Elon Musk threatens Republicans with primary challenges, new party, if they pass the "Big Beautiful Bill".

 

Elon Musk. USA Today/AFP/Getty.

Elon Musk has threatened Republicans with primary challenges and a new third party if they pass the "Big Beautiful Bill". USA Today. Musk led that Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) but his relationship with Republicans fractured in a highly public feud with President Trump over the bill. Musk then attempted to repair relations with both, publicly apologizing for his actions. However, Musk doubled down on criticism of the bill, saying it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Musk had said that he would cut back on political spending but to fund primary challenges and start a new party would cost millions of dollars. 

If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day.

Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2025

My Comment:

I am guessing Musk's true objection to this bill is that it cuts green energy subsidies, including those that make his Tesla cars potentially worth buying. His cars are fairly expensive and the tax break you get when you buy one makes them dramatically more affordable. Right now you can get a $7500 tax credit for buying a new EV and a $4000 one for a used one. Musk's other companies also benefit from credits and loans that would be eliminated with these bills. Given that Tesla's bottom line was hurt pretty dramatically after joining DOGE he is probably pretty furious that Republicans included this in their bill. 

Does Musk actually care about the deficit? Probably. He did join DOGE to cut government waste and critically, none of the cuts he made were made permanent by the BBB. Because it's a budget bill, they can't actually do that. Regardless, I do think that Musk does have a point that we need to stop spending massive amounts of money we don't have on nonsense we don't need. 

But Musk is making perfect the enemy of good. Sometimes you have to settle with what you get and though this bill increases the deficit (possibly, Trump argues that the tax breaks will fuel growth, and it's hard to argue with that) it does make quite a few good cuts. It's the same problem I am seeing with the Gun community, who are upset that the Suppressor and Short Barreled Rifle regulations were dropped, even though the bill does get rid of the $200 tax on both. Many times it's a lot better to take any win you can get instead of holding out for a total victory which is extremely unlikely. 

And I don't think Musk understands the political implications of not passing this bill. Should the bill fail and the Trump tax cuts go away, I know I would be furious. Those tax cuts increased my take home pay fairly dramatically, and that's ignoring the "no tax on tips/overtime" credits that are in the bill too. Increasing taxes right before a midterm is a great way to lose that midterm and I am guessing that the damage that would cause would be way worse than anything Elon Musk can do with his billions of dollars. 

I also don't think there is a lot of real desire for a third party who only seems to care about fiscal discipline. Folks care a lot more about Trump's other priorities, including the economy, foreign policy and the fight against "wokeness", ie leftist cultural issues. Indeed, it's strange to see Musk wanting a third party that could split the Republican vote, given that would give the 2026 midterms to the Democrats, who have proven to not be able to handle any of those things. Especially since his son, now "daughter", had his life ruined over the "woke mind virus", in Musk's own words. I can't see a single voter from the Democrats supporting him as well, so the best case scenario would be an "also ran" party that would only damage Republicans. 

As for challenging incumbents, that is probably where any real change would happen. Some of the Republicans in both the House and Senate are vulnerable to a primary challenge, but again, this seems counterproductive. Primary challenges drain resources that would better be used against in the fight against the Democrats in 2026, a fight that Republicans could win if Musk doesn't screw it up. 

However, I am not sure how serious Musk is about any of this. He is mercurial at best, and may have some mental health issues as well. Indeed, he attempted to blow up his relations with Trump earlier in the month and once he calmed down he realized that he had made a major mistake. It's very possible that nothing will happen at all after the bill passes (and it looks like it will make it to the reconciliation process at least). 

Musk would be wise to try and influence the party from within, not from without. The Republicans are a "big tent" party right now and there is more than enough room for the fiscal hawks in the party. If he is serious about making an enemy out of the party, he is going to realize that he doesn't have any friends left, as there is no way that the Democrats will ever let him back on board. 

Ukraine claims Russia launched the largest air attack of the war.

 

File photo of a Russian drone about to strike. AP. 

Ukraine has claimed that Russia launched the largest air attack of the war. AP. 537 aerial weapons including 477 drones and decoys and 60 missiles were used on attacks across Ukraine, including cities like Liev, far away from the front lines. Ukraine claims that most of these weapons were either shot down or "lost" through jamming. Russia has improved their aerial attacks on Ukraine recently, with improved drones and missiles along with more effective tactics. The strikes continue as Russia makes minor but steady gains across the front lines. Ukraine also claimed that one of their F-16 fighter jets was destroyed during the fighting, with the pilot being killed. 

My Comment:

The Iran-Israel conflict and ensuing political roller coaster completely distracted everyone from the Ukraine-Russia conflict. But the war there still rages as Russia continues their grinding offensives all across the front. And, increasingly, massive drone and missile strikes like this. 

I would take the Ukrainian MOD's comments on this with a grain of salt. Their count of how many weapons were used in the attack and, more critically, how many were shot down or otherwise dealt with, is probably off by quite a bit. Ukraine does have air defenses left and jamming does work to destroy drones, but I doubt they were able to down anywhere near the number they did in this report. Indeed, I am guessing that many of the drones and missiles were unopposed as they hit targets far away from both Kiev and the front lines. Not that we should believe Russia or Western intelligence agencies either, but Ukraine absolutely has an incentive to lie about how many of these weapons they shot down. 

