The US-Iran War Has Begun

[Khamon]

In the meantime what we do know is bad news for Netanyahu, because part of the deal is an end of the war in Lebanon.

Israel will simply ignore the clause, if it’s actually in the treaty, if a treaty is ever actually constructed and signed. The latter is not very likely. But Israel has in the past ignored cease fire agreements that other countries have ratified. They will not adhere to the US and Iran agreeing that the war in Lebanon is ended.

 

[Free]

The tremendous amounts of time Obama lives rent free in Trump's psyche...

 

[Free]

@danjasdebowy.bsky.social

Macron offered Trump the use of Versailles to sign an unconditional surrender, in the most elaborate prank played on a Germanic by a Gaul in over 1700 years. [contains quote post or other embedded content]

bsky.app

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Early Lessons From The US-Iran War

The Three Key Analytical Points So Far

phillipspobrien.substack.com

Evernote Link

He suggests that:

• The United States is weaker than many assumed.
  The US performed badly militarily, failed to secure strategic gains, alienated allies diplomatically, and revealed deep domestic political division rather than a unifying “rally round the flag” response.
  
  
• Cheap, mass-produced weapons can outweigh small numbers of advanced systems.
  The US relied too heavily on costly missiles and air-defence systems against cheaper Iranian drones and missiles, rapidly depleting expensive stocks. His broader point is that modern warfare rewards industrial capacity, affordability, and large quantities—not merely technologically superior but scarce equipment.
  
  
• Individual leaders matter more than abstract “national interests.”
  The idea that states act rationally in pursuit of a consistent national interest is mistaken. Instead, he argues that wars often reflect the personal motives, perceptions, and ambitions of particular leaders—using Trump and Putin as examples of leaders choosing wars without overwhelming domestic or strategic necessity.

 

[Noodles]

There is, we are told, a Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the US, to be signed electronically on Friday.




Does the term have any greater significance in the US?

Not sure but I have heard it used at work, mostly between my employer and the "technically a seperate company" people who do building maitenence.

The impression I got there was ita basically "We will promise to try to do X this way but you also have to promise to try to do Y this way.". But its not mecesarily a binding contractual agreement. More... an understanding of convenience.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Early Lessons From The US-Iran War

The Three Key Analytical Points So Far

phillipspobrien.substack.com

Evernote Link

He suggests that:

• The United States is weaker than many assumed.
  The US performed badly militarily, failed to secure strategic gains, alienated allies diplomatically, and revealed deep domestic political division rather than a unifying “rally round the flag” response.

Building on what he said: prior to the war: Hegseth and Trump decimated American military leadership in the name of anti woke/DEI nonsense and put a massive emphasis on promoting loyalists even if they were dumb as rocks. Excuse my use of Godwin's law, but I remember hearing about how everyone was shocked by Hitler's top military picks because he favored loyalty over competence in a very blatant way.

Trump also couldn't possibly have done a worse job of rallying allies and even much of his own party behind this war. Made Bush look like a diplomatic genius by comparison. Bush had many flaws, but made a real effort to get allies to back him and was partly successful for a while. Even some small countries provided token support to curry favor. Nobody even pretended to support the USA's invasion of Iran because why should they???

In short, Trump fumbled this in every possible way. I feel like there was barely even an effort to sell this war to Americans other than just expecting his own party to follow him to hell and back.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Just to add to the omnishambles,

No UN sanctions lifting on Iran without France's approval, foreign minister says

PARIS, June 19 (Reuters) - France wants to play a role in talks dealing with Iran's nuclear programme and will not approve the lifting of UN sanctions unless it is satisfied by the terms of a final accord, ‌its foreign minister said on Friday.

Jean-Noel Barrot, whose country is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, told broadcaster franceinfo there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. talks with Iran also dealt with Iran's ballistic missile programme and support for proxies.

"The return for major concessions that will be asked of ⁠Iran is the lifting of sanctions, sanctions that were taken at the United Nations," he said.

"France is a permanent member of the United Nations (Security Council) so as was the case 10 years ago, France will have to give its approval for the sanctions to be lifted.

 

[Cristiano]

What a shock. Trump's big mouth and Israel's big bloodthirst blew up the negotiations again:

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

• Cheap, mass-produced weapons can outweigh small numbers of advanced systems.
  The US relied too heavily on costly missiles and air-defence systems against cheaper Iranian drones and missiles, rapidly depleting expensive stocks. His broader point is that modern warfare rewards industrial capacity, affordability, and large quantities—not merely technologically superior but scarce equipment.

Now that's really an ancient lesson, which repeatedly happened in history.

This guy here for example was Kaiser Maximilian I. of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. He became king in 1486 and emperor in 1508, then died in 1519. Image by Dürer.

This was the time when the legendary Götz von Berlichingen was still alive. Berlichingen was in fact his subordinate, because as knight he only had to report to the king/emperor.

This emperor had 3 nick names:

- der letzte Ritter (the last knight)
- des Reiches Erzkanonier (First cannoneer of the empire)
- Vater der Landsknechte (father of the landknechts).

So quite the contradiction, what happened? The invention of gun powder happened. Maximilian wanted to improve how battle are fought, so he invested a lot into cannons. This is what gained him the nick name of first canonneer.

The last knight came from his favorite past time to held knight tournaments. So he loved knights still for tournaments, but not any longer as modern method of warfare. In his eyes it took way to long to train one, and there equipment was too expensive as well.

And since armored knights no longer made sense in this new era of warfare he invented the Landsknechts as new form of foot soldier: their weaponry was valuable, the soldiers a dime a dozen.

