Federalist writer Eddie Scarry lets his hostility to Israel poke through the seams

Here's another example of how the Federalist's writers are going downhill, as their contributor Eddie Scarry, in pretending neo-cons are truly the ones against J.D. Vance, goes so far as to attack support for Israel from the right-wing side, and perpetuates the RINO opposition to the war on Iran's dictatorship:

Worth slightly more attention is what Thiessen wrote this week in The Washington Post. Recall that Thiessen is the Post content creator and former George W. Bush speechwriter whom Trump, for inexplicable reasons that may be explained in the future, has reportedly been reading and consulting privately about foreign affairs. Thiessen took an opportunity on Thursday to continue the very obviously coordinated attack on Vance planned by a slimy mix of neocons, lazy Republicans, and Israel Firsters.

Evaluating the Iran war, which has grown increasingly unpopular, even among Republicans, Thiessen wrote, “Perhaps it’s time for the president to take the advice of those who have delivered him success in Iran — not those like Vance who have failed him.”

Thiessen blames the failures in Iran not on what certainly look like short-sighted decisions by the commander in chief, but on Vance, whose primary responsibility in the conflict has been negotiating its end with Iran’s leaders. That’s at least honest. But let’s look at what Thiessen says a real victory, without any negotiation, would look like.

He wrote that the war’s objectives are: “eliminate remaining [Iranian] leadership figures; further entomb Iran’s nuclear sites; take out Iran’s remaining ballistic missile sites; destroy the economic and energy infrastructure that provides the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a financial lifeline, as well as key highways, railroads, airports and seaports by which the regime gets financial assistance from bordering countries; and demolish Iran’s remaining defense industrial base so it cannot rebuild its destroyed capabilities.” Then, with presumably a straight face, Thiessen said, “That’s it.”

Oh, is that all?!

Well, not really. Thiessen, perhaps to his credit, didn’t even pretend to hide the ball. Though having concluded, “That’s it” — just the complete decimation of a global energy supplier’s entire transportation infrastructure and economy — Thiessen went on to do the equivalent of, But wait! There’s more! He then said the U.S. would simply have to commit to keeping American troops just off the shore of Iran in perpetuity and “provide covert support” to Iranian rebels, in hopes that they might fight their own government. You know, just like they are now! Wait, that’s not actually happening, is it? Oh well!

Mr. Scarry ignores so much of previous research it's not even funny. He relies on reports from the otherwise shoddy AP Wire, doesn't pay any attention to the Tea Party Patriots research on the USA public's support for the war, and even ignores that much of the Iranian inhabitants are unarmed, making it difficult to fight against the Iranian government savages. If that's how Scarry's going to act, can somebody like that be counted on to fight against the Islamofascist regime being established in Europe? Or even the USA itself?

With this, the Federalist continues to send troubling signs they're not dedicated to freedom and liberty any more than say, Ron Paul, who was probably the role model for some of their more questionable writers. It's utterly head-shaking as it's sad they're becoming as overrun with phonies like Scarry, much like the Democrats are becoming overrun with Islamists and communists.

Co-founder of the Federalist continues the Orweillian ignorance act

Perhaps it's not a shock, but Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist, has indicated he's against the war on Iran's tyrants, despite previous research telling there are Americans who believe Iran's Islamofascists should be brought down, and tries to frame it all as some kind of "neocon/never-Trump/RINO" conspiracy, all the while not willing to admit he actually represents such disgraceful movements:

It is inarguable that the war in Iran is a massive drag on Donald Trump’s numbers, as well as those of the Republican Party heading into November. This is largely driven by consistently high gas prices, which also drive up the price of everything else.

Trump obviously knows this, which is why he’s been searching for an off-ramp for months. He knows he was elected to get gas prices down and the economy in shape (which he did until the war jammed up the gears).

But a major problem for Trump’s presidency right now is that nearly everyone outside his inner circle pushing for this war — and this includes the entirety of so-called conservative pundits who never found a war they weren’t willing to make others fight and pay for — also hates Trump (and especially J.D. Vance) and sees the war’s negative effect on his popularity as a secondary benefit of the war they’ve been salivating over for decades. To them, his declining numbers are a feature, not a bug.

With the Iran war, the NeverTrump neocons have gotten everything they ever dreamed of — war (which they love), and a massive political quagmire for Trump that threatens to consume the rest of his presidency and destroy any future political chances of J.D. Vance and the entire MAGA/America First movement.

Boy, this guy sure is clever and cunning, trying to do what the British call "fobbing off" the blame on everyone else but himself, all the while pretending he's actually a Trump supporter himself, but in reality, chances are very high he's actually a Vance supporter for all the wrong reasons. Assuming he supposedly opposes having an Islamic caliphate established in Europe, what Davis is doing decidedly contradicts any claim he might make that he's against having Islamofascism conquer Europe. Seriously, I'm not convinced people like him are against the Religion of Peace at all. Period.

I sadly predicted the Federalist would not debate the points of the Tea Party Patriots' polling research, and Davis' bizarre propaganda screed certainly confirms that, more or less. The Federalist is once again proving they're a blight upon conservatism, and an insult to anybody who's against totalitarianism conquering the world. What if it turns out Davis has no genuine issues with NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani, or even communism? He also ignores very valid reasons why Iran's Islamofascist leaders should be taken down, and is practically undermining efforts to protect the USA in the long run. We can only hope the Federalist's losing audience they don't need over their disgraceful behavior, which again only obscures challenging polls that tell a different story than the ludicrous narrative they sadly want to follow.

There is a majority of Americans who want the war against Iran to continue

According to polling data commissioned by Tea Party Patriots, it turns out that, contrary to what even phony "conservatives" like those at the Federalist would have everyone think, many Americans do want the war on Iran to continue until its Islamofascist regime is defeated:

A recent survey has revealed that the majority of Americans support continuing the war in Iran. Sixty-two percent of surveyed general election voters agree with the statement “The United States must finish the job once and for all to protect the United States and our allies — which means ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon and can no longer threaten American lives” data from Tea Party Patriots Action found.

The poll also asserted that the numbers found in the survey should be a “reality check” for the media.

“72% of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — agree that Iran cannot be allowed to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is consistent with President Trump’s policy,” Tea Party Patriots Action Chairman Jenny Beth Martin told Breitbart News.

Martin continued, “And 62% of Americans — including 56% of Independents — believe that we need to ‘finish the job’ in Iran. … There is no split in the conservative movement on this issue. … Conservatives are overwhelmingly sticking with President Trump and the American people as a whole agree with the president’s strategy.”

If the Federalist doesn't comment on these findings, that'll speak volumes about what they're really like. It's good to know there are realists in the USA now who recognize the threat Iran's regime poses if it isn't taken down entirely, and surely recognize that if a ground operation is what it inevitably takes to complete the job, just like in Iraq, it'll have to be done. So we must give the military all the backing they'll need in order to keep morale high, which helps tremendously in order to achieve vital results.

Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges are still a danger being hidden underground

Recent reports warn that Iran's dictatorship has moved their uranium enrichment tools to a deep underground complex in Natanz:

Iran transferred thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges to underground facilities deep inside Natanz's Pickaxe Mountain last fall, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing Israeli and US officials.

The centrifuges were transferred to the mountain following the 12-day war in June 2025.

During the war, American and Israeli strikes pummeled three of Iran’s main nuclear sites, in an operation the US called "Midnight Hammer."

US and Israeli officials noted that the transfer of sensitive equipment inside the mountain increases concerns that Tehran is working to ensure continued uranium enrichment, even in the event of a large-scale military attack on its soil.

