Emo Todorov

Exactly! We in the US don’t need to be paying for these forces, you in Europe don’t need them to defend you from anyone, and they are not even involved in the usual regime change operations… this is a textbook example of a temporary government program that became permanent because people want to keep their budgets.

Take all out. We do not need US regime occupation forces here. Having US bases makes you a target.

@eugyppius1 True in general. Note however that Congress has not declared war, the majority voted for no new wars in 2024, and is currently against the attacks on Iran. Politicians have no mandate to do the opposite of what they promised. This is their private war, not America’s war.

honestly if your host country goes to war with your native country you should probably either book a ticket home yesterday or regard yourself a defector with new loyalties to a new land.

Yeah, as a foreigner abroad, you generally can’t hope to openly support the wartime enemies of the country hosting you and expect no consequences. This is not hard.

Trump's speech tonight signaled major escalation with Iran. No wonder the UK and Australian PMs made grim statements earlier today about prolonged hardship. Trump's wishful timeline is the new "15 days to stop the spread".

@ArmchairW Exactly. We should leave the Middle East to the locals and their customers (Asia and Europe.) Is there any place left where US military presence serves US national interests at this point? Anything outside the Americas seems like holding on to the past, for no good reason.

It struck me yesterday just how unimportant the Middle East is to the US in real terms. We don't need their oil and nobody who lives there poses any real threat to us. The place has given us nothing but grief and blowback for fifty years. Iran is welcome to that monkey's paw.

@NickJFuentes Nothing wrong with saving the day.

There is a major op underway by Team Vance to rescue his 2028 campaign from being torpedoed by Trump’s Iran War. Tucker, Sacks, Kent are all in on it. Follow the money and network, that’s the crew. They want Vance to save the day by brokering the ceasefire and take credit.

@farzyness These are users, not engineers. Any smart kid can learn to use AI tools. Real engineers will be needed later to clean up the mess. We need a new job title: AI-cleanup Engineer.

AI Engineers are going to be insanely valuable for the next 3-5 years. Just someone who is VERY good at deploying AI in any use case. Basically use Claude Code + Codex + OpenClaw + Grok + Gemini to solve any problem a business is having. Next-level valuable.

What is the America First outcome in the Middle East? We shut down all our bases and leave. What is Iran fighting for? That same outcome, ironically.

@RoKhanna The working class cannot afford campaign donations. Which is why no politician is on their side.

Democrats must be anti-war, anti Epstein class, pro working class. Keep it simple.

@Zlatti_71 Somewhat nuanced though. She didn't say Iran was an imminent threat. She said they presented the data to Trump and he decided Iran was an imminent threat. Everything she said is technically true.

No self-respect at all.

Congratulations, you have mastered a second insult! If only you could get the spelling right. Export controls and price caps during a crisis have nothing to do with taking control of the means of production. Every government took control of PPE distribution during the pandemic, and went back to normal once the crisis was over.

@todorov_emo @DavidSacks You moron. If the government takes control of the oil companies, that’s socialism. It is literally the fucking definition of socialism. The state taking control of the means of production. We don’t block exports across the board you low IQ phaggot. Just to certain countries.

This is a smart strategy. Thanks to President Trump, the U.S. is energy independent. The countries that actually depend on Gulf oil should apply pressure to reopen the strait.

@GroceryPump @DavidSacks Consider expanding your vocabulary. Recycling the same insult all the time is uninformative. Export control in a time of crisis is not socialism. Even in normal times, we and others block certain exports for non-market reasons.

@todorov_emo @DavidSacks The US can easily do socialisms to prevent the consequences of our moron president’s actions? Oh cool thanks so much you fucking moron.

Oh no, I have upset an anonymous NPC. The US can easily limit or ban exports, to prevent oil shortages within the US. We are self-sufficient. Export bans are happening all over the world already. The US and Iran can afford to fight a long war. The difference is that Iran's allies are fine, while our allies are panicking and demanding a quick resolution.

@todorov_emo @DavidSacks It is our problem you fucking moron. That’s why Trump is even talking about this. If Exxon can sell a barrel of oil from Texas to someone else for $100 that’s what they’re going to fucking do. Not sell it here in America for less. Absolutely fucking criminal how dumb you are

Oil prices are global, but the US is now a net exporter, and just stole Venezuela's oil. As long as there is enough oil in the real economy, the money situation can be finessed. Consumers can be compensated with stimulus checks, or maybe even a windfall tax on the increased oil profits. Export quotas can be imposed to make sure supply meets demand in the US. Trump is many things but idiot is not one of them. His job is to sell a hopeless war, imposed by the Neocons and the Israel lobby. He sounds ridiculous because the war is ridiculous.

@todorov_emo @DavidSacks Oil prices are global. They don’t just go up in some countries and not in others. Trump is an idiot, don’t listen to anything he says.

The war was deeply unpopular before it even started. It is common in US politics to allow allies to keep a low profile on unpopular issues, so they can win elections later. Happens in Congress all the time. And in this case, Vance (and Gabbard) were never on board. They cannot publicly criticize their boss, especially at a time of war. Resigning is counter-productive because the Neocons will gain even more power and immediately start the next war. Disappearing from pubic view while the Neocons hang themselves is the best they can do; for their own political career but also for the US. We are not going to get Massie in the cabinet; Vance and Gabbard are the best we can realistically expect for now. The Democrats are currently projected to win in November, but projections can change quickly. And 2028 is so far away that the chances are essentially 50/50 as of now. Ultimately elections are about the economy. The rest is quickly forgotten. Maduro already feels like ancient history.