The loss of the F-16 is important as well. It's unclear how many F-16's Ukraine even has, they were supposed to get 85, but I don't know how many have been delivered and how many were lost. But the ones that are there are probably the best fighter jets they have left, even though they got the obsolete and worn out models. 

Other sources have an account of how the F-16 was destroyed and it gives me major "Ghost of Kiev" flashbacks. The Ukrainian Government is saying that the pilot had shot down six "targets" but was destroyed as he tried to deal with a seventh. That seems pretty unlikely, though technically the F-16 can carry 9 missiles, but the standard loadout is six. I guess it's possible he fired off all of his missiles and then tried to hit the seventh target with a gun kill, and collided with the drone or missile debris field and crashed, but with only the Ukrainian government to confirm or deny that, I don't think we will ever know. 

Are these air attacks effective? I am not sure. The Russians seem to be focusing on depleting and destroying Ukrainian air defenses. It seems to be working as Russia is able to launch these attacks fairly frequently and it goes well with there strategy of attrition. But I do wonder what exactly they are targeting. You would think that energy generation would be a major target but Russia seems content to not shut down the remainder of Ukraine's power. 

I have said for a long time that Russia will win this war and this seems like a good example as why that is likely. Far from running out of weapons, Russia appears to be building up quickly. A strike like this would not have been possible in the early parts of the war, and not just because Russia foolishly attacked with too small of a force. They have learned from their mistakes and their industrial production is absolutely picking up pace. 

I have probably mentioned this before but back in college I had a history professor who told the class that his World War II class was mostly about industrial production. In short, his argument was that Japan and Germany were doomed as they could not match the industrial output of America. It was a simplified argument, but one that I always thought had merit. This strike shows that he was probably correct. All of NATO cannot match Russia's military production at this point, even if you ignore the contribution of their North Korean allies. As long as that is the case, I can't see how Ukraine can win this war as it very quickly runs out of weapons. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear Congressional redistricting case, dealing a blow to Democrat ambitions in the state.

 

File photo of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Politico/AP.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has refused to hear a Congressional redistricting case, dealing a major blow to Democrat ambitions to take several seats in the state. Politico. The Court did not explain their decision. The court had ruled the districts at the state level had to be redrawn and it resulted in Democrat gains. Democrats hoped the court would do the same thing for congressional districts. Only two seats in Wisconsin are considered competitive and the Democrats had hoped to increase that number. Wisconsin's congressional maps were drawn by Governor Tony Evers in 2022 and the United States Supreme Court refused to challenge them. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly shocking development. I live in Wisconsin and both the Republican and the Democrats made the last Supreme Court election taking up this case the main rallying cry. When I heard that the Democrats had one I was pretty despondent because I thought my vote would be further disenfranchised, but I guess that isn't going to happen.

There are several reasons why this could have happened but the most obvious is the fact that Justice Janet Protasiewicz ended up recusing herself from this case. She's a liberal and without her the Wisconsin Supreme Court went from a 4-3 Liberal majority to a 3-3 tie. She had some pretty obvious bias in the case as she said the maps were rigged and unfair. Without her it wasn't really possible for the Democrats to actually get this done.

There could be other considerations as well. The Supreme Court said that the current maps, put into place in 2022, are fair and constitutional. That was a blow to the Republicans at the time but it appears to be a boon now as even the liberal justices on the Wisconsin Court would be reluctant to redo something SCOTUS has already approved of. 

There is also the idea that changing the maps would be dangerous for the 2026 elections, as it would be difficult to change the maps before next year's election. I am not sure I buy that argument, but it has been made. It would be clear that it would be disruptive for sure. 

And it would certainly give folks the impression that the court is indeed biased against Republicans. Everyone in Wisconsin knows this already but to do it in such an obvious way when the Supreme Court ruled on this just a couple years ago would remove any doubt in anyone's mind. 

This does, of course, complicate things for the Democrats plans to regain control of the House in 2026. The two seats that the Democrats were going to target with these redistricting, the 1st and the 3rd makes those seats a lot harder to pick up. And forget anything after that. The Democrats need to pick up three seats to win the house and it got a lot tougher to do so in Wisconsin at least. 

Of course, there may be redistricting efforts in two red states, Ohio and Texas. Ohio has to redistrict this year due a constitutional amendment and that will likely put two seats there into the Republican column. The Texas redistricting is no sure thing but it should have similar results with at least two more seats being in play, potentially as many as five. Wisconsin would have mitigated this but that boat has left the harbor. There may be issues in Louisiana and Alabama as well. 

Democrats are now going to have an uphill battle in getting back the House. Historically the incumbents have a hard time in the Midterms, even when the President is popular. But the Democrats are probably going to have to fight defensively in Ohio for sure and Texas potentially. And they weren't able to rig the Wisconsin maps in their favor, which makes it even harder. They have opportunities in California and New York, but it is going to be an uphill battle. It's very possible that they could, like I said, historically the incumbent's party has difficulty in midterms, but it's a lot less likely now than if the Democrats had gotten there way in Wisconsin. 

