Pharaoh Gamma.

I GROK it.

@MPPregent @RichardHaass

1. Tehran and Doha funded al-Qaeda and Shia militias in Iraq. 2. Tehran and Doha funded al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 3. Tehran and Doha funded Hamas operations against Israel. 4. These strikes against the regime in Iran are not a repeat of the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan - those wars were prolonged by Tehran and Doha's support of designated terrorists. 5. These strikes end the ability for Tehran to fund future wars. 6. We have a partner in the Iranian people and only they can topple the regime - we can make sure the regime can't regroup, refit, rearm, and reestablish regime control. 7. This is not Iraq, Libya, or Syria. This is Iran, where a people have said enough to the regime funding forever wars. 8. With the regime gone, Qatar becomes the standout State Sponsor of Terror. Little Doha does not want the stage - the lights are too bright and the curtain will be pulled back.

13 reasons i am worried about what we have set in motion in Iran. as a rule, successful regime change is easier to call for than carry out, as iraq, afghanistan, & Libya all teach. open.substack.com/pub/richardhaa…

The Strait of Hormuz: It Must Be Open to All or Closed to All (March 18, 2026) by Richard Haas @RichardHaass First, let me explain how I reached this point. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the aspect of the war that most affects the rest of the world. This narrow international waterway, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally travels, is now under Iranian control. Little tanker traffic is moving, which more than anything else explains the sharp increase in oil and gas prices resulting from the decrease in global supply. Iran is only permitting vessels carrying its oil and gas to China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India to pass. Meanwhile, shipping from other regional producers bound for Europe and Asia has been shut down. If the status quo persists, it will cripple the economies of Iran’s neighbors, trigger inflation and recession in many countries, and lead to massive food shortages worldwide due to a shortage of fertilizer. The United States has put forward a vague plan for escorting shipping through the Strait and asked its allies to join in. The answer, unsurprisingly, was a resounding “no,” reflecting both the lack of consultation that preceded this war and European unhappiness with other policies (above all tariffs and insufficient support for Ukraine) associated with the Trump administration’s poor treatment of America’s allies. Allied reluctance to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz also stems from doubts about the mission itself. Protecting tankers and cargo vessels would put naval ships and their crews in harm’s way, exposing them to Iranian drones, speedboats, mines, and missiles. It would require a large number of naval vessels and aircraft to escort the tankers. Even if successful, the effort would allow only a small amount of oil to reach the world. In short, a great deal of effort, risk, and cost would yield little result. Another option under discussion is seizing Kharg Island, Iran’s principal export terminal for oil and liquefied natural gas at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. Seizing and holding Kharg would be a difficult military operation requiring U.S. ground forces, which would generate additional political controversy at home (especially given widespread dissatisfaction with the war). Substantial casualties would be inevitable, and the mission would further erode U.S. missile stockpiles. The operation could stimulate a pro-government response in Iran and would likely be seen by many there and around the world as a U.S. attempt to seize Iranian oil. A third option would be to include opening the Strait of Hormuz as part of a broader negotiation to end the war. The problem is that such a negotiation would take considerable time, as it would inevitably involve other contentious issues, including a ceasefire, Iran’s nuclear program, its missile and drone programs, its support for proxies, Iran’s demands for reparations and sanctions relief, and U.S. military withdrawal from the region. Conducting negotiations while the Strait remains closed would give Iran additional leverage to extract maximum concessions. Any negotiation has also become much more difficult due to Israel’s targeted killings of high-ranking Iranian leaders. Delay works against U.S. interests, as the economic costs of the closure mount. One other approach merits consideration: the United States could end its involvement in the war and leave the Strait issue to others. Trump has posted a statement to this effect. But declaring “mission accomplished” does not make it so. The United States would not be immune from the global economic consequences of higher energy prices, and leaving friends and partners to deal with the fallout from a policy over which they had little or no say would undermine confidence in U.S. reliability—quite possibly leading to more frequent conflict, expanded Chinese influence, and nuclear proliferation. Against this backdrop, the time has come to consider an alternative: the United States (ideally with political and military support from allies in the region, Europe, and Asia, which would likely be forthcoming given their energy insecurity) should adopt a policy toward the Strait of Hormuz summarized as “Open for All or Closed to All.” Under this policy, the United States and its partners would announce that no tanker from Iran would be permitted to reach its destination until Iran ceases its threats to and attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait. In other words, Iran cannot pick and choose who gets the region’s oil and who does not. Achieving this would require establishing an effective defensive line across the 200-mile-wide Gulf of Oman, using ships, aircraft, and drones patrolling well outside the Strait. An aircraft carrier and access to local bases would also be needed. Commercial vessels refusing to stop at the line would be disabled. Governments with title to the vessels or expecting delivery would receive advance notice of the new policy. The “Open for All or Closed to All” policy could rally the world, as it reflects a commitment to keeping an international waterway open to nearly everyone’s benefit. It would not increase the war’s damage and destruction. To the contrary, it would be far less demanding and dangerous than either through-the-Strait tanker protection or Kharg Island occupation. Countries currently receiving Iranian energy—China, India, Pakistan, and Turkey—might well pressure Iran to desist from threatening the Strait lest they be worse off. Iran would be further isolated if it refused. The policy would deny Iran its primary source of revenue, increasing domestic pressures to accept a ceasefire or face a larger challenge to the regime. The main risk is that it would increase oil prices further. That said, the increase should be modest, as it would only remove the already relatively small amounts of Iranian exports from the global market. Iran could threaten to attack other countries’ energy installations, but it is already doing so. Iran could be warned that if it does, its own energy infrastructure—which the United States has so far not attacked directly—would be at risk. It could complicate U.S. relations with China, but this could be managed through diplomacy. As always, such a proposal comes without guarantees. Iran may hold out against the pressure. But “Open for All or Closed to All” is preferable to the alternatives, both in what it would cost and in its potential to accelerate an end to the war and its economic consequences. And if it falls short, the existing alternatives would remain available. For now, though, when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, it may require closing it down to open it up. @RichardHaass @POTUS @SecRubio @SenJohnKennedy @FLOTUS @elonmusk @SenTedCruz @SenTomCotton @PressSec