Pickaxe Mountain is located south of the Natanz nuclear complex, the site of two of Iran’s uranium enrichment plants bombed in June 2025.

The tunnel facility under construction at Pickaxe Mountain wasn't targeted in either of the wars, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a US-based think-tank focused on nuclear non-proliferation.

Satellite imagery shows that the complex was carved to a depth of more than 100 meters below bedrock, making it deeper and more fortified than the Fordow enrichment facility, a highly fortified, underground uranium enrichment facility.

I suppose the RINOs at the Federalist are okay with this? I noticed one of their writers publishing stealth propaganda against the war on Iran just late last month, and continuing their attacks on Mark Levin as well. Oh yes, and even sugarcoating JD Vance, despite how otherwise poor and questionable his own dedication to civilized values and liberty is. And the writer even made sure to scapegoat Israel stealthily too. Writers like those at the Federalist are the reason this war is being prolonged, and also puts in serious doubt whether they're really concerned about Islamofascism's infiltrations into Europe. It also makes clear they don't put much value on concepts like selflessness, let alone caring about the lives and safety of innocent and defenseless women. This is why the war has to be waged, and we can only hope the military is doing what it can to put a stop to Pickaxe Mountain's own chamber of horrors without letting the whinings of RINOs like the Federalist's get the better of them.

JD Vance shows his true colors on Joe Rogan's podcasts

The USA vice president is proving to be the one of the worst omens for Israel, and making matters worse is that he aired horrific viewpoints on the podcast of a man who already gave indications he was hostile to Israel too:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance suggested on Wednesday that some elements within the Israeli government backed an influence campaign aimed at undermining the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, while emphasizing that Israel remains a U.S. ally.

Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Vance said, “I think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal.”

“There was a Times story that came out yesterday that basically there are certain influencers in America who are being paid in order to attack the deal,” Vance said. “It lists a bunch of people who have quite literally been paid by a former Trump campaign person who was himself paid by certain elements within the Israeli government.”

He said he has been accused of taking “marching orders from Tucker Carlson” and that “there’s just so much bullsh** out there when what I’m actually trying to do is accomplish what the president of the United States told me to accomplish.”

The vice president said he had no objection to Israel attempting to influence U.S. policy, calling such efforts a routine part of international diplomacy.

“A lot of other countries do,” Vance said. “I think some are better at it than others. I think the Israelis are definitely more effective at it than most. But I wouldn’t say that they’re the only effective country by any means that tries to influence American politics.”

“I mean, why wouldn’t you?” he said. “It’s a country of 9 million people. We have 330 million people. And so, of course, they’re going to try to persuade Americans. They’re going to try to move Americans in one direction or another. I think that’s just the nature of the beast.”

I think the use of the word "beast" is disturbing, and no matter what he says about not objecting to Israel trying to influence USA policy, it's clear he is disturbingly biased. Ruthie Blum addressed the news like this:

As much as I dislike citing Maya Angelou—and absolutely loathe using a single plural pronoun to describe a single noun—one of the late activist-poet’s famous quotes is so spot on that it bears repeating: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

This certainly applies to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who illustrated it most recently on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

Yes, during a nearly three-hour chat with the most-streamed podcaster on Spotify, Vance yet again showed us just who he is.

Not that it was tough to do with a host like Rogan, who didn’t challenge a word his interviewee said. Oh, other than asking him what “MoU” stands for and expressing surprise that “dove” in the political context is the opposite of “hawk.”

Where blaming the Jews and Israel for the doomed memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic was concerned, there was no pushback. On the contrary, Rogan goaded Vance to keep going down his embarrassing rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.

These included the groyper line about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s deep ties to the Mossad or the CIA. It was as though anti-Israel political commentators and podcasters Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens prepped the VP for the one-on-one. They undoubtedly were pleased with his performance.

Take the following passage, for instance:

“I definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and derail the deal,” he said, referring to the MoU with the Islamic Republic that his boss, U.S. President Donald Trump, had declared dead in the water mere days earlier.

Nonetheless, Vance continued in this vein, totally omitting two facts: that Tehran has been blitzing the Gulf (his only mention of the countries in that region is to say that they’re gung-ho for the MoU); and that Israel has been totally out of the fray for many weeks.

Well he certainly isn't helping to end the Iran war sooner than it could be done. Stuff like this also puts his sincerity regarding Europe into doubt. What if it turned out he had some responsibility for getting former Hungarian premiere Viktor Orban voted out? It remains to be seen if Vance will apologize for causing all the trouble he's going to cause with his conspiracy theory tactics, which aren't helping the situation one bit. Just plain embarrassing.

Update: here's what Fox News' Brian Kilmeade has to say about the subject.

USA administration cannot abandon the Iranian people who're oppressed

Jamie Fly and Katie LaRoque at Freedom House make a vital point why it's wrong for the USA administration to take any steps that would enable a sadistic dictatorship to remain in place and continue subjecting its citizens to horror stories:

In early 2026, when Iranian surgeon Alireza Golchini saw protesters with gunshot and stab wounds from the regime, he did what doctors are trained to do: he treated them. For that, Iranian authorities arrested him, charged him with “waging war against God,” and threatened him with a sentence that can carry the death penalty. His alleged crime was not violence or espionage; it was providing medical care to wounded Iranians.

His story is a reminder of a simple reality: the Islamic Republic is one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Just recently, a woman was sentenced to 74 lashes for singing in a YouTube video without a hijab, and a 17-year-old swimmer and boxer was sentenced to death for participating in a protest. The regime just executed another dissident, bringing the total number of political executions in 2026 to at least 45.

[...] For the Iranian people, however, the US-Iran deal as currently formulated is likely to deepen repression. It will strengthen the authorities that only months ago were imprisoning, executing, and killing Iranians in the streets for demanding basic freedoms and improved living conditions.

Late in 2025 and early 2026, millions of Iranians took to the streets in the most significant challenge the Islamic Republic has faced in decades. Authorities answered with a crackdown that left thousands dead and tens of thousands arrested. The regime also imposed a near-total internet shutdown that lasted for months, cutting Iranians off from one another and from a world that might otherwise have witnessed the scale of the violence. Yet reports indicate that a final agreement could bring this same regime sweeping sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, and billions of dollars in new investment. For Iranians who risked their lives demanding change, the likely outcome is not a more moderate government, but a more entrenched and repressive one.

[...] At a minimum, the United States should make any relief conditional on five things: the release of Iran’s political prisoners, an end to the executions handed down in protest cases, a binding guarantee against another nationwide internet shutdown, and the return of the Americans now imprisoned in Iran or barred from leaving—six by the assessment of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation. Tehran should also be required to come clean about the fate of kidnapped former FBI Agent Bob Levinson and help his family recover his remains. These are among the clearest and most immediate signs of whether Iranian authorities are prepared to act in good faith.

See, these are vital reasons to topple a savage dictatorship, along with exiling monsters from what you would think civilized countries. I notice that Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously took disturbing positions that put his supposed understandings of reality under question marks, is now seemingly making valid points about the state of Europe while discussing SCOTUS' defeatist positions on birthright citizenship in the USA:

In countries like France and Britain, which have large numbers of Muslim migrants, this means multigenerational communities of non-citizens with a totally different cultural and political worldview — one that’s openly hostile to the host country. They will eventually, as they are beginning to do now, carve out their own insular polities within the nation, Balkanizing the country and destroying the possibility of republican self-government or even the possibility of national survival. An Islamified Britain will no longer be Britain, but something else.