Majority of Democrats vote down impeachment push of Donald Trump over Iran strikes.

 

Congressman Al Green and President Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty.

The majority of Democrats joined Republicans to vote down an impeachment push of President Donald Trump over his strikes in Iran. Fox News. The measure was brought by Congressman Al Green who was famously ejected from Trump's Joint address to Congress earlier this year. 128 Democrats joined all Republicans to kill the impeachment, with only 79 Democrats voting in favor. All three of the Democrats major leadership, Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries, Minority Whip Kathrine Clark and House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, voted against the measure. Democrats were put in a difficult position with the vote. 

My Comment:

This was a pretty serious rejection of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The party's leadership understood this was a losing cause and wisely voted against it. Though Al Green and AOC might be upset about this, it was the smart thing to do for the Democrats, a rare case of them doing a sensible thing. 

Why? Well for one, with the ceasefire still holding, it sure looks like Trump was justified in what he did. Bombing Iran was controversial, but the results were effective. Iran's nuclear program has been dealt a severe blow and now the war is over. Polling hasn't been done but I am guessing Trump's actions will be popular with all but the most dedicated Trump haters. 

Second, Trump didn't do anything wrong here, under the laws of the United States. The War Powers Act gives the President the right to do strikes like this. And he followed the rules on consultations and notifications as well.  You could argue that the War Powers Act should be changed but under the rules that we have now, Trump is absolutely in the clear. 

And it's not like the Democrats hate the War Powers Act. Every Democratic President since the law was passed has used the act in some way, with even Carter having the Iran rescue operation, which failed spectacularly, under the act. I am guessing that the Democrats understand if they impeached Trump over this, there would be nothing stopping a now more anti-war Republican congress from doing the same thing to their next president. 

Finally, I think that they might have finally realized that impeaching Trump twice made him a lot more popular among his base. Much like the lawfare against him, it was clear that both impeachments were just political in nature and that Trump didn't actually do anything wrong in either case. To impeach him over something that is not only on completely ridiculous ground, it's also likely to be very popular, would be political suicide for the Democrats. 

The problem the Democrats have is that they still have 79 members in the house, and large parts of the base, that don't care about any of those reasons. They care less about winning and more about getting Trump at all cost, even when he is doing something that is popular and legal. It makes it very easy for Republicans to, correctly I might add, dismiss all criticism from the left as Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

What's funny is that I do think Trump deserves some criticism for his actions in Iran. I still don't think that Iran was that close to the bomb and at the very least, we should be allowed to see the intelligence that informed the decision. I can't argue with the results but like I said in my last post, this was a roller coaster, and it didn't necessarily have to be. It's absolutely not worth impeaching Trump over, and I certainly still support his Presidency, but he's not above all criticism here. 

With that being said, I do think that Trump is now pretty well suited to having a successful 2nd term. Some of it might depend on the 2026 midterms, but given that a few states are redistricting the map should be easier. If impeachment actually does happen again, it would require the Democrats capturing the house, and should that happen, which seems unlikely, it will be a repeat of the first two. Based on nonsense and defeated in the Senate. 

Ceasefire announced in Israel-Iran conflict in a major win for Donald Trump.

 

President Donald Trump. Fox News/Government Photo. 

A ceasefire has been announced in the Israel-Iran conflict, brokered by Donald Trump. Fox News. Trump announced the ceasefire on his social network, Truth social. He praised the cease fire and said that the "12 day war" would be over. Qatar was critical in brokering the agreement, and was able to get Iran to agree to end hostilities. This comes after Iran launched a retaliatory attack against an US base there. The attack was launched with warning and the missiles were intercepted, with no casualties being reported. Despite that, Qatar was willing to pass on the ceasefire details to Iran. 

The AP reports that Iran said they would accept a cease fire if Israel stopped their attacks no later than 4:00 am local time. No strikes have been reported since Iran made the announcement. Israel has not commented on the ceasefire as of yet, but appears to be holding to it. 

Though the ceasefire went into effect, both sides were accused of violating it. President Trump, clearly upset, put major pressure on both sides and as of this writing the fighting has stopped. 

My Comment:

I had written this post last night before the ceasefire went into effect, but I held off on publishing it as I wanted to see if the ceasefire would hold. That was clearly the right call as both Iran and Israel violated the ceasefire over night. Trump put extreme pressure on both and given that the ceasefire has held for most of a day now, I am guessing it's finally time to post what I wrote. 

If this ceasefire holds long term this will be a diplomatic coup for President Trump and a huge win for his foreign policy. I was on record on being uncomfortable with joining the war, but it appears that Trump has won again. I said that I didn't really think that Trump had a valid casus belli, I still don't believe that Iran was that close to a bomb, but perhaps his reason for joining the war was to end the fighting? If so, it worked out. 

So why did this happen? Well, it was clear that Iran was losing the war. They were able to do a little damage to Israel but they could not really respond to the attacks that Israel was sending. And they were able to do absolutely nothing when Trump bombed the nuclear sites. 

