More Unreality

Right in front of our noses, in fact.

23

Comments

As I noted yesterday regarding the reflecting pool debacle, Trump is constantly trying to create his own reality. This can have effects in the broader population because, as we know, partisan allies have deep motivations to rationalize what their team’s leader is saying. Plus, most people don’t have the tools to effectively evaluate what they are being told, and use elites and party affiliation to filter what they accept.

I keep thinking about Jason Stanley’s book, How Fascism Works. Does this sound familiar? From pages 58-59:

Fascist politics exchanges reality for the pronouncements of a single individual, or perhaps a political party. Regular and repeated obvious lying is part of the process by which fascist politics destroys the information space. A fascist leader can replace truth with power, ultimately lying without consequence. By replacing the world with a person, fascist politics makes us unable to assess arguments by a common standard. The fascist politician possesses specific techniques to destroy information spaces and breakdown reailty.

Here’s a doozy from this morning.

The whole thing is a mess, but the lie that jumped out at me this morning when I heard this reported on NPR was the bit about “The Money and/or Sanctions” (why the caps?) being used to buy food and medicine “exclusively” from the US is just not in the MOU and, thus far, in no a formal agreement of any kind.

Also: “This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help,” said the arsonist who burned down the neighborhood.

Fox News provides the whole MOU here: READ IT: The full text of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding. The outline is pretty clear that Iran is supposed to get total sanctions relief (a huge win for them, BTW) as well as a $300 billion reconstruction fund. There are no strictures on those funds and nothing whatsoever about food and medicine.

Barring some formal agreement that is far stronger than the language in the MOU, Iran is about to have a lot of money it can use to rebuild whatever it wants, including military capabilities.

It should be noted that, in terms of what they have said, Iran has already committed to not pursuing a nuclear weapon. It seems worth noting that, at least in terms of making declarations, Iran has previously stated it would not pursue a nuclear weapon. Whether one believes them or not, the reality is that it was not necessary to go to war to get them to make such a declaration.

It also seems worth noting that there was a robust inspections regime under the JCPOA. While Trump will now, no doubt, go on and on about “Nuclear Honesty,” the reality (as opposed to the unreality he tries to spin) is that currently, there is nothing concrete in place.

It seems worth noting that the JCPOA took roughly two years to negotiate. Color me skeptical that Vance, Kushner, and Witkoff will be able to whip up a better replacement in 60 days.

Allow me to remind us all that this was the same core brain trust that was negotiating before the bombing started.

I know a lot of supported and casual observers will fall for Trump’s unreality, but the truth remains that the US is massively worse off than before we attacked, and any “deal” we get will be worse than what we could have gotten before the war, which would have been worse than what we had with the JCPOA.

Elect incompetents, get incompetence.

That’s just reality.

23 responses to “More Unreality”

  1. as well as a $300 million reconstruction fund.

    Billion. $300 billion.

    The NPR reporter I heard said something like, well, yeah, they COULD use some of that money to buy agricultural commodities from the US. They could also use it to rebuild their military, because the MOU says nothing about what it can/should be spent on, so…

    8
  2. Elect incompetents, get incompotence.

    Happy accident typo?

    Maybe it should be capitalized.

    1
  3. @Jen:

    Maybe they could buy some All-‘Murikan F-35s to replace their aging F-14s

    1
  4. This is an Israeli source who is considered from the right politically, but that does not make him necessarily wrong:

    Amit Segal

    Coming out of the talks in Switzerland yesterday, Vance hailed a “good foundation” for ending the regional war. He claimed Iran had agreed to let the International Atomic Energy Agency back into the country—only for Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei to state flatly that Tehran had not negotiated on its nuclear program and had accepted no new commitments.

    Next comes the lopsided exchange. Yesterday, the US Treasury issued a general license letting Iran freely sell crude oil and petrochemicals through the 60-day negotiation period, while talks continued on releasing frozen assets—a potential economic windfall worth billions. And what did Washington get in return on the nuclear file? According to the Iranians, nothing. Vance even tried to pass off appeasement as boundary-setting, reportedly insisting the freed-up money could only go toward American wheat and soybeans. Iran didn’t bother to counter. Its officials simply made clear they’ll spend their money however they please.

