Donald J. Trump posted a meme at four o'clock in the morning depicting him in a suit, wearing dark sunglasses and a serious gun, in front of smoking rubble and explosions, telling the public that he was done being 'Mr. Nice Guy'. The text said that 'Tehran' had better 'Get Smart' soon. Dr. Robert Glover published a 'Self-Help' book with that title, promising the reader a 'Proven Plan for getting what you want in love, sex and life'. You can buy that book at sharp discounts for obvious reasons, and you can also download it for free as a 'PDF'.
These times are a Goldmine for 'Content Creators', and Trump himself is widely accused of 'insider trading' through 'Cut-Outs' who place 'bets' moments before Trump posts yet another ridiculous plan, or threat. But even 'Straight as an Arrow' analysts with a proven track record appear daily on various channels to explain the world to us, creating revenue for the 'shows' they are in. John Mearsheimer among them, the 'Éminence Grise' I respect like no other. The 'shows' he is in are run by respectable people too, eager to know what we are to make of the situation we are in today. Many other 'shows' get on my wrong side.
Mearsheimer is outspoken about both wars we, as 'Collective West', are engaged in. The war in Ukraine is lost. And the war against Iran as well. And Trump would choose wisely if he went looking for an 'off ramp'. Declare victory, and walk away. Although Mearsheimer admits that this is becoming increasingly difficult, and few people would fall for it. In many sympathetic 'shows' where geopolitical developments are discussed, serious people are laughing about propositions of their 'opposite numbers'. Mainly because the most adamant supporters of all these wars are using ludicrous arguments and plenty of 'Fake News'. Events which never happened, 'data' provided by sources which lie all the time, and statements from 'authorities' presented one-on-one as 'facts'. The most recent gaffe being how the US blockade would cause the spontaneous explosion of pipelines in Iran as the oil brought to the surface had nowhere to go. But there are soooooo many examples of utterly stupid recycled memes, brought to us as fact, that a serious analysis has been made all but impossible.
To convince people of the quality of your analysis, it is not sufficient to point towards your track-record. And rightly so. 'Authority Bias' is a clear and proven danger. But the amount of gobbledygook you have to defuse is off the scale. On 'X' I came across a message from a 'Content Provider' on YT who presented a graph which depicted a sharp rise in oil exports from the USA. In the text he triumphantly told his followers: 'I called it! Better not bet against me!' While his videos on what is happening in Ukraine 'on the ground' are fairly reliable, though the context is often highly speculative, his reading on the war against Iran is unabbreviated 'Trump-propaganda'. Graphs in general are always tricky, like any statistic, but the problem with this graph is that it depicts the export of 'strategic reserves' for the larger part. And that is not a winning strategy if this war drags on and on. In fact, it is going to be a hammer-blow if, later on, those strategic reserves are no longer there, with demand surging as a result of all the turmoil in the world, created by Trump and other Western powers.
The media are abuzz with 'options' provided to Trump, because Iran is not only still there, but it has won the war according to analysts like Mearsheimer and myself. But the fear among 'realists' is, that Trump might opt to take everyone with him in defeat. Not uncommon in high-stakes wars. Hitler never considered surrendering. Developments like Germany conceding defeat in the First World War, and Gorbachev withdrawing from Afghanistan and the 'Cold War', are exceptions. But here we have to get serious about who is running the show. Outwardly that is Donald J. Trump, and he certainly hasn't been shy to claim that he is calling the shots. But is he? And that is a *very* serious question.