Critically, Iran had next to zero help. Their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah were mostly destroyed and Syria was overthrown. Russia was less than useless and China pretty much vetoed Iran's effort to close the Strait of Hormuz. That left Iran with pretty much zero options, other than an attritional war with Israel they no longer could win. Is it any wonder why they agreed to diplomacy? 

Israel had good reason to stop the war as well. Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed, perhaps not completely, but enough that it won't be a threat for years. Like I have said for awhile now, Israel was at risk of biting off way more than they could chew as they were still involved in the conflicts with the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza. Iran was neutralized outside of the threat of their missiles. 

Will the cease fire hold long term? It depends. I think both Israel and Iran were humbled by this war. Iran found out they could do very little against both Israel and the United States and that their air defenses are worthless. Israel found out that their air defenses, though better than Iran's, were not perfect. And both found out that President Trump is tired of their conflict and was personally offended when they didn't listen to him about ending the war. 

But on the other hand, I don't think Israel or Iran are actually rational actors at this point. I don't think Israel was acting sane when they launched this war in the first place and I don't think Iran was sane when they refused to end it when it was clear that they lost. Israel might be worried that they missed some of Iran's nuclear tech, though so far they aren't acting like the most recent report saying the Fordo strike wasn't devastating enough. And Iran? They are radical Muslims, so who knows what they will do? 

This is a coup for Trump domestically. His critics, both on the left and the right, look incredibly foolish right now. I think Trump did make a huge gamble by joining the war but when you gamble and win you look like a genius. Could it have gone another way? Sure, and it still might backfire, but right now the Negative Nancy's on the right and the "impeach Trump" folks on the left are eating a lot of crow. It was a roller coaster of a ride, as it always is with Trump, but it absolutely showed that Trump still has the magic touch with this kind of thing. 

I also think that while joining the war was a risk, this was probably the best outcome. Not only is Iran's nuclear program is defunct, there wasn't much in the way of consequences. Iran tried to launch a counterattack but it failed, and it was also clear that it was designed to fail. You don't launch an attack with a warning unless you are trying to reduce casualties, and that is exactly what happened. Iran wanted to launch a face saving measure and they did and once that was over, so was the war. 

I will say that Trump was as mad as I have ever seen him this morning when it was unclear if the ceasefire was going to hold. It's not often that a President drops the f-bomb on live TV, but he absolutely did this morning. Indeed, Trump looked more angry this morning than he was after he got shot. All that anger was likely directed towards Benjamin Netanyahu who wisely decided that anything more than a symbolic strike on Iran would lead to a permanent damaging of his relationship with Trump. 

President Trump is furious! He said Israel and Iran have “been fighting for so long and so hard that they don’t know “what the f**k they’re doing.” pic.twitter.com/AtTc2OHoYL

— Graham Allen (@GrahamAllen_1) June 24, 2025

Finally, I have to say that this whole thing was, as I said before, a roller coaster. I went from being hopeful that Trump would stick to diplomacy, annoyed that he joined the war, surprised that the strike worked out so well, shocked when he said there was a ceasefire, and right back to annoyed when the cease fire briefly fell apart. Right now I'm just beside myself with the fact that it all somehow worked out for Trump again. The man just appears to be blessed in some way that's hard to even define. Either way, I hope that the rest of his Presidency is a bit more boring than the last couple of weeks! 

 

Mass shooting at a church in Michigan stopped after he is run over and killed by parishioners.

 

Police stand near a truck, presumably the one used to stop the attack. AP. 

A mass shooting attempt at the CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne Michigan was stopped after the attacker was run down by a parishioner and shot by security. AP. The attacker, a 31 year old man, was sighted walking towards the church armed with a rifle and handgun and wearing a tactical vest. He opened fire, wounding one person, but a parishioner, (in some sources identified as a Deacon) ran him down with his Ford F-150, despite the shooter attacking his truck. This allowed two armed security guards to gun down and kill the attacker. No motive has been released for the attack, but he was described as having a mental health episode. 

My Comment:

Another example of a mass shooting being put down by civilians. The heroics here are the difference between only one person besides the shooter getting hurt and a horror show. The folks involved here showed extreme bravery and I can only hope that I would act similar if I was in the same situation. 

The driver of the truck, which I haven't been able to determine if they were a Deacon or not, did the right thing. By running down this driver he gave the guards time to shoot and kill the attacker. And it's very possible that he might have saved lives even if those guards weren't there. 

I'd also point out that the guards probably are volunteers, not employed security guards. They showed courage here too. They might have been able to stop the shooter on their own, but the person driving the truck absolutely helped as well. 

It does go to show that Churches are often not the soft target they used to be. Folks have wizened up and have taken steps to protect themselves and their community from the threat of violence. Many churches have volunteer security teams at this point and some even have professional guards. Attacking a church like this is not a good idea in areas where folks can defend themselves. And I guess they still can in Michigan. 

We don't really know what the motive is for this incident but I am guessing it was just a lone nut that had a grudge or just went insane. I know folks were freaking out about the idea that this was some kind of Iranian attack on US Soil, but given the demographics of the attacker, that seems unlikely. The article said he was White, and there are rumors that he was a local kook, that was upset with this church for some reason. I'm guessing that this was just a run of the mill attempted mass shooting, not anything at all related to Iran. 

