In Maine. Speaking for reform candidates. Ones who will be a step in a correct way, against corruption and greed. These are things we each have heard before. It is a personal responsibility for each of us to act toward that goal, with passion, and knowledge we are right and the dissemblers and dividers are not.
Power to the people has long stood as a clear thing. We must make it a real thing. We owe each other that effort.
And Thomas Massie, a conservative Kentucky politician, now says he will read Epstien file names into the Congressional record. He lost his seat to millions of dollars and to Trump vengence. He has until January 20 of next year to work to unseat those who spent him into a vengence of his own.
And he is a clear Conservative Republican who got fucked over by his confederated peers and enemies, ememies because he did not bend enough to be seen as a roadblock to be dealth with harshly.
It is real what is needed, and there will be a strong fight back. We have numbers. The People outnumber the 1% that is setting the rules to keep them driving the car, and us watching it pass us by. That's wrong.
In late February, when he launched massive airstrikes against Iran,
Trump said his aims were to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, destroy
Tehran’s ballistic missiles, end its ability to threaten its neighbors
and, with luck, bring about “regime change.” More bluntly, in his words,
he sought “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”
Weeks
of U.S. and Israeli attacks succeeded in destroying Iran’s air force
and navy and reduced its arsenal of ballistic missiles, although the
degree of damage to the missile force has been debated.
[...] The result was a stalemate followed by a ceasefire and weeks of
negotiations that produced a “framework agreement”: a deal to end the
war, reopen the strait and begin longer negotiations that would limit
Iran’s nuclear program in return for relaxed U.S. economic sanctions.
It was a long way from unconditional surrender.
“The
deal is deeply flawed,” wrote Danny Citrinowicz, a former Iran analyst
at Israel’s defense intelligence agency. “But given the options
President Trump actually had, it was probably the least bad choice. …
Trump was forced to accept Iran’s terms because the alternatives were
even worse.”
Iran hawks in Washington reacted with fury.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
a former Trump appointee, charged that the deal being described would
“pay the [Iranian regime] to build a WMD program and terrorize the
world.”
“Not remotely America First,” he complained.
“If a deal is
struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the
Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected against Iranian terrorism … then
Iran will be perceived as being a dominant force,” warned Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.). “It makes one wonder why the war started.”
Mark
Dubowitz, a leading critic of past agreements with Iran, said the terms
of the deal that have been described so far sounded like “a foolish
agreement” under which “Iran would get real money, but they could
continue to close the strait any time they wanted simply by making
threats.” He said he hopes the final terms of the deal will turn out to
be tougher.
It seemed telling that Trump and his aides, who
declared weeks ago that the United States had won the war by every
measure, made no claims of victory this time.
Instead, the president reacted to his conservative critics with irritation. “Don’t listen to the losers,” he wrote on his social media site. “[The deal] isn’t even fully negotiated yet.”
[...] “The
net result of this war is significant damage to U.S. strategic
interests,” wrote Daniel B. Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to
Israel under President Obama. “That said, since the war was a mistake
from the beginning, we can at least be thankful it appears President
Trump is moving belatedly to end it.”
But Robert Kagan, a
conservative foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote
that a deal to reopen the strait while deferring the nuclear issue would
amount to a U.S. “surrender.”
“On
the present trajectory, Iran will emerge from the conflict many times
stronger and more influential than it was before the war,” Kagan wrote
in the Atlantic.
Despite the apparent progress toward a deal to
reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the gaps between the two countries on other
issues — Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. sanctions that have
crippled its economy — remain large.
When the war began, Trump’s
goals included completely eliminating the vestiges of Iran’s nuclear
program, [...] Instead of banning Iranian
nuclear activities completely, the recent talks have focused on
narrower, more achievable goals: a “suspension” of nuclear enrichment
for 20 years or less and removal or destruction of Iran’s highly
enriched uranium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.
“The
fact that we’re talking about a suspension of all enrichment, and the
question is whether it will be five years, 20 years or halfway in
between — that’s important,” said Nate Swanson, an Iran expert who
worked at the National Security Council under President Biden and Trump. [...] Swanson
said other issues, including Iran’s long-term nuclear research and its
advanced ballistic missiles, haven’t been addressed and will remain
points of contention between the two sides.
“An interim deal to
buy time [is] probably where we end up,” he said. “Buying time is not a
bad thing. Ending a war is not a bad thing. But it’s not a comprehensive
solution.”
Absent from the analysis - "regime change." Bibi was hot to trot on that, and it splatted all over him.
The Republican Guard - military was largely in charge before, and is more firmly in charge now, in Iran.
That, a rigid military dictatorship, is not necessarily bad. The Arabs across the Persian Gulf from Iran are not beacons of good statehood either. Sunni, Shia and China got them talking to one another before Bibi with Trump in tow moved to scuttle that. China is interesting. Since Mao's Cultural Revolution, they've not warred with anyone, and built infrastructure and quality electric automobiles. TSMC on the island makes chips for Nvidia and others, so the Chinese mind, both sides of the earlier civil war, needs respect.