Yes, I concur with observers that nothing happens without his approval. Which creates this unique opportunity to profit from the various wars by placing 'well timed bets' on the stock- and commodities exchange. On the other hand, Trump is not a 'military man', and hopelessly out of his league if we compare him to people like Putin, Xi, Modi, or the Iranian leadership. And I hope you won't point me in the direction of this crusader Pete Hegseth either. There are generals, admirals and career intelligence people behind the political facade. Much of the image Trump has built depicts him as ready to remove such people if they tell him 'no'. And, granted, when we take a good hard look at all the wars the US has been engaged in since the early Nineties, when the US became an 'Empire' after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are reasons to doubt the quality of those generals, admirals and career intelligence people. Winning militarily was at times a challenge, or all 'we' did was establish safe enclaves, after defeating the military force 'we' went to battle with. Winning the 'peace' was a different matter. But Trump is not even interested in any of that.
Alright then, Trump has *always* been outspoken about that apparent failure. Though he hitched a ride from time to time to lure ideologues into supporting his violent plans, he invariably kept his eyes on the ball. It was about the *oil*, and the people could drop dead. Territorial gains? No sir! Just one thing: 'Natural Resources', and first and foremost the *oil*. At one stage he lamented that if it had been up to him, he would have embraced a strategy to grab Iran's oil, and call it a day. But Congress wouldn't let him. It is the added load which is dragging him down. Even though grabbing Iran's oil was not going to happen either. But he had reasons to believe that a decapitation strike might do the trick. Reasons provided by the Israeli's and scheming Europeans, believing that a popular uprising was in the cards.
Understand that Trump did not drop from the sky. He always was 'Well Connected', a friend of the Clintons, and one of the key-figures in this 'Epstein Network', a truly 'Globalist' enterprise with designs to expand the US Empire as the center of power through the 'petrodollar'. No 'petrodollar' without 'petro'. But that concept the 'Globalists' are after has very little to do with this or that national entity. It is 'feudal', or 'fascist' in nature, with an 'elite' running the show, hiding in 'Think-Tanks', designing strategies to prevent the emergence of a 'Multipolar' system with sovereign nations doing trade, which would be looking out for the people in those countries. This is where I collide with an otherwise very sharp analyst, Brian Berletic, who is correctly pointing out that what we are witnessing has been the plan from way back when. 'Which Way to Persia', and 'Overextending and Unbalancing Russia', each strategy implemented and on-going. And being discussed in 'Senate Hearings' as well as in various 'shows' and newspapers, without mentioning the original plans, but clearly following the script. He is spot-on, but married to the idea of 'Big Power Politics', identifying the US as being in the driver's seat. In my perception it is not a single country trying to implement these plans, and many involved hold 'dual citizenship' anyway, or are being invited from abroad.
Granted, this renders it very difficult, almost impossible, to design a counter-strategy. You may cut off one head of the 'Hydra', but the others will still swallow you whole. Politics in our part of the world is about betrayal and cynical abuse of power. Journalists in Ukraine are publishing daily about the astonishing level of corruption in that country, and the cruelty where unwilling men are dragged from their homes to die in the war with Russia. In Europe, people from Ukraine who fled from the country, are being 'earmarked' to fill the void as they are running out of men in Ukraine. With the exception of those lining their pockets with the billions provided by the EU. And right behind them are the European women and men being 'drafted' already, or real soon, 'to defend Europe'.
Earlier this week Putin called Trump. Allegedly only the second time he did that, and again to express his 'displeasure', according to Alexander Mercouris. Though the headlines read that the topic of debate had been a temporary ceasefire. That may have been something they spoke about, a ceasefire around the May 9th celebrations in Moscow, when the country commemorates the victory over Nazi-Germany, but the gist of those talks was likely what Lavrov stated earlier, that Russia now considers itself at war with NATO. Coupled to a warning to not go back to bombing Iran. The conversation they had lasted two hours, and as usual Trump said it was a great conversation, and that he would like to see an end to the bloodshed in Ukraine. On the other hand, the attacks on Russia's oil infrastructure are not Ukraine's answer to what the Russians did to Ukraine, but NATO seeking to destroy the Russian economy, using Ukraine as a staging ground.