    4
  5. @Jen: Typo. Will fix. Thanks for nothing that.

    2
  6. It seems counterintuitive, but the felon’s follies, while a defeat, is also an opportunity. The Times this AM has an op ed making that case (free link).

    With the diminished support for Israel in both parties, the Iran hawks from both parties are pretty much isolated and restricted to bleating that is being ignored. While in the Gulf, Arab trust in US defense structures has been badly shaken.

    The conditions are in place that if a future American president were simply to walk away from the Middle East, the reaction of the voters could be a collective shrug.

    Beyond Israel, the major driver of US interest in the ME has been petroleum. While from a production standpoint we may or may not have reached a peak, we are likely to have reached peak demand. Renewables, hydro and nuclear will become the baseline of electric power production and electric will eventually dominate transportation. That will leave chemicals as driver of demand for oil and that demand can be met outside the troublesome ME.

    3
  7. I must confess that I didnt realize that the JCPOA left a lot of sanctions in place. I think it was conventionally pictured in the media, or maybe it’s my memory, as relieving Iran of all sanctions. If the new agreement gets rid of all sanctions plus adds the $300 billion however, that money is going to be used, it’s a real financial bonanza for Iran especially since they weren’t going to build nukes anyway. However, the war was started at Israel’s insistence much more over Iran retaining its ballistic missiles and supporting its proxies. Not seeing much on that changing.

    Steve

    Steve

    3
  8. Jay L. Gischer Avatar
    Jay L. Gischer

    @Sleeping Dog: I agree in much larger part with you. I have a quibble: gasoline will remain the fuel of choice for aircraft for a long, long time. Because it’s energy value per weight is so very, very favorable. But if surface transport moves away from it decisively, there isn’t going to be as much pressure on prices for such use.

    2
  9. You know Trump did not write that tweet. Who is crafting all this nonsense propaganda BS on a daily basis and presenting it to the President? Comparing his speech and all caps tweets to these long drawn out posts….Just has me curious as to who are his close handlers? “I feel it is necessary to help” are words this President would never say. I think we are dealing with an aged fascist leader in mental decline surrounded by sycophant fascist enablers trying to keep the “movement” going. It’s all really bizarre

    5
  10. @Jc:

    I’m not too sure he didn’t write this tweet. It has his signature random capitalizations.

  11. @CSK:

    I would not be surprised if whoever wrote that post for President Trump was able to ask AI to make changes to the post they had typed out so it sounds like a Truth Social post. Lol, and ugh that more is not being done to pushback against Trump’s enablers.

    2
  12. @Jay L. Gischer:

    Partly it depends how seriously decarbonization is pushed by governments and demanded by the people.

    Electric air planes are a nonstarter for mass commercial travel*, unless someone comes up with a superdense, light weight battery, or something even more exotic like a superpowerful fuel cell, or a tiny fusion reactor**.

    Realistically the only real option is hydrogen. Besides requiring new engine designs optimized for hydrogen, the energy density by volume still favors kerosene. Especially so for long haul travel. It may be possible for a hydrogen-fueled plane to cross the Atlantic without refueling, but even flights into eastern Europe may require a fueling stop.

    Then there’s shipping. The vast majority of international commerce, even excluding oil and gas, travels by sea. I’ve no idea how feasible it would be to switch to electric power on ships. Considering the tonnage per ship and cargo, I’d think it would take a log time to recharge, too.

    Ground transportation and electricity generation can be covered 100% by renewables, or close to it.

    *It would be feasible for small planes, say 10 passengers and two crew, on short flights of 60-90 minutes.

    **One that can operate safely without human supervision.

    1
  13. @Jay L. Gischer:

    Probably wasn’t clear enough, petroleum use won’t disappear from transportation, but it will be reduced, most likely to a great extent. It is predictable that in the not to distant future, 50% of new personal vehicle registrations are EV’s. I believe Norway(?) is at 90% of new vehicle regs being EV’s. Planes, over the road trucking, large ships and freight trains will continue to burn petroleum fuels.

