
@Kurtz:
George Lakoff observed years ago that for conservatives “freedom” means being able to do their duty as they see it. And part of their duty is to make you do your duty, as they see it.
@just nutha:
I know you’re devout, as we have had many exchanges over the years. I admit you crossed my mind during composition. But i have pretty much always had the impression that you are also committed to pluralism.
I confess, I’m not entirely sure how to interpret your reply.
@Kurtz:
That’s just the US Constitution. Yes, our freedoms are limited by an authority: other people’s rights and liberty, as guaranteed by state and federal law. We agree to that when we decide to live in the US as adults.
Trumpers don’t want to live in a constitutional republic governed by the people through their democratic representatives. They want to cherry pick from their religious texts, racist thoughts, and bro podcasts to impose their will regardless of law.
If that means enabling Trump and Federalist Society hacks as they gut the 5th and 14th Amendments and make it consequence-free for the president to coup and crime, the modern right is fine with that. Trump is authoritarian and anti-constitutional, and that’s what his “conservative” supporters want.
Brett McGurk is sure singing a different tune on CNN than you left loons.
Some small part of me is looking forward to the Iranians detonating a test weapon in the next year or so. Most of me is terrified what will happen then, but then again, Trump will have moved on to something else and this whole discussion will have been memory-holed.
@gVOR10:
The aspect of territorial acquisition makes the Russo-Ukrainian war different ball game in the area of score-keeping.
@just nutha:
“Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”
Trump’s lie about obliteration was designed to end the war, particularly the US involvement therein. I’ll take that. The only good thing about that clown is he isn’t a war mongering neocon.
@Connor: Marjorie Taylor Greene is sure signing a different tune on Fox News than you pedophile-voting MAGA freaks.
@Kevin:
God no. Don’t you think Netanyahu would humiliate Trump on his “completely and totally obliterated” and “permanent ceasefire” before he allows this to happen?
@Connor:
Interesting that you trust CNN on this now, but I digress.
What Brett was saying was, ‘Thank god for Israeli intelligence.’
@Kurtz: I’m committed to pluralism both culturally and theologically. The Bible seems clear, to me at least, on the existence of agency and “the free will of man” as they relate to individual humans.
I also acknowledge that my coreligionists do not uniformly share my commitment to a naked public square and the “wall of separation” between church and state. And that they actively reject my notion that there is no such thing as a “Christian nation.” Nations do not need “redemption” in the theological sense, and individuals are free to choose their own paths, so laws requiring behavior that meets with the approval of any discrete religious or philosophical cohort are outside the scope of social contract formation (but not outside the scope of human desire to control others).
Hope that helped. (But as Bobby Dylan said in the song, all of us are “still gonna have to serve somebody.” But we all get to pick, so there’s that, I guess…)
ETA: I decided long ago that I felt qualified to arrogantly impose my interpretation of what my coreligionists believe as metaphysical reality of evangelical thought. We all have our faults. The difference is that some of us will own them.
@DK:
Something that may or may not be true, but feels right:
You seem mostly concerned with holding individuals accountable.
I am mostly concerned with trying to understand how individuals come to their views and priorities.
Those are not mutually exclusive, of course. Pretty sure each of us has engaged in both. I think both approaches are understandable.
What I find most interesting is that your comments are far more aggressive than mine most of the time. But my view may ultimately be more pessimistic, condescending, possibly insulting—I think most individuals, including a chunk of those who seem highly engaged, simply do not think deeply about this shit.
That regular pest here may be the avatar for those voters who consume political news daily, yet remain either unwilling or unable to articulate anything other than the messaging they received.
@just nutha:
I noticed immediately with Fox, but it seems like Newsmax and many YTers are similar, RW media has a particular aesthetic. They remind me of Hard Copy or A Current Affair. That has always struck me.
@Connor: I don’t watch CNN. Who is Brett McGurk? What did he say? Why do you care? Why would/should I care? It’s all to cryptic for me. Why are you still showing up if you’re not actually going to say anything?
ETA: You are the empty envelope in the mailbox of life. A wasted stamp. Ink spilled on the sidewalk. A pencil with the lead waaaaay off center. (I could go on, but I think y’all must get the picture by now.)
@dazedandconfused: I’m glad one of us understands Trump’s motivations and ability to follow through on them. I’ll still wait to see what happens next. Either way, even at 73 (in a couple of weeks) and in marginal health, I’m still likely to outlive this particular lull in the war. And Trump is enough of a doof/dupe to get drawn back in.
Open question to the commentariat: How many of us actually decide to live in the US as opposed to living here as a default situation? I’m not sure that the answer matters, mind you, but I suspect that the person making the assertion is assuming* that everyone shares his (frequently commented on recently) volitional autonomy as to decisions of that sort. I suspect that most of us have no ability to “choose” otherwise.
*Or misspeaking in a breathtakingly obvious manner.
@Kurtz:
Why pessimistic? Pessimism about who or what?
@DK:
That the American electorate takes their right to vote seriously, but don’t take the decision seriously.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I have long been skeptical of the “just move” argument. It is not a simple decision for most to move from one region to another within the US. Moving to a different country is much more complicated.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I thought McGurk was at the Daily Planet
@Kurtz: I’ve noted this story before, but one of my teachers in grad school was a frequent Fulbright exchange scholar to Latin America. Discussing politics with someone in Nicaragua, his counterpart observed that while Latin Americans “stuff” the ballot box, in the US, the situation is more systemic corruption/control. The counterpart then went on to suggest that if it were really true that anyone could become President, voters would surely have better options than choosing between George HW Bush and Michael Dukakis. As great as that punchline was, it’s only been downhill since.
I’m not sure whether the status quo currently is failure in seriousness of the right to vote or failure in seriousness of the decision, though. There’s currently enough failure for both alternatives to have all they can hold either way.
@Connor: Porcupines in heat in the forest sure are singing a different tune than your zerohedge freaks.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: “How many of us actually decide to live in the US as opposed to living here as a default situation?”
With the US having the highest average wage of any non-small country, varied geography and climate, diversity among its residents, and the protections nominally spelled out in the Bill of Rights, as well as the ability to move around the country (mostly) unmolested, it may take considerable incentives for US residents to move to another country. Especially for those with decent health insurance that they have come to rely on. I suppose that the significant portion of the US population not having adequate health insurance coverage would mostly seek out other healthcare options here before considering moving to another country.
But the US is what it is, in part, because of the Constitution, social contract aspects and all.