The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)

In a nutshell .... "I'm going to blockade the Strait of Homuz so that Iran doesn't blockade the Strait of Homuz." DB #160
Didn't Trump suggest splitting tolls with Iran?

note:
The following mention of the 25th Amendment refers to removal of a currently serving president:

Ex-Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene [MTG] joins left-wing calls for the 25th amendment as Iran deadline nears​

President Donald Trump has threatened that 'a whole civilization will die tonight'​

By Alex Nitzberg Fox News / Published April 7, 2026 12:35pm EDT

 
1776022998669.png

So he's not only promising to blockade the Strait so that Iran can't blockade the Strait but he's threatening piracy in international waters.
 
" but he's threatening piracy in international waters." S2 #163
As if the murders Trump has already ordered about alleged Venezuelan "drug boats" isn't enough.
proxy-image
 
1776280990244.png

BREAKING: Navy confirms CATASTROPHIC loss of a $240 MILLION spy drone after Trump says there’s no money for Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare for Americans.

While Donald Trump has been telling you that the war in Iran is going brilliantly, and Pete Hegseth has claimed that their military is "gone," the Navy just quietly announced a "mishap" involving a $240 million spy drone.

"Mishap” in that the costly drone no longer exists in any functional form.

The U.S. Navy has confirmed the loss of an MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial vehicle — the first time one of the $240 million drones has been lost since they entered service in 2018 — in what its own aviation report lists as a "crash" on April 9th. The location of the crash was withheld, and the cause was not explained.

It was classified as a Class-A incident because it caused more than $2 million in damage, which is the military's way of saying it was a very expensive problem that they'd prefer you didn't think too hard about.

But the Triton is just the beginning of the inventory disaster unfolding in the Persian Gulf.

According to the investigative military journal, Task & Purpose, at least 16 drones were lost during the fighting with Iran from February 28th until the ceasefire. Iran shot down an F-15 Strike Eagle and an A-10 Thunderbolt II. Kuwait shot down three F-15s in a friendly fire incident. The rescue operation for the

Iran-downed F-15 resulted in the destruction of up to two transport planes and up to four light helicopters, destroyed by American troops themselves because they couldn't fly them out of Iranian territory.

Retired Air Force Brigadier General Houston Cantwell, a former drone operator trainer, called the losses "a big deal" with surgical understatement. "That is a significant percentage of the fleet, and there is no other aircraft that is positioned and ready to assume the responsibilities that the MQ-9 has across multiple combatant commands," he said.

Then came the line that should be on the front page of every newspaper in America: "Right now, there's no plan to backfill all these aircraft being shot down."

No plan. America has lost billions of dollars in military hardware in a war that Trump launched without congressional authorization, that Pete Hegseth has been lying to the president about, that has already killed at least 15 American troops and wounded hundreds more, that has sent gas over $4 a gallon and oil to $100 a barrel — and there is no plan to replace what's been destroyed.

The Navy had 20 MQ-4C Tritons. At $240 million each. One is now a classified "mishap" at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. The Air Force's MQ-9 Reaper costs around $9 million — the Triton costs 26 times more. And 2026 has already seen seven Class-A aviation incidents, more than half of all last year's total, with most of the year still ahead.

Trump told investors last week that Iran had "no anti-aircraft." Then they shot down two American fighter jets. He called it "a lucky hit." The Navy is calling it a pattern.

"Nobody cares" about the equipment, Trump said at a recent press conference. The American taxpayers who paid for it might disagree.

SOURCE
 
BREAKING: Navy confirms CATASTROPHIC loss of a $240 MILLION spy drone after Trump says there’s no money for Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare for Americans. https://www.facebook.com #167
That's bad. BUT !
a) That's how Trump goes about costing $U.S. a $Billion $Dollars a day in his War in Iran.
b) non-sequitur ? Loss of expensive combat equipment hardly wins much U.S. $taxpayer glee. Is there a cause-&-effect connection to healthcare?

"The Navy had 20 MQ-4C Tritons. At $240 million each. One is now a classified "mishap" at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. The Air Force's MQ-9 Reaper costs around $9 million — the Triton costs 26 times more. And 2026 has already seen seven Class-A aviation incidents, more than half of all last year's total, with most of the year still ahead." #167
note:
Iran has already gained intelligence by examining the wreckage of U.S. drone.
The Navy MQ-4C Triton wreckage would be an intelligence bonanza to Iran, Russia, China, or other future global malefactors.
Consequently the U.S. is obliged to locate & retrieve the MQ-4C before the bad guys do.
 