Maximilian liked his soldiers to be plentiful available and cheap. All this together put the knights to an end. So that cheap stuff outweighs small numbers of expensive stuff is a lesson he already knew back then.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Now that's really an ancient lesson, which repeatedly happened in history.

This guy here for example was Kaiser Maximilian I. of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. He became king in 1486 and emperor in 1508, then died in 1519. Image by Dürer.

This was the time when the legendary Götz von Berlichingen was still alive. Berlichingen was in fact his subordinate, because as knight he only had to report to the king/emperor.

This emperor had 3 nick names:

- der letzte Ritter (the last knight)
- des Reiches Erzkanonier (First cannoneer of the empire)
- Vater der Landsknechte (father of the landknechts).

So quite the contradiction, what happened? The invention of gun powder happened. Maximilian wanted to improve how battle are fought, so he invested a lot into cannons. This is what gained him the nick name of first canonneer.

The last knight came from his favorite past time to held knight tournaments. So he loved knights still for tournaments, but not any longer as modern method of warfare. In his eyes it took way to long to train one, and there equipment was too expensive as well.

And since armored knights no longer made sense in this new era of warfare he invented the Landsknechts as new form of foot soldier: their weaponry was valuable, the soldiers a dime a dozen.

Maximilian liked his soldiers to be plentiful available and cheap. All this together put the knights to an end. So that cheap stuff outweighs small numbers of expensive stuff is a lesson he already knew back then.

Or before that, in The battle of Crécy (1346), when English longbowmen routed repeated cavalry charges by heavily armoured French knights, killing well over 1000 nobles (and one king, John of Bohemia) and thousands of French infantry, with the English losing 200 men at most, and probably far fewer.

 

[detrius]

And before that, war chariots were made obsolete by cavalry, mounted archers and infantry units.

 

[Free]

Before that, thrown spears with flint rock heads overtook stones picked up off the ground and swung about by hand.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Before that, thrown spears with flint rock heads overtook stones picked up off the ground and swung about by hand.

That's the other way round, though -- replacing cheap, readily available, weapons (stones picked up from the ground) with more specialised equipment (spears with flint heads, prepared earlier).

I thought the Crécy parallel was apt because, as with both Ukraine vs Russia and Iran vs US, massed attacks and defences using cheap weaponry defeated expensive and specialist equipment -- mounted knights in heavy armour, who were very expensive to equip and train and who would have easily overcome the archers if they reached the English lines, were devastated by a hail of arrows, shot by bowmen who were far cheaper to equip and who were, during peacetime, non-specialist farmers and labourers.

The point about the English and Welsh archers wasn't that they were particularly accurate when shooting at a target (forget Robin Hood) but that they could rapidly and repeatedly loose off arrows to a given range within 10 feet or so, thus creating a lethal arrow storm the attacking knights rode straight into.

 

[Free]

Conservative meda pundit concedes his idiocy.

CNN was right about the war, and I was wrong

Conservative media often direct a lot of ire at the “mainstream press” for getting it wrong — and they are often right. But it is only fair to acknowledge that conservative media get it wrong, too.

And when it comes to President Trump’s disastrous attempt this year at playing war chief, a whole lot of conservatives got it wrong, this author included.

 

[Free]

New cope from Iran hawks: Once the midterms pass, Trump will attack Iran again

www.mediamatters.org

The right-wing hawks who applauded Donald Trump for launching the war with Iran earlier this year are adopting a new argument to avoid criticizing the president as he fumbles toward enacting a weaker, piecemeal version of the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal he once decried. According to their theory, the current negotiations are a sham: Trump is merely laying off the Iranian regime temporarily to forestall Republican defeat in the midterms and will resume hostilities after the November elections.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Possibly not unrelated ...

UK, France, Germany raise alarm about Chinese activities off eastern Taiwan

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Midweek Update #16: Negotiating Without Leverage And With Lies

What We Are Seeing Is Astonishing For The USA

phillipspobrien.substack.com

Because the US has no significant leverage over Iran, the Trump administration (as it has been for months, it needs to be said) will simply have to dissemble about non-existent Iranian concessions to try and make it seem that they have not been completely routed. And that is the second part of this update. The US government has reached the stage where the default assumption must be that it is lying when it comes to Iran making any concessions. For months the Administration has been claiming that Iran was agreeing to this concession or that concession—and none of these claims has been true. Now that the US has even less leverage, the lies will probably get larger.

We are witnessing the most extraordinary negotiating moment in the history of US foreign relations, and that alone makes it worthy of note.

Already the Iranians have supplemented their position enormously while the US is in a worse position than on Feb 27. Just as a short list of US concessions, much of which came out of the MOU which I broke down last week. Consider these points:

• The US now has legitimized and promised to support the IRGC government
• The US has given up any attempts to restrict Iran’s missile capacity
• The US has given up any attempts to limit Iran’s military industrial capacity
• The US is standing by as the IRGC executes numerous Iranians who rose up after Trump said he would support the Iranian people.
• The US is now pushing for Hezbollah not to be attacked
• The US is enthusiastically enabling the sale of Iranian oil on the world market
• The US is working to find ways to get billions of $’s sent to Iran

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Iran's national soccer team played against Belgium at 21st of June in Los Angeles. When they left later a hand written note from the soccer team was found in their dressing room, which says:

 

[Free]

It's sure nice to know that the war is over.

Iran talks on hold after fighting breaks out and Trump once again threatens annihilation

Iran says it targeted U.S. military facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain following U.S. strikes on targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

www.cnbc.com