Regardless, this is a good argument of what you should do when there is a mass shooter. Attacking them back is better than letting yourself get killed. Using any weapon at hand, be it a CCW pistol or your pickup truck, can absolutely save not only your own life but the lives of potentially dozens of people. 

The United States has struck three nuclear sites in Iran, joining the Israel-Iran war.

 

President Trump at the White House Lawn. AP.

The United States has struck three nuclear sites in Iran, joining the Israel-Iran conflict. AP. The strikes hit the nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and the fortified site at Fordo. The decision comes after a diplomatic push that began even before the conflict began. Israel had had great success in damaging Iran's air defenses but was unable to strike the fortified site at Fordo, which is deep underground. Only the United States Air Force with B2 bombers and GB-57 penetrator "bunker buster" bombs could destroy the facility. Trump said that the sites were completely destroyed. It is unclear how Iran will react to the bombing. 

My Comment:

I am both surprised and not surprised that this is happened. Trump had said that he was giving Iran two weeks, but that absolutely did not happen. But I am also not surprised that Trump was willing to do this. Though Trump is dramatically less of a warmonger than many other Presidents have been, he is willing to use force when he thinks it is necessary. And it's not like he didn't warn us, Trump said as far back as 2011, long before he was President or even that interested in politics that Iran should never have a nuclear bomb, so it's not like this is out of character. 

As for me, I am... annoyed by this. I was on record as not really being sure if I supported strikes on Iran or not and I guess I am still there. Like I said, the stated reasons for strikes, Iran being close to a bomb, has not been proven to my satisfaction. I certainly don't trust our intel agencies and I trust Israel even less. 

I just don't think "Iran could get nukes" is a valid casus belli for this conflict. I didn't think that when Israel launched their attacks and I don't think so now. Much of the problem is that normal folks haven't really seen the evidence cited that Iran was close to getting a bomb. I would agree that them getting a bomb would be a real problem given their state support of terrorism and general antagonism to the west. But, where is the evidence?

With that being said, there are other reasons to do this regardless of the "Iran getting nukes" argument. Supposedly, Iran was involved with an assassination plot against President Trump directly, which would more than enough justify strikes. They also have launched attacks historically against US troops in Iraq and Syria and are responsible for the death for many of our soldiers. 

If that had been the case for these strikes, I would probably more supportive. But those arguments weren't really made by the White House. Indeed, we didn't really get a case as to why we should join the war, other than Iran getting a nuke would be dangerous for the region. That's not enough for me and the White House should make whatever evidence they based this decision on available to the general public. 

With that being said, though I am critical of the decision, I also don't know what I would have done in Trump's seat. My gut says I would have tried even more diplomacy but it's possible that Trump knew something that we don't. Like I said in a previous post, it's very possible that the Israelis would have used nukes on Fordo if we hadn't struck, and in that case I would absolutely support strikes just to stop that from happening. 

I'd also add, that even though I am skeptical of these strikes, I still support the majority of what Trump has done. He does make mistakes once in a while and it's very possible that the strikes on Iran are one of them. But you do have to take the good with the bad and I'd say that deporting illegal aliens makes up for all but the worst case scenarios for this conflict. And if this is the end of it, which it very much might be, then I don't really think this is even that much of a big deal. 

Historians will judge this strike largely on what happens next. And that is now up to Iran. What Iran can even do at this point is up in the air. They do not have much of a military left. The way I see it they have four possible options, all of which may not be feasible at this point. 

First, they could try to close the Strait of Hormuz. A lot of shipping goes through the strait and if the Houthis could also step up attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, they could conceivably hurt shipping. The problems with that is that I just don't see them having the naval assets to do so. They weren't able to close the shipping lanes during the war with Iraq and I have seen little evidence that their abilities have improved, even when you ignore the damage done by the Israelis. Doing so would also anger just about everyone and could induce other countries in the Middle East or Europe to join the war. The Houthis show that's it's possible to disrupt shipping but they had to launch hundreds of attacks to even sink a few ships, and I don't see Iran doing much better. 

The second option would be to launch strikes against US forces in Iraq and Syria. Such a thing is possible, they have done so in the past, but doing so would be an escalation and I don't know if they even have the capability. I am guessing that the priority targets for their remaining missiles would remain Israel. If they do this, I would expect it to be a token attack, and one that will likely not result in casualties. They could also strike US allies in the region, like the Saudis and other Gulf States, but why draw them into the war? 

The third, and most dangerous option is activating "sleeper cells" in America and other countries. The fear is that those sleeper cells would commit terror attacks on targets both in the United States and abroad. The obvious question is why haven't those sleeper cells been activated? My guess is that if they were going to do so they would have done so by now. I am also skeptical at how many of those cells are in the United States in the first place, immigration from Iran has been curtailed for a long time. 

Finally, they could launch a cyber attack. US systems could be vulnerable and it would have the added possibility of plausible deniability. I am guessing this would be the most likely option and probably the one with the most variance in terms of success. I am far from an expert in this area so I will leave speculation to those more informed.