"Destroying FOX news propaganda" S2 #169
"He with two masters serves neither." axiom

However FOX News may have started, it has chosen the dark side
abandoning the pretense of objective news reporting in favor of
feeding the MAGA horde their daily fiction pablum.

Two masters?
Fidelity to truth, a prerequisite to legitimate journalism. BUT !
Publicly held companies are beholden to their shareholders, return on investment (R.O.I.).

The disjuncture is though by now an open secret,
the unwary may mistake FOX content as objective reporting rather than partisan spew.

So?
When these two conflict, which should prevail? Journalistic fidelity? Or financial obligation?
 
"He with two masters serves neither." axiom

However FOX News may have started, it has chosen the dark side
abandoning the pretense of objective news reporting in favor of
feeding the MAGA horde their daily fiction pablum.

Two masters?
Fidelity to truth, a prerequisite to legitimate journalism. BUT !
Publicly held companies are beholden to their shareholders, return on investment (R.O.I.).

The disjuncture is though by now an open secret,
the unwary may mistake FOX content as objective reporting rather than partisan spew.

So?
When these two conflict, which should prevail? Journalistic fidelity? Or financial obligation?

Odd that "fidelity to truth" would not also maximize "return on investment"?
 
"Odd that "fidelity to truth" would not also maximize "return on investment"?" R5 #171
Doesn't it?
For the OED?
For the NYT?

Perhaps FOX made the bidness calculation that FOX couldn't compete against The New York Times or PBS on the proverbial "level playing field",
so made the business calculation of going over to the dark side.

I sincerely do not understand how FOX spew can be objectively considered anything other than traitorous. Our Constitution is in jeopardy.
 
1776531593834.png

According to this morning's news, Iran said they were shutting down the Strait because the US violated the agreement by continuing the blockade of the ports.
 
1776533543609.png

BREAKING: SORRY TRUMP! Iran just closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN after accusing him of violating the ceasefire agreement (which he did)!

In breaking news from the UK, Iran’s state media announced moments ago that the Strait of Hormuz – the critical waterway through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes that has become the centerpiece of Trump’s illegal Iran war – is now closed once again.

Iran claims the United States failed to live up to its obligations under the ceasefire agreement. Earlier, both sides had agreed to allow a limited number of ships to pass through the strait, but that deal has now completely broken down.

The Iranians wanted full access for all vessels, including their own oil tankers. The Trump administration had been blocking many of those ships out of fear that Iran would use the money from oil sales to fund weapons and further conflict.

Or, Trump didn’t want the Iranians to make money shaking down ships wanting to pass through the Strait without him being in on the action, so he flipped the board on the diplomatic game as usual.

Now Iran is saying “no more” and has shut down transit through the vital transit point for shipping.

This dangerous escalation comes directly from Trump’s chaotic and poorly negotiated “ceasefire” falling apart almost immediately. Instead of securing peace, his approach has made the situation in the Middle East even more unstable and risky for the global economy.

If this chaotic one step up, two steps back method of managing the a war Trump is unable to get out of makes you long for a voting booth, please like and share.
 
"BREAKING: SORRY TRUMP! Iran just closed the Strait of Hormuz AGAIN " #174
Attempting to maintain an objective outlook can be challenging, particularly during a Trump administration.
It's not difficult to find news reports from the spectrum of outlets, that criticize Trump about his Iran War mess. BUT !
When questioned directly, even on PBS (not generally regarded as Trump-friendly), expert opinion is that Iran was a prominent malefactor in the Middle East, and that however poorly Trump may have executed, the objective had merit.

None the less, I get the impression the Iranians are the adults in the room, with VP JD Vance playing ketchup.
 
View attachment 4712

According to this morning's news, Iran said they were shutting down the Strait because the US violated the agreement by continuing the blockade of the ports.

That is the part I do not get.
Economic sanctions, like blocking ports, is an obvious war crime from the 1906 Geneva Conventions.
So how do US presidents get away with doing it all the time?
Like with Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, etc.?
 
"So how do US presidents get away with doing it all the time?" R5 #176
Do they?

Some pres. do sometimes.
Why do they get away with it?

Not one simple answer.

Iran's a useful example. There are many critics of Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop approach to Iran. BUT !!
One detail agreed upon by many Trump supporters and critics alike:
Iran was a prolific destructive bad actor in the Middle East,
and while we might not like Trump's style, we can support the objective. BUT !

That ignores some very basic realities.
Among Trump's demands of Iran, open the Strait of Hormuz. Well guess what duncie Donnie, it was open before you attacked. Another Trump criterion:
Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. BUT !!
President Obama had already attended to that. Iran was reportedly in compliance with Obama's agreement, until Trump unilaterally withdrew.