Obviously, this can't go unopposed, but then, why did Dumberson oppose the war against Iran? Considering their Islamic tyrants were financing jihadism overseas, they could also be financing infiltration into the USA through illegal immigration, and does that sit well with Dumberson? Does it sit well with him that an innocent and defenseless woman could already have been tortured over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime? If he's not willing to approve of taking serious action against sadists in Islamofascist countries like Iran, then this current editorial of his rings totally hollow. That's why what he's saying now should be approached with caution, because it's not enough to defend just your home country, and to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the plight of innocent foreigners in distress is offensive, morally or otherwise.

If the Trump administration continues to allow the Islamofascist dictatorship in Iran to continue governing, it's always possible that could ruin election chances in mid-term. And if that's what happens, it'll make clear that when serious action isn't put to use, no matter the turnout, you cannot be surprised if the public will ultimately be disillusioned with the notion certain movements like conservatives really support responsibility, and applying equal standards everywhere. Also note how the Daily Caller is writing reports that're potentially hostile to Israel, which seem to be lamenting that Israel's military wanted to terminate "negotiators" from Iran, and you know something's wrong. If those very "negotiators" harbor Islamofascist beliefs themselves and are loyal to the dictatorship, why are they considered valuable? There are no doubt movements in the country that can be considered far better candidates for replacing the tyrants, and refusing to consider them only worsens the situation.

JD Vance sets a most divisive example

I don't know what exactly is in the final "deal" between the USA and Iran, something I'll try to comment on another time, but for now, vice president J.D. Vance is not improving the situation with attacks on Israel in regards to Lebanon:

The harsh criticism leveled against Israel by U.S. Vice President JD Vance has sparked angry reactions.

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida wrote: “Israel is our greatest ally and strongest partner in the Middle East. The evil Iranian regime wants to wipe BOTH of us off the face of the Earth. That will never happen because we will ALWAYS stand together."

“America’s unwavering support for Israel’s defense helps make the America First agenda possible, the U.S. stronger, and the world a safer place," he stressed.

Professor Jeffrey Lax of New York University, a prominent activist for the Jewish community and in the fight against antisemitism and discrimination against pro-Israel professors and students, was even sharper in his criticism.

“The most sickening part of JDVance's mid-book tour press conference? Right here, where he accuses Israel(!) of attacking civilian population centers in Beirut when every honest person on earth knows it is exactly the other way around," Lax said.

“This man CANNOT be our next president," Lax declared.

The criticism was also echoed by the “Green Prince," Mosab Hassan Yousef, who lives in the United States.

"Israel is not a client state. It is a sovereign, independent, and powerful nation. Its strength has never depended on any foreign leader, it comes from its own people. While the partnership with the United States has been valuable, Israel has never been a burden. It has delivered massive contributions to American technology, medicine, cybersecurity, and defense, far beyond what most Americans realize. At a moment when America is facing deep internal and external challenges, turning against one of its most capable and loyal allies is not just shortsighted, it is self-destructive. Those who believe they are weakening Israel by attacking it are actually weakening America’s own interests," Yousef said.

During a White House briefing yesterday (Thursday), Vance claimed that Israel was bombing Lebanon indiscriminately.

Based on what Vance has done, no, he's not fit to be the next presidential candidate. And we shouldn't buy his books either. So he obscures the Hezbollah's evils, and rails against Israel instead? Vance has really disappointed.

Update: on the subject of Iran, they've backed out of the deal signing in Switzerland, and Vance has delayed a trip there. So what's being accomplished so far when the deal may be questionable at most?

Update: the Federalist is making things worse by fudging the exact details, and makes it sound like it's wrong to destroy a terrorist organization, and as though Iran's literally right to defend said monsters:

Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been a point of tension during negotiations with Iran, sometimes breaking ceasefires and jeopardizing the openness of the Strait of Hormuz. Israel has also killed negotiators from Iran in the past in the middle of talks.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon have reportedly resulted in tense phone calls between Trump and Netanyahu, in which Trump has reportedly said his Israeli counterpart has “no f-cking judgement” during the negotiating process.

This is insulting to the intellect, and could also explain why the same news writers seem disinterested in freeing all Iranian citizens who don't want to wear outfits like the chador. This can also explain why there are certain commentators on the right, in and out of Israel, who find the way this has been handled troubling, and don't sound optimistic this'll go over well.

Defeating Hezbollah is a main objective in Lebanon

Israel's defense minister made the point now, though there's a certain point of contention to be found here:

Defense Minister Israel Katz says Israel remains committed to disarming Hezbollah “through military and political means.”

“Israel’s policy in Lebanon has been and remains clear: the top objective is the disarmament of Hezbollah through military and political means, regardless of the Iran issue,” Katz says following an assessment with military officials.

Katz says the IDF is completing its ground offensive in southern Lebanon up to the line from which Hezbollah can launch anti-tank missiles at Israeli communities.

Well I do hope they realize that allowing the Hezbollah to remain even in northern Lebanon is unacceptable, since it would give them a chance to rebuild one day, with or without Iran's backing. Something that might be called "hudna" in Islamic doctrine. And it's high time that something were done to ensure Lebanon can one day return to having a non-Muslim majority and/or government run the country again, which would make the region safer.

The raid on Iran was necessary to prevent a nuclear version of 9-11

Bob Kiffney, a former intel specialist, makes an important case for why the USA/Israel needed to attack Iran and stop its nuclear building:

On Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered in the deadliest terrorist attack in our nation’s history. The World Trade Center towers collapsed in Lower Manhattan, the Pentagon was breached, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, became a graveyard for heroes who prevented even greater loss. The economic toll exceeded $100 billion. The psychological wound reshaped American life for a generation.

Now imagine those same three targets struck not by hijacked airliners but by nuclear devices.

Many hundreds of thousands—potentially upward of 800,000 in Manhattan alone—would die instantly in fireballs and blast waves. Hundreds of thousands more would suffer horrific burns and radiation poisoning. Firestorms would rage across dense urban cores. The financial heart of the free world would be paralyzed, the seat of American government devastated, and fallout would render swaths of our most populous regions uninhabitable for years. Trillions in economic damage, mass evacuations, overwhelmed hospitals, and a body count dwarfing 9/11 by orders of magnitude would follow.

That is not science fiction. That was the imminent risk a nuclear-armed Iran posed until the United States and Israel launched decisive military action on Feb. 28.

The ongoing war against the Islamic Republic is not the beginning of a conflict. It is the necessary end to one that has raged for 47 years.

He's absolutely correct. Have any of the RINOs opposing war against Iran's autocracy ever considered that? Let's be clear. If ground invasions are needed to put an end to any further horrors in the making, that's what must be done, and it's to be hoped the USA public understands that at this point, and will back the Trump administration on any decision they make in that context.

All these horrors could've been prevented long ago if anybody who actually cared had shown the courage to do so. Yet all these years, in one of the worst examples of history showing we don't learn lessons from the past, the cancer was allowed to metastisize, and regardless of the current situation and outcome, a horrific mess was left that will take ages to clean up. It's very fortunate the USA and Israeli militaries took up what missions they have so far, because sooner or later, wars to stop evil entities are entirely inevitable.

Update: Clifford May has an important related op-ed here.