There is a chance that they decide to not do anything other than what they are doing. There is every indication that Trump doesn't want a long term war here and I think he just struck the nuclear sites so Israel would have a reason to actually end the war. Any sort of response from Iran would likely draw further strikes from the United States, and given their almost total lack of air defenses, that would make things even worse for them. 

I also wonder how this will play with the American people. It's up in the air right now, and I think we might see some unusual reactions from folks, with some Democrats praising the strikes and some Republicans condemning in. I won't speak for the left, but my feed is probably 50/50 in terms of support and condemnation for these strikes on X, though that's hardly a representative sample. I might just lay low for a bit on social media lest I get dogpiled by both sides for being in the middle. 

I'm not sure how the media will treat this either. The only time they ever praised Trump during his first term is when he bombed Syria after the supposed chemical attack there. I didn't support that attack either, but it was surreal watching them praise him after calling him Hitler for most of his term. I am guessing they will be somewhat supportive with some voices on the left and right being less so. 

Ohio GOP congressman claims to have been run off the road in the latest incident of violence against elected officials.

 

US Congressman Max Miller (R-Ohio). Politico/AP.

Ohio Republican Max Miller claims he was run off the road in the latest incident of violence against elected officials. Politico. Miller says he was run off the road on the way to work in Rocky River Ohio. The man shouted at him and showed him a Palestinian flag and made threats against the congressman. Miller, who is Jewish, described the incident as an act of antisemitism and said he would stand against all forms of hate. The incident comes after two Democratic figures in Minnesota were assassinated. Figures from both parties condemned the incident. 

The deranged hatred in this country has gotten out of control. Today I was run off the road in Rocky River, and the life of me and my family was threatened by a person who proceeded to show a Palestinian flag before taking off. I have filed a police report with Capitol Police and… pic.twitter.com/H6JnupcRIA

— Max Miller (@MaxMillerOH) June 19, 2025

My Comment:

Very disturbing incident and another example of violence against public officials, a problem that is getting worse it seems. Miller could have been hurt or killed if he was really ran off the road like he says. I have little reason to doubt him, and he does seem to think that whoever did this will be arrested shortly.  

It is no surprise that the attacker in this incident had a Palestinian flag. These folks are deranged and I will never understand why. I have never though the Palestinians were at all sympathetic and that was before October 7th. But even if you did think that, how does running a Republican congressmen help anything? It doesn't and I don't think these people even care. 

I don't really think it even had too much to do with Miller himself or even the Israel-Gaza conflict, I just think that the folks on the left have embraced both antisemitism and attacking anyone that disagrees with them. They have no problem with blocking streets, starting riots and harassing innocent people, and I really think it's more about being a power trip than anything else. 

And it does seem like things are escalating. There have been several deaths targeting folks that are in support of Israel, and that firebombing attack in Colorado. And it does not seem like the Democrats are doing all that much to reign in the far left folks that either look the other way when something like this happens or openly support it. 

The other fear I have is that these most recent attacks show that our elected officials are quite vulnerable. Trump was one of the most well protected men in the world and he came with in an inch of being killed by an assassin, and then it almost happened again. Not to mention the most recent murders in Minnesota and the old Congressional baseball shooting. 

The fact of the matter is that elected officials are pretty easy to target and that means folks will unless something is done to ratchet down tensions in this country. What that even looks like at this point is beyond me, but something needs to happen. I do think that more of this violence is going to come from the left as they have taken a massive cultural and political loss since Trump has been elected. It's essentially a temper tantrum but one where folks get hurt and killed... 

Supreme Court rules in favor of Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children.

 

The Supreme Court. Fox News/AFP/Getty.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children. Fox News. The question of law at hand in the case, United States v. Skrmetti, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court found that it did not as the government had a obvious interest in regulating medical activity and had a vested interest in protecting children. The plaintiffs had argued that the law was discriminating based on transgenderism, but the court held that the law was based on age and medical purpose, which allowed them to judge it on the "rational basis" standard. The case was decided 6-3 with all three liberal justices dissenting. The majority wrote that states should write their own laws on this issue and it will open the door to other bans on allowing transgender children to transition medically. 

My Comment:

I believe this is the right decision, both morally and under the law. Morally, I think these treatments are an abomination. Puberty blockers are horrifying due to the massive side effects and damage they cause to a body. Humans are meant to go through puberty, even if they are uncomfortable with it, but even if that wasn't the case, these drugs are very dangerous. They cause issues with bones and can prevent sexual function entirely. Hormone treatments appear to be even worse given the changes aren't at all reversable while some of the effects of puberty blockers are. Even if I had zero problems with children socially transitioning I'd still be opposed to these treatments, just based on the side effects. 

There is also the argument that most children that claim to be transgender are going through a phase and most desist on their own. Given that there are a lot of folks end up giving up on being transgender even after these youth treatments, it would be diabolical to allow young children who don't really know what they want to permanently medically change their bodies. The counterargument is that puberty is irreversible and it's "harder" to transition afterwards, but even if that was true it would not be fair to damage a confused child, because of what might happen after they are an adult. Regardless, I don't believe that children are competent enough to make these kinds of medical decisions on their own, especially if they are under the influence of activist parents. It's much better to have them wait until they are 18 as they will both be more able to accurately judge the pros and cons of a medical transition, but they will also be more free from the influence of their parents and schools, who may not have their best interests at heart. 