So it looks like Trump's goals are to restore the conditions that prevailed before President Trump began to meddle.
 
Do they?

Some pres. do sometimes.
Why do they get away with it?

Not one simple answer.

Iran's a useful example. There are many critics of Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop approach to Iran. BUT !!
One detail agreed upon by many Trump supporters and critics alike:
Iran was a prolific destructive bad actor in the Middle East,
and while we might not like Trump's style, we can support the objective. BUT !

That ignores some very basic realities.
Among Trump's demands of Iran, open the Strait of Hormuz. Well guess what duncie Donnie, it was open before you attacked. Another Trump criterion:
Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. BUT !!
President Obama had already attended to that. Iran was reportedly in compliance with Obama's agreement, until Trump unilaterally withdrew.

So it looks like Trump's goals are to restore the conditions that prevailed before President Trump began to meddle.

One of the first times economic sanctions were imposed on civilian commerce was against Castro's Cuba.
I do not understand why such obviously illegal economic sanctions were allowed?

{...
The United States is the country that imposed the most comprehensive and enduring economic sanctions on Cuba, beginning in the early 1960s.

The sanctions were first introduced in 1958 as an arms embargo under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, targeting Cuba’s energy and agricultural sectors Wikipedia. After the Cuban Revolution in 1959 and the rise of Fidel Castro’s socialist government, tensions escalated. In October 1960, the U.S. launched a campaign of sabotage and terrorism against Cuban targets, prompting the Cuban government to seize American economic assets, including oil refineries Wikipedia.

The full trade embargo was imposed on February 3, 1962, under President John F. Kennedy, using the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trading with the Enemy Act National Security Archive+1. This embargo banned most trade with Cuba, with limited exceptions for food and medicine. It was later expanded in 1963 with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), which prohibited most financial transactions with Cuba Congress.gov.

Over the decades, Congress has reinforced the embargo through laws such as the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (LIBERTAD) of 1996, which codified the sanctions and tied their lifting to political conditions in Cuba Congress.gov.

While other countries have imposed some restrictions, the U.S. embargo remains the most extensive and long-standing, affecting all sectors of the Cuban economy and lasting over six decades
...}

Cuba was not a threat or even enemy in any way.
And Castro was obviously so popular, that he was likely the best thing that ever happened to Cuba.
I could see arms embargos, but economic sanctions violate the rights of individuals.
 
"Cuba was not a threat or even enemy in any way."R5 #178
Interesting insight.
Even if true, it may not matter. "Perception is reality."

Seems to me McCarthyism was a witch hunt. I checked the definition in both AHD & Websters. The word "communist" does not appear in either definition. BUT !
Wasn't the interrogation: "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?"

"Cuba was not a threat or even enemy in any way."R5 #178
Fear?
"The red menace"?

If not fear of communism, what? Sadism? Bullying?

"And Castro was obviously so popular, that he was likely the best thing that ever happened to Cuba." R5 #178
Popularity and superiority are not synonyms.
Without much more than a few old black & white movies as reference material, I got the idea the standard of living in Cuba dropped after Castro took power. I still don't understand what the Bay of Pigs was about.

I understand much of the reduction in standard of living in Cuba may accrue to the embargo. I don't know enough about it to do the differential calculation on Castro.
"...Castro says that a half century of communist rule seemed like a good idea, right up until the part where he was rushed to the hospital in a '55 Oldsmobile." Conan O'Brian
 
Interesting insight.
Even if true, it may not matter. "Perception is reality."

Seems to me McCarthyism was a witch hunt. I checked the definition in both AHD & Websters. The word "communist" does not appear in either definition. BUT !
Wasn't the interrogation: "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?"


Fear?
"The red menace"?

If not fear of communism, what? Sadism? Bullying?


Popularity and superiority are not synonyms.
Without much more than a few old black & white movies as reference material, I got the idea the standard of living in Cuba dropped after Castro took power. I still don't understand what the Bay of Pigs was about.

I understand much of the reduction in standard of living in Cuba may accrue to the embargo. I don't know enough about it to do the differential calculation on Castro.

That seems to be more of a discussion on why the political wind in the US was against Castro.
But I am just dealing with the question of how it could have been considered legal to impose economic sanctions on Cuba?

The 1906 Geneva Conventions are pretty clear that starvation sanctions are a war crime.
The Declaration of Independence says there is an individual right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that economic sanctions would violate illegally.
Whether or not we want to harm a particular leader, it is not legal to harm other innocent individuals of that country.
 
Back
Top