Let Iran and the Arabs pump and ship oil in competition with the Brazilians, Mexicans, and Nigerians; and whoever else can do it cheaper than fracked US stuff, the Norwegians - a market that existed already, and tell the Trump oil oligarchs to just fuck off. That's policy, of a better kind than Trump - Rubio empire lust and such. Just get along. We've already, the US of A, lost too many wars, divided Korea, onward.
Try peace for a change. As Whats-his-name campaigned in the 2024 election. The guy sitting with somebody else's Nobel Prize. You know who I mean. The one with the Greenland fetish.
UPDATE: Apology for meaning to mention it sooner, letting it slip. Pompeo. That Christian Nationalist asshole - even Trump 47 gave him the cold shoulder after Trump 45. Trump showing a learning curve is not an entirely bad thing. But Trump only switched Christian Nationalists, Pompeo out, Hegseth in. Both vomit-worthy sicko sociopaths. (Opinions may differ. But really should not.)
Unfortunately, Donald Trump is no President Reagan or Lady Thatcher.
While I agree with his economic and homeland security policies, I've
never been a fan of his national security policies. For instance,
Russia's war with Ukraine continues with no end in sight. Our was with
Iran continues with no end in sight. In both instances, all I see are
endless negotiations. I get it that we don't want endless wars. Still,
what's the upside of endless negotiations? High gas prices for longer
times isn't an upside. No certainty in the world's most volatile region
isn't an upside, either.
When asked by a reporter what his
strategy was towards the Soviets, President Reagan replied "Simple. We
win. They lose." President Reagan understood that there'd be a time for
negotiations. President Reagan also understood that he wouldn't
negotiate with Gorbachev until he'd scared the daylights out of
Gorbachev. You can't scare the daylights out of the IRGC. They're
messianic. They dream of meeting their 72 virgins.
According to this Fox News article, [...] TRANSLATION: More
Trump happy talk. When will Iran surrender their enriched uranium? When
will the IRGC surrender? Without those questions answered, we're
nowhere. [...]
I'll be clear. I HOPE
I'm wrong. It's just that I've seen the IRGC play President Trump for
the fool too often. I'll believe it when the last I is dotted and the
last T is crossed on the surrender/exile agreement is finished. Until
then, I'll be skeptical of President Trump.
They shouldn't be negotiating. They should either be telling the IRGC to surrender or face immediate annihilation.
Gary also posted part of a Trump tweet. Same old, but Gary took offense.
There likely are warhawks in Congress, and Trump, while talking peace, is angering those who say it's a surrender. The document is discussed, but not signed, not released in draft form, and likely does not exist.
Lipstick on a pig is the cliche that first comes to mind. Go to war, then hang it up, for this?
There will be some saying that, no matter what the deal in final form is. But for now, it looks like an Iranian win, Trump using the lipstick poorly. Nobody fooled. Iran in the driver's seat.
When will the Strait be opened? On what terms? What of Uranium enrichment, past near weapon grade, future uncertainty? Isreal a stumbling block? Gary on a high horse. Cruz up there too.
UPDATE: oilprice.com --- here and here. Bibi and Trump really fucked things up masterfully. Also, here.
FURTHER: Cargill is headquartered in Minnesota, but worldwide in operation. Storage is a question, how much and how good, in the light of Strait-based ag uncertainty; see, e.g., here.
Trump-favored US oil interests might be pressing for a longer closure with subsequent higher and longer profits for their business. If so, the expectation is they would hide such a policy.
Does "great and meaningful" mean long and drawn out? Trump-speak often has a meaning behind the actual words used, often close to or beyond greatly bending truth. In part - from the start -
A
billboard in Vanak Square in Tehran depicts the Strait of Hormuz with a
caption in Persian reading, "Forever in Iran's hand" [Atta Kenare/AFP]
United
States President Donald Trump says a deal with Iran would either be
“meaningful” or there would be “no deal”, days after claiming an
agreement with Tehran had been “largely negotiated” to end the nearly
three-month war.
“The deal with Iran will either be a great and
meaningful one, or there will be no deal,” he wrote on his social media
platform Truth Social on Monday.
Washington
and Tehran have observed a ceasefire since April 8 while mediators push
for a negotiated settlement although Iran has continued to block the
Strait of Hormuz to most shipping and the US has blockaded Iran’s ports.
Earlier
on Monday, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil
Baghaei said Iran and the US “have reached a conclusion on a large
portion of the discussion topics” but warned that “this does not mean
that the signing of an agreement is imminent.”
Addressing a news
conference in Tehran, Baghaei also emphasised that at this stage, Iran
and the US have not been “talking about the nuclear issue” and their
focus is “on ending the war”, which began on February 28.
