Michael Charney

These car brands willl suffer the most with soaring gas prices wapo.st/3PQNOnH #gas #guzzlers #cars #pickups #suv #fossilfuel #diesel #trucks #EV #solar #batteries #tech #fuelish #foolish #price #energy #crisis #climate #renewables #wind #power #engines #gasoline #budget

Iran's Islamic regime is firing missiles at Jerusalem and nearly hit the Al Aqsa mosque. One of their missiles on Wednesday killed 4 Palestinian women. The Islamic Regime in Iran does not care about Muslims or Palestinians. Nor does the UN — which is completely silent.

Speaks for itself: Feb. 25, 2026: “We are not developing long-range missiles… we have limited the range below 2,000 kilometers” — Iran’s FM Araghchi (IRNA). March 20, 2026: Iran fires missiles at Diego Garcia—ranging 4,000 kilometers (WSJ). ⬇️

@BigBrainPhiloso Read: How to Live, or a life of Montaigne in one question and twenty attempts at an answer, by Sarah Bakewell,

In 1572, this man watched Catholics and Protestants massacre each other in the streets. Instead of choosing a side, he asked one question and it changed Western philosophy forever. That man was Michel de Montaigne. And his question was devastatingly simple: "Que sais-je?" What do I know? Everyone around him was certain they were right. Certain enough to kill for it. Montaigne watched this unfold and reached a radical conclusion: Certainty itself was the disease. So he retreated to his tower library and began the strangest philosophical experiment in history: studying the one subject he had direct access to: Himself. For 20 years, he wrote about his fears, his contradictions, his pleasures, and his failures. Not to appear wise. But to see clearly. He called the project his "Essays." "Others form man. I tell of him." What he discovered shook Western thought ↓ Most of what you call "yourself" isn't really you. The things we call natural: our values, our sense of right and wrong are almost entirely shaped by custom and upbringing. We didn't choose them, we inherited them. What feels like instinct is usually just habit wearing a disguise. And once you see that, you can't unsee it. His motto wasn't a cry of despair. It was the most honest starting point for any examined life. Because once you stop pretending you have all the answers, something surprising happens ↓ You become free. Free to revise. Free to contradict yourself. Free to say: "I thought one thing at 30. I think something different at 50. Both were real." He also rejected something most philosophers clung to, the idea that the body is beneath us. Aging. Illness. Appetite. Friendship. These weren't distractions from the philosophical life. They were the philosophical life. Real wisdom isn't found by transcending ordinary existence. It's found by paying honest attention to it. Pascal was shaken by him. Nietzsche called him one of the most joyful thinkers who ever lived. Emerson carried him everywhere. All because he was willing to say: I don't have this figured out. But I'm looking. In a world drowning in confident opinions, Montaigne's invitation is more urgent than ever: Stop performing. Start examining. Your contradictions aren't failures. They're data. Your uncertainty isn't weakness. It's the beginning of honest thought. Ask his question. Not once, but daily: What do I actually know? — Thanks for reading! Enjoyed this post? Follow @BigBrainPhiloso for more content like this.

@DanLinnaeus Even if you don't have much familiarity with the history of this conflict, the IAEA confirmed 400kg of 60% enriched uranium last May. So either the fatwa was bullshit or it prohibits nuclear weapons but obligates enrichment far beyond any civilian application.