Where comics writer Kurt Busiek now posts his sad political rants

Years ago, when X was Twitter, leftist writer Kurt Busiek had plenty of terrible leftist drivel to say there. Today, after Elon Musk bought out the social network, it looks like Busiek no longer posts there, presumably because he can't stand being on a rightist-owned site, and now he's turned to Blue Sky. And here's a few examples of his continuing leftist rhetoric there. For example:

Wow, look how he's trying to draw a moral equivalence between antisemitic and "anti-palestinian" sentiment, making it sound like Iran's mullahs are literally against local Moslems, or as though the fabricated race/community "palestine" isn't Islamic. Put another way, Busiek's clearly not interested in doing any research to determine that the whole name "palestine" was a Roman conception, drawing from the Philistines, to humiliate the land of Stan Lee's ancestry. Also interesting how Busiek simultaneously attacks the POTUS who's now overseeing a raid against Iran's tyrants to destroy their murderous weaponry. Whose side is Busiek on anyway? He's right that Iran's got anti-LGBTQ positions, but, if he won't acknowledge it stems from the teachings of the koran, then his approach there falls flat too.

Then we have:

The USA military many sigificant achievements so far, like destroying Iran's naval crafts, and Busiek's ungrateful? Just what and who does Busiek stand for anyway?

Busiek even posted the following involving Israel:

How intriguing he lectures us all that Israelis across the board literally don't support Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, this despite how recent pollings show he has sizable support, and plenty of support for the war against Iran's tyrants. What's telling here is how Busiek doesn't back up his claim, and while he may acknowledge the Islamofascists of Iran are willing to attack civilians, his absurd biases ruin any notion he respects the Israeli public on anything. Also atrocious is how Busiek subtly compares Netanyahu to the Iranian Islamofascists. Shame.

Next we have this:

And is that supposed to mean the military commanders don't face any danger, say, from enemy moles and sleeper agents? Oh good grief, this is just so naive. Then there's this and this:

Busiek won't learn lessons either, that wasting so much energy attacking conservatives doesn't improve the situation. And if he's implying Americans and Israelis who allegedly want war should die, that's disturbing as well, and sick. Besides, it's not that any sensible person literally wants war for "fun". They support war against tyrants because there's situations where force is inevitable if that's what it takes to stop barbarism. Busiek also made unverified claims that Israelis literally are guilty of war crimes, and also this item, and this one:

Well if that's what he thinks, but doesn't think the Islamofascists running Afghanistan today aren't guilty of war crimes against the ancient Buddhist inhabitants who originally dwelled there, that's disgraceful too. Ditto if he doesn't think Turkey's guilty of war crimes against Armenia. And Busiek also reposted the following from Tom Peyer:

I guess that means Mr. Peyer's also hostile to Israelis, conservative or otherwise? For shame. Later on, Busiek made a nasty comment about Trump:

And then, what did Busiek say about the US army attack on Kharg island?

If he's no military expert, he has no business commenting, and also had no business writing superhero comics. But who knows, maybe today, he regrets writing superhero tales. It is rather funny he'd write anything starring say, Captain America, considering Kirby/Simon created Steve Rogers as a military cadet who volunteered for the super-soldier serum experiment that made him the formidable fighter he became. But then, that's why, if Busiek really feels that way today, he should no longer be writing superhero themes, plain and simple.

Interestingly, if it matters, Busiek also mentioned the disgraced Gerard Jones, and said the following:

What's that supposed to mean long before? Does that mean people not wanting to benefit monsters is something that only recently came up? Let's be clear. If Jones had been caught in the acts years before and it made headlines in the news, you can be sure there's plenty who'd want nothing to do with him anymore. And must it be pointed out Staton didn't just illustrate comics written by sick Jones? Staton got into comics as far back as the early 1970s, and he'd drawn Green Lantern before, beginning in 1979, for stories written by writers with far better reputations than Jones will ever have at this stage. Staton also has other comics to his credits (including some Batman books), and even a few at Marvel. What, does Busiek have a grudge against Staton or something? That aside, if there's anything Busiek wrote that perhaps we shouldn't benefit, it's his creator-owned comics like Astro City and Arrowsmith, based on how he's indirectly insulting plenty of decent USA military officials who're working hard to bring down the Islamic regime in Iran. Don't their reputations matter? Don't even the reputations of 911 Families matter? Why, what about Betty Mahmoody, who was fortunate to get her daughter out of Iran during the mid 1980s after her creep of a husband taqqiya'd them into traveling there? How don't topics like those ever matter to Busiek?

And since Jones came up, this is very embarrassing, but it appears that since his release from prison nearly 4 years ago, he's been quietly turning up on social media again, and even posting chapters of a book he wrote called "Ginny Good" on a Substack site. Most disgraced writers of his sort would ususally just disappear after all the harm they caused. But Jones appears to be one of those sorts who cannot keep his stupid mouth shut. And if there's at least one example of what political rants he's posting to put on display here, it's the following:

Well. Looks like Jones hasn't changed from the time he first said a decade back he considered Trump a "fascist". And I guess he also considers Trump a communist, seeing how he claims the POTUS wants to be like Vladimir Putin. And all this after Jones was arrested and convicted for illegally hoarding child porn. What, does he think because he's been paroled from prison after 2 thirds of his sentence, it's okay to go right back to such crap again? As though it weren't bad enough he was trying to downplay his criminal offenses when he was still behind bars. All that aside, does he really think anybody wants to read even his text-only books after what he did? Such a repellent disgrace indeed. I wonder how Busiek feels about having written a backup story for Wonder Man in one of the 2 annuals for the 1991-94 series Jones wrote over 3 decades ago? That series was practically worthless as it is.

It's very sad some of the same leftist comics writers of the past decade refuse to stop wasting time on divisive politics, yet quite interesting how, ever since X/Twitter was bought out by a conservative supporter, they decided to jump ship from that service over to one that's more attuned to their leftist beliefs. That, alas, doesn't make the situation any better for the well being of the world.

Trump declines Kurdish offer to participate in Iran war

President Trump told that he didn't want Kurdish militias to take part in the Iran war:

US President Donald Trump on Saturday rejected the idea of the Kurds joining the war against Iran.

Speaking on Air Force One, he said, "We're not looking at the Kurds going into Iran. We're very friendly with the Kurds. We don't want to make the war anymore complex."

"I have ruled it out - I don't want the Kurds going in. They're willing to go in, but I told them not to."

Well there's a valid reason why it's better they don't take part in this war - many Kurds adhere to Islam, and it just wouldn't do to fight a regime already badly battered by the Religion of Peace using other adherents, even as backups, because we can't risk having them plot a takeover that would leave the region unchanged. After all, it's bad enough that the USA government had to recognize Ahmed al-Sharaa as the head of Syria after Bashar Assad was overthrown, and now things are getting worse, and it's unhealthy for Israel too. So for now, the Kurds in the Iranian area may not take part. But somebody has to convince Trump and company it's also bad to recognize al-Sharaa and his cronies as well. After all, what if such a region also tries to follow in Iran's footsteps to building nuclear weapons one day? What may have begun with Iran doesn't stop with them.

Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are joined in their shoddiness by another veteran commentator

Robert Spencer talks about whether the USA military's attack on Iran led by Donald Trump will avail the Iranian people, and discusses the now classic rotten apples on the right who're just as bad as leftists. And along the way, a most eyebrow raising example comes up:

This is what most irritated Trump’s critics on both the left and the right: the fact that America was intervening at all. Both leftists and the new, antisemitic, isolationist “woke right” that sees Israel behind every U.S. foreign policy move have insisted that any U.S. intervention in Iran will turn out to be prolonged, disastrous, and unsuccessful just as the misguided and botched interventions into Iraq and Afghanistan were.