Those links to other AJ reports were left in the quote, as they look interesting. Readers may wish to follow up on linked content. I have no idea what "Persian-Style" means, nor how Trump might talk around it.
UPDATE - Bibi troops still run amok in Labanon, and a deal without addressing that would be a strange deal, with Iran seeming disinclined to go that way.
Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera senior correspondent in Washington said: “The
President has repeatedly claimed that Tehran has agreed to various
concessions, only for Iranian officials to deny them. Many argue Trump’s
calculus shifted over the last 24 hours following sharp blowback from
his own base, with critics warning that a weak deal would make the
entire military campaign a waste of time.”
See, Crabgrass here, quoting from a Minnesota Republican-leaning blogger. We await a big, beautiful deal with Iran - which could take a long time to be born. Give it, like a human gestation situation, nine months to be born? Would US big oil find that too long, or too short, from their wishes and perspective?
Demand
from China is driving much of the increase in Brazilian exports, with
Chinese imports of Brazilian crude averaging about 1.316 million bpd
between January and May this year, compared with about 704,000bpd in
2025, according to Kpler data.
In dollar terms, official data
compiled by the Brazil-China Business Council shows that the value of
Brazil’s crude exports to China surged by almost 95 percent to $7.2bn in
the first quarter of this year.
Meanwhile, India has also sharply
increased purchases, with its imports averaging about 238,000bpd
between January and May, up from roughly 100,000bpd in 2025, according
to Kpler. In April, Brazil became India’s fourth-largest crude supplier.
“China and India, along with other Asian
countries, need non-Hormuz alternatives that are politically safer and
physically available,” Ritolia said.
“Brazil’s medium-sweet
pre-salt grades fit many Asian refinery slates, and Asian buyers are
competing for barrels not exposed to Gulf shipping risk.”
India’s
demand is also being driven by rising fuel consumption at home, unlike
China, which has pivoted more heavily to electric vehicles (EVs).
India
also has less flexibility to absorb a prolonged disruption through
strategic reserves, meaning refiners have a stronger incentive to keep
crude flowing if supplies are available and profitable.
What about countries beyond China and India?
Brazil is also looking to deepen energy ties elsewhere in Asia.
Foreign
Minister Mauro Vieira said last week that Brazil is “ready to
contribute to the energy safety of Japan” through increased crude
exports, adding that Petrobras was prepared to expand its presence
there.
The comments came as Brazil steps up diplomatic and
economic engagement across Asia, including with South Korea, Japan and
other Southeast Asian countries.
[...]
What other constraints exist on Brazilian oil?
Distance
is a major issue for Brazilian exports of oil to Asia. Shipping crude
from Brazil to China can take roughly 50 days – far longer than Gulf
routes – increasing freight costs and tying up tankers in an already
strained shipping market.
Russia could also become a stronger
competitor later this year as Arctic shipping routes reopen seasonally.
Cargoes travelling from Russia’s Arctic terminals to China can take
almost half the time of the Brazil-China route.
Last week, the US also announced another 30-day extension of a sanctions waiver on Russian oil and petroleum products already loaded onto tankers at sea.
That could make floating Russian crude more attractive to Asian buyers in the coming months.
“Brazil
helps diversify crude imports for Asian countries, but its role as an
alternative supplier remains capped by Brazil’s overall crude supply
growth, freight economics, and competition from buyers in Europe and the
US,” Ritolia said.
[Sumit Ritolia, is identified early in the report as a specialist in modelling refinery and oil markets, and is extensively quoted.]
“As
a result, Brazil is a meaningful marginal alternative for Asia during
periods of supply disruption, but it is unlikely to become a structural
replacement for Middle Eastern crude in the long term.”
From that, it appears tankers are taking a route apart from the Panama Canal, given size beyond the bounds of the Canal. Whether the Strait of Magellan is tried, or a long cross-Atlantic route favored was unclear from the report. Crabgrass guesses cross-Atlantic and South of South Africa, into the Indian Ocean as a route of cheaper vessel insurance and lower risk.
[The Crabgrass headline quote is taken from inside the AJ report.]
The speech is as it is, and is posted first. The candidate is, however, not unidimensional, with no struggles on an easy past, and just gives a good speech, and could catch Potomac fever if sent to DC. The Crabgrass outlook is not likely any change for the worse.
The story is more complicated than that. This is a legitimate candidate running because the chance came up and a very real sense of responsibility held, if he passed it up as an easy choice to dodge controversy and live out a happy life, he'd have lost something as a person at a time hard effort is required.
For a deeper view of the man's character, this interview. He had a time fighting his devils, making trust in him a far easier thing to feel. Don't be turned off by the video titling. You have an individual with a gounding to his life, which he tells as not having been an easy trip, to get to his candicacy.
Check it all out. And hope the ready guns of keeping people "in their place" do not take him out of the equation. We need Senators such as he'd be, presuming I judge correctly. Please follow those two links. Find the time. This is in its way an epic moment.