We have a few comments about Richard Nephew's interpretation of the 2007 NIE in his recent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled, "Revisionism at Fordow: Why the WSJ is wrong about the history—and future—of Iran’s nuclear program." Nephew's article is in summary an attack on Trump, a statement against the war, and a defense of the 2007 NIE. We think that the unclassified 2007 NIE should be renounced, not reinterpreted to say something it did not state. It has been misused and misunderstood long enough, now by people claiming there was no reason to attack Iran because Iran's secret nuclear weapons program largely stopped in late 2003 (according to Matt Bunn) or that it was simply a nuclear weapons "option" (according to Nephew). Hanging his reinterpretation on the line in the NIE that Iran was "keeping the option open to build nuclear weapons" can more logically in the paragraph's context be interpreted as applying only to a decision to do so a later time, not construct a sophisticated alternative type of nuclear weapons program that better prepares Iran to build nuclear weapons, if a decision were made to do so. Think of the people who looked at the unclassified 2007 NIE and took it literally, Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended and had not restarted, citing the NIE, repeating that mantra whether it was 2007, 2009, 2015, or 2026. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, they bleated. If nothing else, the unclassified NIE was unbelievably misleading and led many people to falsely characterize Iran’s post Amad nuclear weapons program as an off/on switch rather than a different type of nuclear weapons program, focused on shortening timelines, being prepared, once the order came to build from the leadership. The methodological flaw was thinking that there is only one type of nuclear weapons program, one that starts only when the order is given to build them. Before the June war, Iran had whittled down breakout time to a few days, timeline to build the bomb to months. Iran was racing to shorten timelines and preparation timelines, to allow nuclear weapons to be built quickly, once the order came. Israel stated a reason for striking in June was the timeframes were getting too short to tell whether Iran was further whittling down the time or building the weapons. Think of Mojdeh, Shahid Meysami, Sanjarian, Taleghan, Golab Dareh, Shahid Shariarti, or Min-Zadayi. All of these many sites were working on aspects of developing nuclear weapons. It is a nuclear weapons program.

This is Obama’s former National Security Council staffer Tommy Vietor. His post goes the distance in explaining the collapse of global security dynamics under that administration, when he invokes the Ayatollah’s prohibition on nuclear weapons and the US intel community’s assessment that the Islamic Republic would not be able to develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States until 2035. First, Ayatollah Khemanei’s so-called nuclear fatwa was a verbal proclamation never codified into law; it was always reversible by him. Khamenei himself called non-pursuit “our own decision… for certain reasons” last year. It was never a red line, it was a tactical shield -- nothing more. Second, and this is directly related, Khamenei also issued a limitation on missile range: “I myself said 2,000 kilometers; otherwise, they wanted to extend it to 4,000–5,000 kilometers. I did not allow it. I prevented it.” The IRGC Aerospace Force just targeted Diego Garcia some 4,000 kilometers away. This goes to show how quickly the systems Iran has developed can be turned into categorically different threats. From a modular nuclear program with a robust enrichment pipeline and medium range ballistics to a rapidly operationalized nuclear weapons programs and intermediate range platforms that can strike US bases across most of Europe in less than a month. Since we have no visibility into Iran's covert military engineering sites, we cannot know exactly how much of their weaponization research was already completed in the dark, beyond what the Amad archive and Iaea assessments have revealed. We know they mastered uranium-metal production, implosion testing, and UD3 neutron initiators. We know they had the warhead designs for delivery. We also know they were rapidly advancing research in dual use tech that lowered technical hurdles. For instance, a breakthrough in Aug last year at Amirkabir University on radiation-hardened components announced the development of a $200 "high-precision, high-G vibration sensor" with metal structures on transparent substrates rather than silicon, utilizing combined micro and optical technologies. Most assessments agree that miniaturization for a deliverable was a matter of several months, perhaps a year. We also have credible reports from late last year that they IRGC were developing biological and chemical warheads for the same medium range missiles that just went intermediate-range. Vietor’s point is that attacking Iran is what has catalyzed these threats, but this misconception represents the most dangerous flaw in his thinking. Iran was on the doorstep of nuclear break out and intermediate range missiles. The only thing preventing it was a political decision. The Diego Garcia strike just proved how quickly supposedly latent capabilities become active threats. The widespread targeting of Gulf states including Bahrain’s desalination plants, Omani civilian sites and even Qatar’s Ras Laffan liquidied natural gas facility -- this all goes to show how dangerous this concept is, that a heavily armed, threshold nuclear state is operating in good faith and bound by verbal proclamations. As an aside, but also important to note is the hostility and lack of decorum, publicly calling a wartime ally prime minister a “despicable liar.” There is no good reason to take Vietor seriously, but it certainly highlights a lot of what went wrong under Obama. He regards “Netanyahu” -- really a convenient placeholder for the vast majority of the Israeli security establishment’s warnings about the JCPOA, dating to before his prescient but controversial congressional address in 2015 at House Speaker Bohner’s invitation -- he regards that as the “lie”, not out own lying eyes as a Middle East nuclear and missile threat crisis has unravelled into a rash of blazing craters across the region. It’s high time to retire this cohort of ideologues and their Iranian foreign ministry interlocutors at the ICG. Better now than never.