The former conservative wunderkind and gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos, now reduced to a pathetic Jew-hating attention-seeker, wrote: “O Allah, preserve Ayatollah Khamenei – O Allah, indeed we place You in their throats, and we seek refuge in You from their evils.” He was just looking for clicks and notoriety, but he unwittingly encapsulated the “woke right” ethos: if a military action is undertaken in cooperation with Israel, it must be evil in itself, and opposed to the extent of allying oneself with the regime that screams “Death to America” and has been on a war footing against the United States since 1979. Milo is just a more flamboyant and outlandish version of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes, who are plenty outlandish as it is.

Well. This is definitely telling. I recall Yiannapoulos seemed to be trying to downplay the idea that murdering prostitutes in a video game was somehow a petty issue simply because it was all part of a mere computer program. But he ran the risk of normalizing violence in real life by minimizing it in a video game, and it's definitely not a laughing matter. As a result, Yiannapoulos made himself look as bad as that disgusting "feminist" named Anita Sarkeesian from Canada.

And now he's acting as some kind of apologist for Iran's Islamofascists?!? Groan. Just what we need, another bizarre grovelor from the fringes of the right. It's absolutely terrible. I'm not sorry he's been largely rejected based on disturbing statements he made about sexual abuse, though I suspect most leftists wouldn't care what he says at this point, save for trying to make the right look worse in every way than the left. How do creeps like Yiannapoulos manage to win favor of certain crowds before being unmasked as the frauds they are? Just plain aggravating as it's repulsive.

Former Iranian "president" Ahmedinejad wiped out

One of the most vile antisemitic politicians in Iran has been obliterated along with a bodyguard of his:

According to Iranian reports, former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was killed together with his bodyguard during an Israeli airstrike on the country, while under house arrest.

Serving as Iran's sixth president between 2005 and 2013, Ahmadinejad is remembered as one of the Islamic Republic's most extreme and antisemitic voices. He was open about his aspiration to destroy Israel.

In 2009, his controversial reelection set off the largest protests in post-revolution Iran's history until that point. The regime under his lead responded with a bloodbath, killing dozens and sending hundreds to prison.

I guess it's an irony he was put under house arrest later, probably part of the ayatollah's intention to throw him under the bus, and now both can appear before the highest court. Such a vile tyrant Ahmedinejad also was, and now he's also gone for good.

Confirmation that Khamenei was obliterated

The IDF announced they received intel confirmation that the most recent ayatollah in Iran has been punished along with 2 of his cronies:

On the eve of Purim 5786 (2026): A senior Israeli official said Saturday night that according to data received by the defense establishment, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was eliminated in the heart of Tehran.

According to additional reports received during the day, Khamenei’s close adviser, Ali Shamkhani, recently appointed by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian as Secretary of the Supreme Defense Council, was also eliminated. During Operation Rising Lion, Shamkhani’s home was struck and he was trapped under the rubble for three hours but survived.

In Israel, it is also estimated that the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Pakpour, was eliminated in the opening strikes of Operation Roaring Lion on Saturday morning. Pakpour was appointed to his position after his predecessor, Hossein Salami, was eliminated by Israel in Operation Rising Lion.

Nasir Zadeh, who is believed to have been eliminated Saturday morning, served as Chief of Staff of the Iranian Air Force. He also served as commander of the Iranian Air Force and Deputy Chief of the General Staff of Iran’s armed forces.

Here's more news:

8:45 PM: Iranian state media has confirmed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in U.S-Israeli strikes, saying: “To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return,” the New York Times reported.

8:20 PM: Iranian state media has reportedly admitted that multiple members of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s family were killed during U.S-Israeli strikes, including his daughter, grandchild, daughter-in-law, and son-in-law, according to Reuters. So far, state media has yet to confirm President Donald Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Leader was killed on Saturday.

And one of the reasons the raid's been successful so far is because the military found impressive ways to sabotage Iran's air defenses:

The United States military reportedly deployed Tomahawk missiles and new “one-way” attack drones during its opening strikes against the Islamist regime in Iran on Saturday.

Iran’s air defence systems were reportedly “effectively suppressed” by a “multi geographic command and control” strategy that was designed to “overwhelm Iran’s defenses,” U.S. officials said, according to Chief National Security Correspondent for Fox News Jennifer Griffin.

Griffin reported that in the strikes launched by President Donald Trump, the U.S. military used new capabilities, including “one-way attack drones” for the first time in combat alongside Tomahawk missiles during the initial wave of strikes.

She said that the strikes focused on “high value targets” such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities, Naval sites, and “underground facilities” likely linked to the nation’s nuclear programme.

“There were hundreds of targets in what is being described to me as a multi-day operation,” Griffin reported, adding that U.S. officials claimed that the Iranian response has so far been “ineffective” and that the strikes have “effectively suppressed their air defenses.”

Even so, it's a shame that so far, they were unable to prevent the dark forces of Iran from launching more missiles, with the targets even including other neighboring Arab/Islamic states. We must hope that the effort being carried out so far will eventually avail in stopping Iran's attacks altogether, and good riddance to filthy Khamenei.

The war against Iran is on again

Today, both Israeli and USA military forces launched a new raid against Iran's deadly missile sources, and may have eliminated ayatollah Ali Khameini:

Israel said on Saturday that it has taken part in a U.S.-led military operation in Iran, with Jerusalem reportedly targeting the top leadership of the Islamist regime in Tehran.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were among those targeted by Israeli forces on Saturday in strikes conducted in conjunction with an attempt by the United States to destroy Tehran’s missile programme, the Times of Israel reported.

The head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Gen. Mohammad Pakpour, as well as Iran’s defence and intelligence chiefs, were also said to be targeted in the strikes. It is currently unknown which, if any, strikes were successful at the time of this reporting.

The Israeli Defence Forces said that it had struck “hundreds of targets” in Western Iran as part of its so-called “Operation Roaring Lion”. Targets included missile launchers, the IDF said.

Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Christiaan Triebert published a satellite image purporting to show the destruction of Khamenei’s compound in Iran. It is unclear if the Ayatollah was in the compound at the time of the apparent attack.

The IDF did express cautious optimism Khameini was blasted, and we should definitely hope he was. There may have been a report a few months ago though, that he was planning to follow Syria's ousted dictator Assad in fleeing to Russia. Which only makes clear why they're still a serious danger too. Mainly because, based on how many Muslims are in Russia today, what if they use that as a means of taking over from where the communists leave off?

Here's more about Reza Pahlavi's response:

The son of the last Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, called on the country’s military, police, and security forces to abandon the “crumbling” Islamist regime of the Ayatollah amid U.S. and Israeli strikes on Saturday.

“Decisive moments lie before us,” the exiled crown prince of Iran said amid a major military operation launched in the early hours of Saturday by U.S. President Donald Trump in conjunction with Israeli forces targeting the rogue nation’s missile programme and leadership apparatus.

In a statement on social media, Reza Pahlavi said that the military operation initiated by President Trump should be seen as a “humanitarian intervention” targeting the Islamist regime — “and its machinery of killing” — rather than a strike on the country and people of Iran.

“However, despite the arrival of this assistance, the final victory will still be achieved by us. It is we, the people of Iran, who will finish this task in this final battle. The time to return to the streets is approaching,” he said.

We can only hope this operation will finally deliver justice and bring down a regime that Ronald Reagan did nothing to prevent from reaching the levels of dangerous power and tyranny they were at until now.

Long after the 1st and 2nd world wars, Americans unwilling to consider freedom isn't free

A poll was taken revealing a sad double-standard in the USA when it comes to Iran's dire situation:

New polling conducted by J.L. Partners provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows Americans, especially Republicans, by and large support toppling the regime in Iran but are unwilling to put any American lives at risk to do so.