Regardless, though, the issue in the case wasn't if these treatments are a good idea or not, but if banning them was discriminatory. The court found that it was not, and I agree with them. Instead of banning on a protected class, which Transgenderism apparently gives you, it was based on age. It's not any different than preventing a homosexual person having sex with someone underage, we have to do it to protect children. That's not discrimination as the goal isn't the hurt the homosexual person but to protect the child, and it's the same argument here. 

The case law will be used to support further laws restricting the practice of medically transitioning children. Those laws are good laws for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't believe these treatments are good for children and now the case law is that it isn't discrimination. It's possible that someone could craft a law somewhere that would not fall under the rational basis standard, but I struggle to see what that is as long as it only targets medical transition for children.

What the case law doesn't prevent is transgender treatments for adults. Though I would be opposed to most, but not all of them, I do wonder if a similar law would survive SCOTUS review if it banned adult treatments. My guess is that it would not as simply banning these procedures, most notably surgery, would probably cross the line into discrimination. 

Either way though, I do think this is another example of the T portion of LGBT taking a major loss. It's very clear that the tide has gone against them, and this issue was a major component of it. Folks just aren't comfortable with minors having medically questionable, at best, treatments that aren't really reversable and can cause a lot of damage. 

Republicans split on possibly joining the Israel-Iran war.

 

President Donald Trump. BBC/Getty.

As tensions with Iran are rising, Republicans are split on possibly joining the war on Israel's side. BBC. Trump has been trying diplomacy with Iran but has said that it was possible that America could strike Iran. Trump ran as a peace candidate and against "stupid endless wars" but has also said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. This has split the Republican party into two factions, hawks, like Lindsey Graham in the Senate who want strikes, and doves, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massie, want to stay out of the conflict. Vice President JD Vance tried to bridge the gap, acknowledging the failures of previous conflicts but said Trump might be forced to act to end the potential enrichment of nuclear material. It is unclear if the debate is reaching the base of the party as Trump's approval on sending weapons to Israel was at 79% while 89% said that Iran having nuclear weapons was a concern. 

My Comment:

Given that Donald Trump has always been committed to strategic ambiguity it's not surprising that nobody is really sure what his goals in Iran are. Yesterday it seemed likely that he was just trying to force Iran to the diplomatic table, but today it seems more likely that we may join the war. But nobody is really sure outside of the White House knows and indeed, given that Trump likes to float policy proposals before enacting them, this could be the whole point of the exercise. As a reminder, Trump floated ending enforcement for immigration violations for certain businesses earlier in the month but went back on it very quickly after the backlash. He might be trying to see if there is a backlash against striking Iran. 

But this post is less about what Trump is going to do and what he should do and which group of Republicans are going to get what they want. Like the post said, the hawk and dove factions are fighting each other now even though I don't think it's all clear which side is going to prevail. 

I'd also say that there are a lot of people in the middle as well that aren't getting the coverage the steadfast people on either side are. I'm kind of in that category. I don't like joining wars and don't particularly support this conflict due to seeing it as a war of choice by Israel. But I also think it's very possible that Iran will give us a very valid casus belli that would make war an unfortunate reality. If Iran were to strike US targets in Iraq or try to close the Strait of Hormuz, for example, war would absolutely have to happen. You couldn't avoid it at that point. 

And I'm also very critical of a lot of folks on both sides of the debate. Lindsey Graham, for example, is a warmongering idiot, that just wants to fight no matter what the situation calls for. If, God forbid, he was president, not only would we have nuked Iran by now, we also would have nuked Russia and he'd be ruling over a destroyed country. 

But I also think that quite a lot of the opposition to the war is due to outright antisemitism. There is something to be said for not joining Israel's wars, and I am personally glad we got out of the Houthi situation myself. But some folks are going beyond just avoiding foreign entanglement, just because they hate jews. These voices are a lot more common on the left, but there are more than a few on the right, far right especially, but not exclusively, that have been calling Trump Zion Don for years just because he's not anti-Israel. 

There's also a few people that are just "trust Trump no matter what". I'm not a fan of those voices too. Trump absolutely makes mistakes and has policies I disagree with. If I don't like his Iranian policy I will call him out on it. I think he's in a difficult position to be sure and he might not make the right call, so I do think it is fair to criticize him if I don't like what he is doing. 

Of course this is a bunch of sound and fury that probably doesn't signify much of anything. If we do join the war, I am guessing it will to be just to drop a penetrator on the Fordo nuclear site, which Israel isn't going to be able to crack. If doing that and maybe striking a few missile sites and possibly Iranian leadership is all we end up doing then I think even the dove faction would shrug their shoulders and get back to work. It's not like we are going to send 1 million soldiers to occupy and rebuild Iran, which doesn't appear to be what anyone wants. Well, outside of Lindsey Graham that is. 