🔷Iran has been a leading sponsor of international terrorism for 47 years 🔷Iran has continued with its nuclear weapons program despite all efforts to curtail it 🔷Iran supplied the Taliban with weapons and explosives that killed 450+ British soldiers in Afghanistan 🔷 Iran has directly attacked British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia and has previously attacked British and American interests through its proxies 🔷 Iran cannot live in peace with its Middle East neighbours and has attacked many of them without provocation, even before the current operation against it 🔷 Iran planned, funded, and facilitated the October 7 attack against Israel, knowing full well that it would precipitate a wider conflict in Gaza and immense human suffering 🔷Iran continues to oppress its own people and regularly executes children under the age of 16 simply for expressing their opinions 🔷 Iran has a totalitarian theocratic regime opposed to the democratic freedoms we take for granted - it doesn’t believe in the rights of the individual 🔷 Iran hates Western values and has consistently tried to undermine us in our own countries through gray zone disinformation campaigns By any reasonable definition under international law, Iran is a rogue state. I don’t approve of the way in which Trump decided to pursue his policy against Iran - without getting prior support from America’s allies - but I am with him all the way for deciding to get rid of the evil and despotic religious maniacs who have made life so miserable for so many. The world will be a safer place. Also, if, as a result of regime change, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religions will develop a greater tolerance for each other, this will be a worthwhile secondary outcome. In summary, Trump’s personality and unconventional approach to government are divisive, but on Iran he is right and deserves the full support of Europe.

@SpencerGuard Pls correct the date given as March 26 (sic). Today is March 21.

Golda lo explicó a la perfección. Esta tierra fue bautizada como «Palestina» por los romanos hace casi 2000 años, tras sofocar una revuelta judía, en un intento por borrar la identidad judía e invocar la memoria de los filisteos, derrotados hacía mucho tiempo. Durante siglos, la región estuvo gobernada por los otomanos y, posteriormente, por los británicos. Nunca existió aquí un estado árabe independiente llamado Palestina. Golda Meir lo expresó con claridad: «La Ribera Oriental y Cisjordania eran Palestina. Soy palestina. De 1921 a 1948 tuve pasaporte palestino. Aquí no existía la distinción entre judíos, árabes y palestinos. Solo existían judíos y árabes». Golda Meir, ex primera ministra de Israel Crédito de la imagen: Willem van de Poll. CC BY-SA 3.0. Color añadido. Fuente: The Nation of Israel Lives

Así era el Líbano en la década de 1960, cuando todavía era un país cristiano y conocido como el París de Oriente Medio. Líbano fue creado para ser una patria cristiana para los cristianos perseguidos de la región. Pero, al igual que muchos occidentales ingenuos hoy en día, decidió ser multicultural e incluir a los musulmanes en el país. Una vez que los musulmanes se convirtieron en mayoría, iniciaron una guerra para derrocar a los cristianos que los habían acogido, y desde entonces el país no ha conocido la paz. Líbano es el ejemplo por excelencia de que la coexistencia entre culturas radicalmente diferentes es imposible. Vía @realMaalouf

For almost 2000 years, "Palestine" was simply a European Christian term for the "Holy Land" or "Land of Israel" That is why the British chose "Palestine" as the name of the mandate "Palestine" is a foreign, colonial label. The idea it has local historical roots is just stupid

Scandalous reports in The Guardian on access to prayer in Jerusalem’s Old City are missing a crucial point. All places of worship, Jewish, Muslim and Christian, are currently restricted. Not selectively, but universally. The reason is simple: protecting lives. This is what that looks like. An Iranian missile struck just metres from the Temple Mount, where tens of thousands of Muslims were expected to gather. Had those prayers gone ahead, the consequences could have been catastrophic. It raises a serious question: What would the coverage have been if hundreds of worshippers had been killed? Blaming Israel for not stopping the prayer?