The stunning new data shows that, yes, Americans do not like the regime in Iran and would love to see it wiped out. But it also has bright warning lights for the White House as the president considers his options because the data suggests that Americans broadly, and Republicans specifically, do not want to risk even a single American life to accomplish that.

J.L. Partners is one of the few pollsters to nail the outcome of the 2024 presidential race, correctly predicting that President Donald Trump would win the national popular vote against Democrat Kamala Harris.

Overall, the new poll obtained by Breitbart News exclusively shows, more Americans support the U.S. toppling the regime in Iran than oppose doing so, with 36 percent supporting such an action — 18 percent strongly supporting and 18 percent somewhat supporting — compared to just 21 percent opposing. Eleven percent strongly oppose and 10 percent somewhat oppose, with 24 percent of Americans indifferent offering neither support nor opposition.

Among Republicans specifically, support for the U.S. toppling the Iranian regime goes up even higher with 60 percent—36 percent strongly and 24 percent somewhat — supporting the move. Just 8 percent are opposed, 4 percent apiece somewhat and strongly, while 21 percent of Republicans are unsure.

While that seems strong on both accounts — among Americans broadly and among Republicans specifically — it’s in the follow-up questioning where things get dicey. Almost everyone who supports the U.S. toppling the Iranian regime only does so if zero American lives are at risk in so doing.

When asked how many American fatalities are an acceptable number to stomach for the U.S. to topple the regime in Tehran, a majority of all Americans and specifically Republicans said zero. Among all Americans, and among Republicans specifically, 51 percent of each group said they would tolerate no American casualties to achieve the mission. Among all Americans, an additional 5 percent said they would tolerate less than 10 American casualties and another 6 percent said they would tolerate less than 100 American fatalities.

I'm guessing the Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson is quite likely of the crowd that's strongly hinting they refuse to even so much as go to war themselves. Let's be clear. Of course it's always terrible when even a single innocent life has to die in battle. That's what happened over here in the past 2 and a half years since October 7, 2023. But if nobody's willing to make sacrifices for the sake of other less fortunate people, then how does anybody expect in the long run to prevent Islamofascists in Europe from gaining the ability to build additional nuclear arsenals over there? Something vice president J.D. Vance warned about as well a short time ago. Now, we have a most disturbing situation where it's the WW2 isolationist stance all over again. And that's going to be costly in the long run. Especially if the same crowds in America who don't want to go to war against tyranny also don't want to get adherents to Islam to stop practicing the religion.

This devastating mentality is also why the war against racism was lost in the 19th century, even after slavery was abolished by Lincoln. It's also why China was taken over by communism, leading to the dire situation they're in now, with a collapsing birthrate. Most disgusting thing about such commies is how in contrast to the Religion of Peace, they don't want many children, if at all. Now, almost a century after WW2, it's sad to discover we have another case of whole generations who don't want to show the courage it takes to make a difference, and it's not just leftists, but also rightists who're balking.

What makes this additionally sad is that the USA public, Republican or otherwise, are letting down even figures like Reza Pahlavi's family, whose daughter Noor wrote an article about how he hopes to restore a civilized leadership. And while of course nobody should have to rely solely on the USA for backing against evil entities, that doesn't mean anybody in America should act like it's literally wrong to aid the persecuted. What matters is whether they have what it takes to make clear anybody who's practicing Islam can't do so anymore, and not be embarrassed to make the vital point. The same goes for Communism.

Trump's been sending military forces to the area near Iran to practice for any possible attack on Iran's horrormeisters. It's to be hoped he doesn't let these pollings get in the way of better judgement if the soldiers who've deployed are themselves ready to enter battle. But somebody must make clear to the public that, if they're not willing to recognize that moral sacrifices have to be made when darkness is looming, how will anybody be able to defend the USA itself properly if, in the future, Islamists take over Europe and gain access to nuclear technology? And, do they take a naive view to the point they believe it's virtually impossible for jihadists to penetrate the USA's defenses in such a way? No doubt, many leftists do. But if rightists also buy into naive visions, then they too have failed from an altruistic standing, and nothing's going to be solved.

The point is: freedom isn't free. Will the conservative movement begin to understand that, and if they do, will it be too late?

Turkey's occupation in northern Cyprus does pose a danger to Israel as much as to the Cypriots

Shay Gal wrote about how Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus is as much Israel's problem as it is for the Cyprian citizens themselves, in ways similar to Hamas in Gaza:

Cyprus recently marked the 51st anniversary of Turkey's 1974 invasion - a lasting trauma for Greek Cypriots. For decades, Israel treated this conflict as a distant Greek-Turkish issue, but must now clearly acknowledge: Northern Cyprus is not just a Greek-Cypriot problem - it is also an Israeli one. In practical terms, Northern Cyprus functions as an international no-man's land, enabling Turkey and terrorist groups like Hamas and Iran's Quds Force unrestricted operational freedom.

Since the invasion, which killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands, Turkey's presence has quietly transformed. The area is now a forward base for Turkey's military, hosting sophisticated weapons systems, cyber surveillance, and signals intelligence (SIGINT) infrastructure capable of intercepting both military and civilian Israeli communication, alongside covert terrorist facilities supported by Ankara. According to leaked intelligence documents, senior Turkish officials characterized Northern Cyprus as an ideal location "where anything can be done without interference by police or judicial oversight".

Turkey can deploy armed drones from Lefkoniko airfield - converted from an abandoned airport into a drone base amid regional gas disputes - far more rapidly than from its mainland bases. Since May 2021, Turkey officially stationed armed Bayraktar TB2 drones there, and more advanced Akinci UAVs were publicly showcased at a military parade in July 2024. These UAVs can rapidly target Israeli gas rigs, naval vessels, and strategic sites. In addition, Turkey's advanced ATMACA anti-ship missiles, with a range exceeding 200 km, could directly threaten Israeli maritime assets, including its critical natural gas platforms. Moreover, Turkey's new Typhoon ballistic missile is capable of precisely hitting targets up to 560 kilometers away. According to Western intelligence, missile bases in Kyrenia and Famagusta are already prepared for their deployment, posing Turkey's first direct ballistic threat to Israel, with the capability of striking Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa Bay.

That strongly hints Turkey's just as willing to declare violent war against Israel sooner or later, much like Iran. And for all we know, Turkish forces quite likely built underground tunnels and headquarters on the nothern end they occupy, and that too can be very dangerous. Why, who knows how many similar locations like that were built in secrecy in mainland Europe, and even in the USA and Canada?

I have to take issue with one part here though:

It is not Israel's role or desire to liberate Northern Cyprus. However, if the threat from the area reaches a critical threshold, Israel's strategic posture must shift. Israel, in coordination with Greece and Cyprus, must prepare a contingency operation for liberating the island's north. Such an operation would neutralize Turkish reinforcement capabilities from the mainland, eliminate air-defense systems in Northern Cyprus, destroy intelligence and command centers, and finally remove Turkish forces, restoring internationally recognized Cypriot sovereignty.

Oh for heaven's sake. That's ludicrous to imply Israel shouldn't play a part in seeking to free Northern Cyprus from the jihadist poison still lurking there. By Gal's logic there, Israel shouldn't have taken part in WW2, nor come to defense of Druze/Christian inhabitants in Syria. Let's be clear. While security forces in Cyprus obviously shouldn't ignore this, that doesn't mean Israel shouldn't be ready to act upon such an issue either. Islamic jihadism is everyone's concern, and the situation's only gotten worse everywhere, including in Europe. If we fail to act on behalf of innocent non-Jews, we're failing every innocent European during WW2. And failure to act only fuels antisemitic accusations that Jews "don't care" about anyone but themselves. We can't afford such possibilities, no matter what. So, Israel should help Cyprus put a stop to the Turkish monster at the north end of the island, and not just to protect Israel itself. Even non-Jews are in danger of Turkey's own atrocities.

