Michael Tracey

ANNOUNCEMENT! I have officially joined the land of Substack. It was probably inevitable. But I'm very excited about the opportunities the platform affords. And most of all, looking forward to making insufferable people's heads explode mtracey.substack.com/p/officially-d…

"The Iranian people, when they don't hear bombs go off, they're upset. They want to hear bombs." He's absolutely convinced that the people of Iran love being bombed

SEE THIS CUTE BUNNY? HE FUCKIN' DIES IF YOU DON'T OPEN THE FUCKIN' STRAIT

On April 9, 2019, the Supreme National Security Council of Iran designated the US a “State Sponsor of Terrorism," and CENTCOM a "terrorist organization," citing: -- The 1988 shootdown of an Iranian passenger jet by US warships, killing 290 -- US provision of arms and intel to Saudi Arabia for the bombardment of Yemen (2015-2021) -- US support for "extremist groups and terrorists in the West Asia region," such as Al-Nusra Front (2012-2017) The designation came after Trump designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" on April 8, 2019

Dave Smith, on Thomas Massie's "MoneyBomb" fundraiser, says if there were 500 Massies in Congress, we might finally "crack the code" and find out why "everyone's speaking in code" in all those Epstein Files. Massie brags that he "uncovered the pedophiles." Which ones? Any names?

Imagine if Iran had the capacity to bomb any US university that in some way "cooperated" with the US military-industrial sector. You wouldn't have many universities left

*machine to exit parking garage isn't working* Open the Fuckin' Gate, you crazy bastards! Praise be to Allah

In part because Marco is not even really functioning as "Secretary of State" in any traditional sense, he's working alongside Trump day-to-day as top foreign policy advisor/coordinator; hence these Witkoff/Jared "negotiations" are flowing from the White House, not the State Dept.

@AslanEgia I just said it's NOT a "bridge too far" -- I'm just not fantastically interested in going out of my way to seek it, but I'd still probably do it if asked

@mtracey PS - I'm also unclear on why exactly him being "authentically pro-Russia" would be a bridge too far?....I mean you recently did a super long discussion with Destiny, who goes to the other extreme of being a pro-Kiev maximalist.

This seems a pretty spot-on assessment to me! @mtracey - any interest in doing a discussion show with Brian?

Witless Witkoff and Jughead Jared are once again heading up the latest round of Iran "negotiations," so if history is any guide, a sound diplomatic resolution will surely be reached to avert any further escalation of warfare

@AslanEgia I'd still potentially engage with him, I'm just saying I'm not really inclined to proactively seek out that engagement myself

@mtracey 🤔Don't u engage w/ folks w/ all sorts of radical views all the time, eg Epstein-maximalists? I didn't see your previous exchange w/ him (or know there even was one),but in my experience he's quite rational and fact-based &brings receipts, even if you disagree w/ his conclusions

Even if there were to be some sort of "deal" that halted active combat operations — exceedingly unlikely either way — that would by no means "end" the ongoing military conflict with Iran. Just like the June 2025 war wasn't "the end." Rather, it was only the beginning. Because if some "deal" were to somehow be announced, it would only be the "end" of the current phase of active warfare, which Trump inaugurated with his so-called "Midnight Hammer" operation in June 2025 — you know, the one we were told had completely obliterated Iran's nuclear capacity, neutralizing the supposed threat. After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam Hussein in power, a state of recurring warfare persisted for the next 12 years — No Fly Zones, occasional US bombing campaigns, sanctions, etc. — before finally culminating in the 2003 invasion to destroy the Iraqi state. Trump doesn't seem interested in such an extended timeline with Iran. For as long as the "Islamic Republic" state infrastructure endures, the "job" is not going to be "finished." Which is an imperative that will also be even more overtly baked into the US security state DNA, even if Trump were to croak tomorrow. But for as long as he's personally in power, does anyone seriously think any kind of "permanent" resolution could conceivably be obtained that does not include the megalomaniacal objectives he's already set out, consistent with his overall Second Term global conquest campaign, namely "taking" the oil, controlling the Hormuz Strait, and declaring himself Iran's ultimate governing authority, whereby he'll get to pick and choose the country's political leadership? Just like he's already done in Venezuela and Gaza? This whole thing has always fundamentally been a long-term "regime change" policy adventure, way or another, since at least 2018 when he junked the JCPOA, but probably before. Nothing "ends" until the fundamental "regime change" objective is either achieved, or definitively thwarted. Especially not since he opened the Pandora's Box of direct kinetic warfare in June 2025, and then blew up the box entirely in February 2026.

Live now with @bungarsargon open.substack.com/live-stream/15…

@DineshDSouza Thanks for informing me of this otherwise imperceptible nuance

In that case, many people’s suspicions about Obama would have been proven true. With Trump, however, it’s an obvious case of him being sarcastic. But these nuances are lost on a guy like you.

@BlueBoxDave I agree that posting "Praise be to Allah" as a taunt to Iran is something Obama probably never would have done

@mtracey That’s silly. Trump is obviously taunting Iran, something Obama would never have done. Everyone understands this.

Let's cheer ourselves up a bit and ponder what would've transpired if President Barack Hussein Obama had ever said "Praise be to Allah" on Easter Sunday, regardless of context

"Consistent anti-war rhetoric"