After nearly 30 years living in China, I saw how the CCP constantly brainwashed people through newspapers, radio, and TV—portraying Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as the innocent victims. I believed it without question, and at that time I did not know it was deliberate propaganda by CCP government. Now on X, I see many comments from Australian IPs echoing the exact same narrative: Israel is the bad guy. It sounds eerily similar to CCP messaging. Does this mean Australians are being brainwashed by their own leftist mainstream media? Mainstream outlets often paint Israel as a bully, but that’s a complete distortion. In reality, Israel is the only truly civilized democracy in the Middle East, constantly under threat and attack from surrounding Muslim-majority countries that have bullied and tried to destroy it for decades. Israel has every right to exist and defend itself. Those who persecute the Jewish people today are following the same hateful path as Hitler. I stand firmly with Israel 🇮🇱!

Oops: Gazans who were reported as killed “journalists,” male “nurses,” and “lawyers,” now claimed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad as their martyred commanders and militants.

The full Benjamin Netanyahu English speech from last night. This is a must-watch and a must-listen.

How #Hamas played the #press as #usefulidiots #hezbollah #dsa #jvp #cuad #codepink #leftists #progressives #media #islamists #palestinians #palestine #Oct7 #genocideBloodLibel #IDF #Israel #news #reporters #bias #hypocrisy #propaganda #Democrats #Liberals #Iran #liars #terrorists

@Aizenberg55 Dec 1973 after failed peace offer by Israel: Abba Eban famously remarked of the Palestinians, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

📌A video of President Clinton saying, “I killed myself trying to give the Palestinians a deal; all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. They turned it down. They never wanted peace,” is making the rounds again. Mehdi Hasan responded by telling people to “Google Taba,” referring to the Taba Summit held January 21–27, 2001, just after Clinton left office. The implication is clear: that at Taba, Arafat either accepted a deal or was on the verge of doing so but ran out of time. That narrative is false, and it is disproven by Arafat himself 18 months later. Arafat never said yes at Taba. He didn’t attend, didn’t accept any framework, and didn’t move on core demands like a literal “right of return.” We know this was a central reason he rejected Camp David and the Clinton Parameters, and the claim that the Palestinians were prepared to accept a symbolic or limited return is simply not true (this is clear from the Palestinian reply to the Clinton Parameters). Arafat did not compromise on this point, and he did not accept any deal. Yes, the negotiators, the ones with no power to actually approve any deal, to actually settle the core issues (e.g. refugees) said they were close when the summit ended, but there was thus no deal, no near-deal, and no missed deal due to merely to time. And we know this with certainty because 18 months later, Arafat suddenly claimed he would accept Taba. The Guardian, hardly a pro-Israel outlet, ran the headline: “Arafat approves Taba plan too late,” and reported that Arafat acknowledged the prior offers were not good enough and that he had not accepted any deal at the time. Only afterward did he say he would accept them. If Arafat had truly been ready at Taba, he could have said yes when it actually mattered: under the Clinton Parameters. He had weeks to do so, even after skipping the early January 2001 White House meeting where he was supposed to meet Clinton to accept the deal, despite committing to attend and say yes. Prince Bandar recounts in detail how Arafat left town without giving any answer. This is no longer disputed among the key people involved. Bill Clinton, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Prince Bandar, and even Saeb Erekat all acknowledge the same core fact: Ehud Barak accepted the Clinton Parameters. Arafat did not. Subsequent disclosures have only reinforced this. The Bandar interview, the release of Israel’s formal acceptance, the Palestinian response document, and Clinton’s repeated confirmations all point in the same direction. There was a path to full Palestinian statehood. It was rejected. And the reason this keeps getting rewritten by people like Mehdi Hasan is obvious. This was the pivotal moment. A sovereign Palestinian state was on the table. The conflict could have ended, no more “occupation.” The entire trajectory of the conflict could have been different. And when given another opportunity years later, Mahmoud Abbas did the same with Olmert’s offer, later admitting he walked away.

Why Mamdani’s faith matters wapo.st/4rEehCh