Update: Middle East Forum, interestingly, says that Turkey's grip on the northern area is deteriorating, and we should not reinforce it. Absolutely correct, and all must be done to get Turkey's overlords off the island.

Trump now declares "ceasefire" between Israel and Iran, but it'll be dangerous if it gives the mullahs a lifeline

President Donald Trump had a "ceasefire" brokered by the emir of Qatar for Iran to stop firing their missiles at Israel, which would enable the latter to stop fighting as well. But seriously, as bad as it's been that Iran would fire at Israel, and has cost innocent lives, is that what we're really after? The op-ed says:

This leaves us at FrontPageMag wondering: Does this mean that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism can get back to its business of terror? Will the terror regime cease and desist from its chants of “Death to America” — and renounce its ideology of our nation being the “Big Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan”? And what happens when Iran goes back to its terror business?

Finally, is the world simply going to stand by and observe the Iranian tyrants continue torturing their own people?

Islamic law stipulates that Muslim forces do not ask for a truce unless they are losing and need time to gather strength so that they can fight again more effectively later. A ceasefire with Muslim terrorists just allows them to regroup for the next war. What guarantee is there or could there possibly be that the Islamic Republic will not continue pursuing its goals of destroying Israel and America as well?

And how does all of this fit with Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi warning the West, on Monday morning, against throwing the Iranian regime a lifeline, stressing that doing so would cause more bloodshed and chaos?

Those are solid points right there. Also note that just shortly after the announcement, Iran fired more missiles at Israel, and one cost 5 lives in Be'er Sheva. That it was ostensibly a "safe" room didn't avail.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will respond to any violations, but what really matters is if the ayatollah regime can be brought down, and again, is the western public really going to turn their backs upon what sadism could be inflicted upon innocent people in Iran, if the dictatorship continues? Well that's exactly what's disturbing to think about, and it can't be overlooked or ignored.

Update: and now, at 10:30am, after the time the "ceasefire" was supposed to have taken place, it was violated with at least one more missile:

Sirens sounded across northern Israel shortly after 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, after Iran launched a ballistic missile toward Israeli territory.

The IDF called on the public to follow the instructions of the Home Front Command and stated that the IAF was operating to intercept and strike where necessary to eliminate the threat.

The missile was assumed to have been intercepted; no injuries or fallen projectiles were reported.

The launch came three and a half hours after a ceasefire between Israel and Iran went into effect.

Minister of Defense Israel Katz condemned the violation of the ceasefire and stated: "In light of Iran's blatant violation of the ceasefire declared by the President of the United States, and the launch of missiles toward Israel—and in accordance with the Israeli government's policy to respond forcefully to any violation—I have instructed the IDF, in coordination with the Prime Minister, to continue the intensified strike operations in Tehran, targeting regime assets and terrorist infrastructure in the city. This follows the actions carried out yesterday."

Undoubtably, more action will be required in Tehran itself, to destroy all government infrastructure there, if that's what helps take down the mullah regime, and Khameini should be punished for his own part in the evils too. Here's more on the latest news.

Update 2: this is very unpleasant to discover Trump resorted to moral equivalence:

Allegations Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel early Tuesday morning more than two hours after the ceasefire began, which Tehran denied even as Israel announced a response, has drawn criticism of both parties by President Donald Trump.

[...] Now Trump has intervened, saying both Israel and Iran violated ceasefire terms with attacks following an early Tuesday deadline to cease hostilities, declaring “they both don’t know what the fuck they are doing.”

Trump made the comments to reporters at the White House before departing for the NATO summit at The Hague. He expressed disappointment about the continued attacks, adding he did not like that Israel had “unloaded” right after they agreed to end hostilities.

“They violated it but Israel violated it too,” Trump said. He added, ”I’m not happy with Israel.”

Trump further ordered Israel to cease and desist with its response, using his social media outlet Truth Social to deliver the message.

Well this is very disturbing, because moral equivalence is one of the most dangerous tactics of the modern world, and it reminds me that recently, Trump got India to refrain from going to war with Pakistan, even after a terrorist attack that resulted in several people murdered. This does a terrible disfavor to Israeli victims, and implies Israel is not allowed to take penalizing measures against Iran, even after a ceasefire violation, and the same can be said about how Trump handled the India issue. This is very troubling, and it'll remain to be seen how Netanyahu intends to discuss this going forward.

Update 3: Netanyahu may have agreed with Trump, but sought to set the record straight on the issue. And a valid point can be made that Trump's not doing the right thing by letting Iran's attack on a USA base in Qatar go without severe response.

Hayden Daniel upholds "isolationism", yet calls Mark Levin a "neocon"

Wow, I thought it was bad enough when the Federalist's senior editor, John Daniel Davidson, was opposing wars to defeat evil entities, and practically saying what followers of Islam would want to hear. Now, prior to when Donald Trump approved of US military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, Hayden Daniel wrote similar blabber, claiming they're nothing more than "forever wars", and even calling Mark Levin a "neocon", which happens to be the description best applied to right-wingers who uphold isolationism. Here's what Daniel says:

Now, Mark Levin, in his zealous crusade to push the United States into directly joining Israel’s strikes against Iran, has invoked the most tired and most misconstrued talking point related to the Second World War: appeasement.

Levin’s screed (it’s far too light on substance to be called an op-ed), titled “Isolationism is the same as appeasement — and it’s keeping Trump, Netanyahu from transforming the Middle East,” does little more than launch ad hominem attacks and provide a masterclass in projection. It’s amazing to read sentences like these: “They’re too self-righteous in their ignorance to realize how absurd they sound. … In fact, they’re so blind and self-important that they don’t see the new foreign policy taking place in real time, right in front of their eyes!” and not even detect even a hint of self-awareness from a man who is advocating for the United States to become stuck in yet another Middle East quagmire.

Remember how all those other times our attempts to “transform” the Muslim world worked out so well?

Afraid that his readers won’t be convinced by merely insulting the intelligence of so-called “isolationists,” Levin tries to morally blackmail any potential skeptics by blowing the appeasement dog whistle as loudly as he can. “There’s nothing new or good about isolationism, which, in a word, is appeasement. It’s old and promotes war, such as World War II,” he writes bluntly.

Or, more specifically, enables barbarism to take hold. It's already happening in Africa, with Christian communities being slaughtered by jihadists, and all the while, Mr. Daniel and his ilk say nothing, and practically erase the existence of the victims of jihadism. Is that also what Daniel and company think following September 11, 2001 to boot?

What Mr. Daniel and company fail to understand is that refusing in any way, shape or form to convince the Islamic world to abandon adherence to the Religion of Peace is the reason for failure in the middle east. Not to mention failure to promote belief systems that emphasize vigilance against evil along with respect for human dignity and demand the inhabitants, especially leader figures, take them up and follow those instead? Unwillingness to firmly make such points is exactly why we still have the crisis of Islam on our hands. Daniel continues:

It seems like whenever very reasonable people object to yet another forever war, neocons crawl out of the woodwork to screech “appeasement!” to try to cow their foreign policy opponents into embarrassed silence. If you don’t agree with the neocons’ next regime-change project, you’re no better than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who meekly gave in to Adolf Hitler in 1938 and emboldened Nazi aggression — thereby unleashing all of the devastation that ravaged Europe. If you don’t believe in toppling tinpot dictator No. 12, installing an American puppet state, and sacrificing untold amounts of American blood and treasure, you, specifically, are setting the stage for another World War II, another Holocaust. At least, that’s the implication.