    2
  14. @CSK: The capitalizations aren’t random. If you read a 17th century document, you will find similar capitalization for emphasis. For instance, the Declaration of Independence.

    Do I believe that Trump and his ghost discount-tweeter(s) are deliberately harkening Back to a Time when America was Great before the Emancipation of the Slaves? No, but I do think that a lot of the rules of proper English were dumb ideas by upper class twits who unnaturally flattened the language*, and that that this particular Trumpism is reverting to a better, more expressive form of the language that conveyed more information.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am not a crank.

    *: and were probably also carving out rules to make brown people and lower class people lesser because of racism and eugenics. It’s always racism and eugenics. Except when it’s sexism. Or classism (which often employs eugenics)

    3
  15. Harry Kirschner Avatar
    Harry Kirschner

    Humanitarian crisis…? Kicks off this year’s campaign for the Peace Prize.

    Also, The International Mathematical Union is convening in Philadelphia this July. One of the highlights will be the announcement of the Fields Medal recipients. Heads of State often attend to hand out the award. Wonder if 600% price reduction/the greatest mathematician of all time will be present. Or if he’ll demand one for himself.

    4
  16. @Gustopher:

    Oh, I’m well aware that random-seeming capitalization within a sentence was a feature of 18th century English prose.

    I also have no doubt that Trump has zero acquaintance with 18th c entry English prose or poetry.

    Who knows why he does it?

    6
  17. @Kathy: What about nuclear power ? We’ve been doing submarines that way since the 50s.

  18. @Jen:

    …they COULD use some of that money to buy agricultural commodities from the US. They could also use it to rebuild their military, because the MOU says nothing about what it can/should be spent on, so…

    Yeah, it seems unlikely they would spend much on ag products from the US, as opposed to, say, South America. They may find ways to purchase US components for their sizeable arms industry, but it appears that much of what they want to buy would come from Asia — especially China.

    Iran could buy construction equipment and services to put much of their military infrastructure further underground, out of range of conventional munitions. And it’s not like there’s one thermal exhaust port that can be struck by proton torpedoes to produce a chain reaction that will defeat Iran—the country is as large as Germany, France, and Spain combined. Iran doesn’t need to buy big-ticket weapons systems; they’ve shown that they don’t need a conventionally powerful air force or navy, as they have missile, drone, and small boat capabilities that have served their needs. For example, after they shot down the US Army Apache helicopter with a drone/loitering munition (which thankfully did not explode), there didn’t appear to be much of an appetite to put additional helicopters at risk and so the Apache crew was rescued by a drone boat with a two-hour response time. I can only imagine what Iran would do with $10’s to $100’s of billions more.

    2
  19. @Ol’ Nat:

    Submarines, carriers, destroyers, I think even ice breakers.

    There was a demonstration nuclear merchant ship in the 60s, the NS Savannah. I don’t think much came off it.

    Going by nuclear power plant logic, these ships would be very expensive to build, but relatively cheap to operate. The big downside is you need highly trained, qualified personnel to mind the reactor. I’m very much pro nuclear power, but I shudder to think of tens of thousands of ships, each with a potential meltdown powering them…

    Maybe if molten salt reactors ever become common.

    3
  20. @Kurtz: Sadly, that was just me being in a hurry, not trying to be clever.

    1
  21. @CSK: @inhumans99: During his first term, it was reported that his ghost-tweeters deliberately put in spelling and grammar errors. I saw a direct example of this when the Stormy Daniels case first broke in 2018. There was a series of tweets on his account that were written in pure legalese (referring to Stormy as “Ms. Clifford”), indicating that a lawyer had almost certainly composed them, but they ended with the sentence “Money from the campaign played no roll in the transactions.”

    It is absurdly easy to imagine an AI being designed for that purpose.

    3
  22. @Kylopod:

    It is absurdly easy to imagine an AI being designed for that purpose.

    To quote Prof. Taylor, “Indeed.”

    However, if artificial intelligence will be used to generate genuine stupidity, what will serve as a contrast for AI going forth?

  23. @Kathy: The late great Charles Osgood called it Artificial Stubbornness & Stupidity (A.S.S.).

    In all seriousness, most people overlook the level of creativity behind most human foolishness.