What’s wrong with Starmer? Why is it so difficult for him to understand that Islam is not like other religions? Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity do not have a religious mandate to acquire political power and enforce their worldview on the entire society. Why is he so ignorant of the fact that Islamic public celebrations are not religious, but political activism?

What’s your Response to Sadiq Khan?

Thune is working harder at stalling this bill than passing it. Thune has to go!

NEW: Climate change experts warn that Jerry Nadler's pants level will rise above his head by the year 2028 if we don’t combat global warming

James Comey is a traitor to the United States.

@RepJasonCrow @anneapplebaum There is now new one 🤣🤣

@emilykschrader Here he is in an interview 3 months stating more that 10 times how much of an immediate threat Iran is. Wait for his Tucker Qatarlsen interview to fall.

⚡🇨🇵 Marine Le Pen: “Those connected to Islamist Ideology must be stripped of their Nationality and expelled. Radical Mosques will be shut down…and the Muslim Brotherhood will be dissolved…” The West must wake up!

I honestly never had Joe Kent, Candace Owen, Tucker Carlson, General Flynn, Carrie Prejean (or whatever her name is), and the Muslim Brotherhood hanging out together on my radar.

Muslim Brotherhood TV host explains under what circumstances Christian girls can be raped. “Allah allows Muslim men to rape non-Muslim women to humiliate them.” How can anyone not watch this and be sickened and deeply concerned about what we have allowed into our country. EVIL

@amjadt25 @andreas_krieg

Win for the UAE and the civilized world against misinformation and defamation spread by Muslim Brotherhood defenders. In Belfast courts, @andreas_krieg was found guilty of spreading lies against the UAE. He is known for supporting Muslim Brotherhood Islamists in the West. By court order, his book will be DESTROYED, and he will hopefully be REMOVED from King’s College London. Yes, left-wing circles try to make it costly to criticise Islamist networks, such as Islamic Relief a charity that operates freely in the UK but is listed as a terrorist-linked entity in the UAE for funding groups in the Middle East through British channels.

@ACTBrigitte @Millsap4America

@Millsap4America Antifa, The Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR are terrorist organizations, it's time for Congress to take action!

My name is Ryan Millsap. When ANTIFA attacked my business, I had a choice to make. I’m running for Congress in GA-10 to fight back against the woke left, RINOs, and illegal immigration. I’m a political outsider and MAGA warrior. Stand with me and follow @Millsap4America.

Europeans, take this seriously from the UAE Foreign Minister: The Muslim Brotherhood and extremists are running your streets. They’re the biggest sympathizers with the Iranian regime’s crimes. Wake up before it’s too late.

Too many are too polite to say this. But mass ritual prayer in public places is an act of domination. The adhan - which declares there is no god but allah and Muhammad is his messenger - is, when called in a public place, a declaration of domination. Perform these rituals in mosques if you wish. But they are not welcome in our public places and shared institutions. And given their explicit repudiation of Christianity they certainly do not belong in our churches and cathedrals. I am not suggesting everybody at Trafalgar Square last night is an Islamist. But the domination of public places is straight from the Islamist playbook. Trafalgar Square belongs to all of us. It is a national memorial to our independence and our salvation. Last night was not like a televised football match or a St Patrick’s Day celebration. It was an act of domination and therefore division. It shouldn’t happen again.