Notice that the columnist totally obscures another issue one could make a more valid case about - that Trump would make any kind of deal with Syria's new autocrat, al-Sharaa. Nobody on the left said anything about that, and the real neocons-in-negative-sense like Mr. Daniel haven't either. If he's a Christian adherent, he's sold out Syria's adherents as well. And then, Mr. Daniel has the shame to smear Levin as a neocon?!? I think Levin denied in subsequent TV broadcasts the whole notion he's a neocon, one more reason why Daniel practically owes an apology to Levin for this blatant attack on his belief that the USA cannot stand idly by while tyranny, nuclear, physical or otherwise, exists in any way. Perhaps the Federalist should be renamed the Defeatist if this is what they're going to embrace now, and even before this, there were some very fishy articles they published that obscured the topic of Islamofascism in France, in example, and even normalized it when talking about LGBT propaganda being shoved down everyone's throats. What good does that do? It will not change the viewpoint of Islamists regarding Jews one bit. Next thing you know, if neo-nazism had institutions in the USA, they'd whitewash such a movement if that's what it took to battle against LGBT ideology, and even communism would abruptly get a pass. The Federalist is really going to the dogs now.

On which note, Elle Purnell may have more restrained, but tragically, she too appears to be siding with the Tucker Carlson crowd, no matter how subtle she tries to be. And she says:

Insofar as Cruz and others who cite the Abrahamic covenant in foreign policy discussions are advocating for general goodwill and moral support toward Israel and against homicidal Iranian clerics, that’s not controversial among Christians. Nor is the fact that America and Israel’s relationship as strong political allies commands a certain level of support from the sidelines.

But it is something else entirely to insist that God’s promise to Abraham in the Old Testament requires the United States government to base its political decisions on the objectives of the 21st-century Israeli nation-state. Taken to extremes, that would mean the United States has an obligation to make foreign policy decisions, no matter how much they may contradict the interests of the United States, based on whether those decisions benefit the nation-state of Israel.

Here's the problem: she doesn't acknowledge that the Religion of Peace is a serious issue that can't be taken lightly or allowed to reign, even today, in countries like Saudi Arabia. Or, she doesn't acknowledge that the most vital reason to battle Iran is because such religiously-influenced barbarism cannot be ignored. It doesn't have to be based on biblical beliefs in order to make a point. Yet Purnell does little better than Daniel in addressing the topic. If you think Cruz's approach is flawed, that's one thing. But ignoring what the Religion of Peace is built upon does nothing to improve the argument, and is exactly why we're at this point in history now.

As it so happens, Melanie Phillips wrote about the troubles with neocons as described in this particular era, and even before, and how they're still a serious problem themselves:

Earlier this week, an out-and-out antisemite was revealed to be holding a senior position in the Pentagon.

In an exclusive story on JNS, Washington correspondent Andrew Bernard revealed that Col. Nathan McCormack, the Levant and Egypt branch chief at the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s J5 planning directorate, had referred publicly to Israel as a “death cult”.

In April, he suggested that the United States “might be Israel’s proxy and not realised it yet”.

In May, he wrote: “Netanyahu and his Judeo-supremacist cronies are determined to prolong the conflict for their own goals: either to remain in power or to annex the land.”

Within hours of the story appearing, McCormack was moved to another position while the Pentagon investigated. Questions may well be asked about how such an individual could be appointed to a senior defence post.

However, the main thrust of his noxious assertions has long been a widespread view in Western establishment circles and has even been legitimised in public debate. This is the belief that the Jews manipulate governments and drag them into foreign wars that serve Jewish interests at the expense of others losing their lives.

This is, of course, a classic blood libel that stretches back into antiquity. Today, it’s found on both the left and right.

“The US must make it clear that we will not be dragged into another Netanyahu war,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), echoed by members of the progressive “Squad” in the US House of Representatives. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said: “We cannot let [Israel’s prime minister] drag our country into a war with Iran.”

For his part, McCormack referenced the 2007 book by authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which accused the pro-Israel lobby in America of shaping its foreign policy to support Israel in ways that harmed the United States.

Although the Anti-Defamation League called the book “a classical conspiratorial antisemitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control,” the authors continued to be treated with respect in academic circles as “realists”.

The isolationism that gives rise to such views has a long lineage in America. It was in dismaying evidence during the 1930s and 1940s, when Nazism was plunging Europe into darkness.

Most notoriously, the celebrity aviator Charles Lindbergh announced at an America First rally in 1941 that the Jews were “pressing this country toward war” and trying to “force a free and independent people into war against its will”.

So back in WW2, a certain creep was employing the "America First" slogan for bad purposes. By contrast, Trump didn't do that when he argued in favor of putting the USA's internal concerns first. He just meant that security and business matters, along with local workers, are the ones that should matter. Trump's position in no way whatsoever made foreigners in distress out to look like their lives were worthless, in contrast to Lindbergh, who clearly didn't give a damn if Islam was leading to the deaths of innocent people in the middle east either. And lest we forget the National Socialists collaborated with the Religion of Peace decades before too.

Those who were against the US invasion of Iraq tendentiously blamed it on “the neocons”. This was code for “the Jews,” because a number of influential “neocon” analysts who supported the war happened to be Jewish.

The false claim that Israel had taken America to war in Iraq became a common meme on both sides of the Atlantic. In 2004, Thomas Friedman wrote that Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, had President George W. Bush “under house arrest in the Oval Office”.

In London, a British colonel told me that “Ariel Sharon has his hand up Bush’s back” — and was astonished when I replied that Israel had told the United States it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the greatest danger.

Well both Bush and Sharon turned out to be a very bad lot in their own ways, and took actions that got Israel to where it's at now. Let's not forget that. Neither one deserves any genuine awards like statues or institutions named after them, as a result. Neither did anything genuine to prevent Islamofascism from gaining more footholds, and thanks to that, this is exactly why we're now dealing with rocket attacks from Iran. Somehow, I doubt Sharon would give a damn, recalling he began his undeserved career as more of a leftist.

Anyway, the Federalist, much like other sites, has now published a report on the air strike the USAF conducted, and also noted:

Trump has long said Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has favored negotiation and peace talks between Iran and Israel. But Iran has been unwilling to engage in a discussion that would lead to dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

The United States is reportedly the only country with so-called bunker-buster bombs large enough to potentially penetrate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites and the aircraft capable of delivering those bombs. Bunker-busters were needed to destroy the Fordow nuclear site, which was tunneled deep under a mountain in Iran.

Note that their report appears neutral, which is probably what to expect now that their shoddy opposition to destroying Iran's nuclear labs has been mooted. But it doesn't mean they're reevaluating, and that's sad. Regarding the whole description of neocons, I thought years ago it alluded to possible liberals who became supporters of conservatism. And, it quite possibly did. But now, we have a new problem emerging with defeatists who're hijacking the very slogan for bad purposes, and then the Federalist makes things worse by lecturing us that figures like Levin are neocons?!? Well that just proves how mendacious the actual neocons in this particular case really are. First take a certain slang and sully it, then pretend it's the folks who want to defeat barbarism who're neocons instead. What's the world coming to?

I'll give the Federalist staff credit for once acknowledging in the past that the first leaders of the modern Israeli state were sadly communists who'd acted sadistically towards their conservative rivals. But these latest op-eds make clear the site's writers are deteriorating in terms of objectivity, and from what I've noticed, their comprehension of Islam is very unclear, if at all. That's why I can't support their site anymore on a regular basis, because they're not being sufficient realists.