Speaking of American politicians. JD Vance had been awfully quiet about Trump's war of choice that he involved the US in, for Israel. Is he trying to distance himself from this shitshow to have a chance at the 2028 ballot? There's very little chance Republicans keep their seats, come midterms. And the way Trump betrayed not only his own base, but all the fence sitters, unless Trump keeps the power by force, the US is bound to endure another Democrat takeover, which won't be any better as far as the foreign policy goes .

That could explain it. I wonder to what extent this describes their politics and media vs. broader society. The disconnect is common in political systems relying heavily on propaganda. If you listen to American politicians and media, the picture you get does not represent the average American. I personally know many Jewish Americans and a few Israelis, and they definitely do not fit your description... but then again, they are from academia and sometimes business; and very few are religious. So it is possible that I know the outliers.

@todorov_emo @Lysander18 @ArmchairW So in short, they never really understand the strategic picture because to do that you have to be able to understand other human beings, and if everyone is a cartoon bully to you, you can’t understand them mode.

A little note about war planning.⬇️ Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the scenario that often ends up playing out in war - and the one that actually has to be mitigated if planning is to be successful - is one that's beyond the worst-case scenario envisioned prior to the operation. This is because the people thinking up those worst-case scenarios are staff officers who suffer from institutional pressure to stick within conventional wisdom and keep the boss happy by telling him that, yes, this operation is actually possible and not a terrible idea. Meanwhile the enemy can be expected to ruthlessly take advantage of every possible opening because he is smart, tough, and motivated - and the first and foremost gap that the enemy slides through is the one between conventional expectations and battlefield realities. Let's apply this to Iran. The worst-case scenario envisioned by the yes-men in the Pentagon was probably that the campaign might take several weeks because the US and Israel could be expected to quickly breach the Iranian anti-access/area-denial (A2AD) "system of systems" and effective conventional bombing would break Iran's will to resist in a manner similar to Serbia in 1999. This was the "long" war plan which was floated prewar and reflected in the statements of US and Israeli officials in the first hours of the war - that this operation would take, at most, a few weeks. The Iranian population was also assumed to despise the regime, and would quickly rise up against it if given the opportunity. Furthermore the Iranian leadership was apparently assumed to be basically corrupt and mercenary (see claims that the Ayatollah controlled a vast personal fortune), and would not risk their valuable oil industry by either closing the Strait of Hormuz or inviting counterattack from striking Gulf Arab oil sites. This scenario was probably put up as a "Most Dangerous Course of Action" on the briefing slides - the "Most Likely" course of action was probably regime collapse after Khamenei was killed. This all briefs very well to someone like Hegseth, who wants to be told how we can do something rather than all the reasons why we shouldn't. The actual battlefield scenario we're facing right now - on D+12 and with absolutely no end in sight - is far worse than what was, in retrospect, an absurdly optimistic prewar assessment. Iran's A2AD network is still very intact, the Iranian population rallied around the flag, and Khamenei turned out to have been a respected, moderate octogenarian who was restraining the regime hardliners who were happy to set the Middle East on fire just to get at the US and Israel - not the other way around. Thus we see talk of ground troops - and a militarily implausible, open-ended invasion of Iran. We leapt into the abyss thinking it was a kiddie pool. This is something of an aside, but it's also occurred to me that this absurd analytical failure - an almost total misread of the political and military situation in Iran on the part of the US military and intelligence services - can best be explained by something I've also noticed and commented upon with respect to Ukraine. We're outsourcing not just our intelligence data but also our analysis to third parties. As shown in the Texeira Leaks, SACEUR was getting briefed raw, unquestioned Ukrainian cope propaganda as the TS level because we'd apparently outsourced our intelligence collection and assessments to the GUR and brOSINT and had no institutional capability to even sanity check the story that we were being told, or political will to suggest that this was even necessary. Going into Iran CENTCOM was likely sold a bill of goods by Mossad in the exact same way, with the exact same constraints of analytical competence and politics preventing critical assessment of whatever rosy picture the Israelis were painting of a short, victorious war.

True, but it may take a major economic disaster among US allies to force that decision. The suffering is not uniform. Russia is celebrating, China is still buying oil from Iran (and can increase imports from Russa if needed) and the US is self-sufficient. Which may actually attract capital to the US. As long as there is enough oil in the real economy, the government can do redistribution or stimulus or other financial magic.

The only rational way to end the Iran conflict and prevent the suffering of literally the entire world is to walk away from the Middle East Israel created this situation, let them deal with the consequences

The risk-benefit ratio does not make sense. Why risk a catastrophe? Even with US hegemony declining, the Arabs and their customers (which is most of the world) would have been happy to maintain the status quo. This war only makes sense if (1) Israel also under-estimated Iran, or (2) their Greater-Israel-or-Bust leaders are true lunatics, and not merely politicians using religion to stay in power.

@todorov_emo @ArmchairW Probably. They likely surmised US hegemony was was fading quickly either way, so they might as well use it while they had it. If in the process of losing, the US hurt Iran it's kind of a win for them. It might prove to be catastrophic, but I guess they were ready to chance it

@DanielLDavis1 He knows all that. His job is to manipulate the markets into not crashing, somehow.

No, Mr. President, we are not in great shape. He does not understand the first thing about national power, nor does he understand the fundamentals of combat. Above all, he doesn’t understand that there are people who when pressed against the wall, will push back and resist. While the US has genuinely destroyed a great many things in Iran, the president seems unaware that for 20 years prior to this conflict, they had prepared underground facilities that were stocked with weapons, ammunition, supplies, and the ability to sustain for long periods of time. The president is going to find out, the hard way, that the Iranian people are able to endure much suffering and still retain the ability to harm our interest in the region. This war is not close to being over, we are not in good shape.