Putin has been under pressure to put a stop to it by the 'hardliners' in the Russian Federation. And by the looks of it that is what he is prepared to do. Which will require shooting down NATO drones and aircraft operating over the Black Sea, and similar assets operating over the Baltics and Finland, guiding Ukrainian drones towards those refineries. Formally this does not have to lead to an 'Article 5' response, and a full blown war between Russia and all of NATO, because these NATO assets are not used defensively. But clearly that 'nuance' carries no weight within the NATO community, if that community already reached the decision to go to war with Russia. But is Trump ready to back the Europeans and Ukraine up?
Same thing concerning Iran. After Trump's 'No more Mr. Nice Guy'-posting, that country shot back that it actually had some very ugly surprises in store for the US if Trump followed up on that latest threat. Some kind of 'secret weapon'? Or merely bluff? Difficult to access. Iran might come up with a version of the hypersonic missiles Russia and India developed to strike carriers and other valuable naval assets. Or a nuclear weapon, testing it to demonstrate the capability, and use it as a deterrence. Releasing 'sleeper cells' in the US to destroy the American oil industry. Or presenting the Russians and the Chinese as formal allies, with both countries joining the war.
My struggle is with the suggestion that these countries within NATO, and associated patsies like Ukraine and Israel, are still regarded as nation-states with a contained and clearly marked policy department, while this 'Globalist' reality, this 'Epstein Network', is 'pan-national' and non of the actors attracted to do the talking having a clue. It is tempting to go and look for some 'secret society' in the background running things, knowing exactly what they are doing, rewarding the 'talking heads' handsomely, and allowing them to plunder and kill to enrich themselves, as long as they do not disobey when they are being instructed to follow the plan, but I'm afraid that is not how this 'Hydra' operates. I have no difficulty identifying King Charles III of the 'House of Windsor' (in fact 'Saxe Coburg und Gotha'), as an 'insider', with a well established agenda to recreate the British Empire, always with the 'Heartland Theory' of Halford Mackinder in the back of his mind. And I can see why he would embrace the opportunity to corner Trump on Ukraine through a speech to Congress, the key to conquering Russia. I understand how King Charles III might embrace war to distract from 'family affairs', prominently everything going on with his 'Epstein Connected' brother, and Keir Starmer fighting to stay afloat, amid this strange affair of three Ukrainian male prostitutes (allegedly) who committed arson around his private house, right after that affair with his friend, and British ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, being outed as an 'Epstein Insider'.
It is, if you ask me, not a formalised center of power with a well thought out plan to control the world. All the 'Kompromat' is assembled in one 'place' through a host of 'Tech Companies', invariably with zionists owning them. And again, let me be absolutely clear about this: I'm *not* saying 'Jews'. Instead I'm talking about people who converge on that stretch of land known as Israel. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Atheists. Many of them not living there, but 'connected' through this 'Epstein Network'. They go the extra mile to attack people who say nasty things about Israel, and in an increasingly large number of countries 'calling out' Israeli policies is being rendered as 'anti-semitism', and thus a punishable offence carrying hefty fines, or time behind bars. How do they achieve that? How is it even possible that a country which bombs a synagoge in Tehran, and is suspected of being behind attacks on orthodox Jews elsewhere, obtains a 'Get Out of Jail' card in a world which considers itself generally sane and free, and an example for countries with authoritarian structures? I'll fight to my last breath against anti-semitism, but that is not this idea of establishing a 'zone' where every depraved thing goes. A bill presented in the US to make it against the law to criticise Israel struck Tucker Carlson like a ton of bricks, and in a video he dedicated to this topic he came across as someone who was done being 'Mr. Nice Guy'. But a far cry from Trump's meme.
Though I side with Carlson on this, and with the leaders of 'BRICS'-countries, and former allies thrown under the bus as the 'Globalists' destroy everything we, and generations before us built, it pains me that this is becoming necessary. If only the most greedy, immoral and corrupt ones would find it in them to be 'Nice' for a change……..