I do have to say that this isn't a cut and dry issue. My support for any strikes on Iran would have to depend on what the casus belli is. If it's just the noise about them getting nukes, I would probably not be too supportive, we have been burned by bad intel before and I have little reason to trust the idea that they are going to have a bomb in the next few months when that has been said for basically my entire adult life. 

But it might actually be the right call though, even if Iran doesn't give us a casus belli on a silver platter. Israel is an actor here too and it might be smarter to take care of the Iran situation ourselves. Like I said yesterday, Israel can't destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites, Fordo specifically, without using nuclear weapons. If the only way to stop Israel from dropping a nuke is to drop a penetrator of our own, it seems like a very easy choice. 

It's also possible that Trump could lose the plot here and get us involved in a war we don't really have any interest in. If Iran does nothing but fight Israel and there is no real threat from nuclear weapons, which seems likely, I don't think the war could be justified. Focusing on ending the war through diplomacy and letting both Israel and Iran fight it out for a bit longer might be a good idea, especially since Iran seems to be on the ropes anyways. Indeed, that could be exactly what Trump is doing. He's been known to make bellicose threats before but back down as soon as a deal is made, and who is to say that isn't what he is doing here? 

If it sounds like I am conflicted here, it's because I am. I don't know the right course of action here and I am not sure anyone does. This is a tough call and I am sure glad I don't have to make it. I do know that I am glad that it is Donald Trump making the call, and not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. 

Finally, I do think that this is probably getting overblown in importance. The worst results of any decisions here are also dramatically the least likely. I don't think either Israel or Iran will drop nukes on each other and I also think any kind of 25 year ground war in Iran is basically impossible. Indeed, I'm still optimistic that diplomacy might still be in the cards, though a bit less optimistic than yesterday. Ultimately, I don't think us either deciding to abstain or join a war that appears to be wrapping up anyways is going to affect much in this country at least either way. 

President Trump leaves G7 summit early to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict.

 

President Trump stands with the leadership of the G7 countries. ABC News/Getty.

President Trump will leave the G7 summit early to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict. ABC News. Though Trump signed a major trade deal with the United Kingdom, he will leave the Canadian hosted summit to return to the United States, skipping a meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky and Mexican President Sheinbaum. The announcement came after Trump issued a warning to Iran on Truth Social, asking them to both make a deal and "evacuate Tehran" the capital. Trump also said during a press conference with Canadian Prime Minster Carney that Iran wasn't winning the war and that they should talk immediately. 

My Comment:

Things are heating up to be sure. The optimistic take is that Iran is going to get the message and Trump had to head home to try and get a deal in place. It's clear he wants the war to end with diplomacy and not spiral out of control and his Truth post is a good example of trying to intimidate Iran into making a deal. He's making a threat, but probably an empty one, and one that will put pressure on Iran's government to make a deal. 

The pessimistic take is that something major has happened that absolutely forced Trump to return. I can think of two reasons why that would happen. The first would be that Israel is going to launch a major strike on Tehran itself. Not so much the city but the Tehran nuclear research facility. Such a strike would be dangerous as it could result in a release of radiation. The amount would not be a lot, but it could absolutely kill and injure people exposed to it. It wouldn't be a city destroying thing or anything but it would be a serious incident. The repercussions from that would mean that Trump absolutely has to head home. 

The second scenario is that something happened and that there is a real chance of the United States going to war with Iran. There have been a few military deployments that could support that view, like the deployment of the USS Nimitz to the Middle East, but I find this very unlikely. 

Why? Trump pretty obviously does not want war. He has always been a diplomat and it sure seems like this is just an intimidation tactic. The only way I could see America joining the war directly is if it was to avoid a strike on US interests or to prevent Israel from doing something stupid. Iran has made noise about striking the US but not officially, and they would be insane to do so. I guess it is possible that our intel agencies caught wind of an upcoming strike, but is Iran that stupid? I don't think so. 

But could Israel do something stupid? It's possible. The only nuclear site that Israel can hit easily is the one in Tehran, as it's not hardened and underground like the two more important sites at Fordo and Natanz. Israel doesn't actually have the weapons to destroy those two sites as they are underground. They would need American penetrator bombs to even seriously damage those sites. Or perhaps nuclear weapons. Such a launch would be an extreme escalation and would probably lose all credibility Israel has left, so I doubt it would be something that could happen. But you never know. 

There is also a fear that Israel could launch a "false flag" against US forces or civilians and that could be what Trump is responding too. I find that pretty ridiculous, false flags very uncommon and when they do happen they are very easy to spot. I just think that theory is just a rather deranged conspiracy theory by the same folks that think everything is a false flag.  

Hilariously, it's possible that Trump just wanted out of the G7 summit. The important work was done, the only thing he really wanted out of the summit was the deal with the UK. Trump doesn't really care about the other things the G7 was working on, like the meeting with Zelensky. Indeed, this could be seen as a diplomatic insult to him, a message that the United States is not really interested in dealing with Ukraine anymore when there is a conflict that might actually be solved. Iran would be the perfect excuse to skip town. This is pretty unlikely but I kind of want it to be true. 

What is my take? I am guessing the optimistic scenario is the real one. Trump is known to talk loud but he is also very eager to make a deal. He absolutely likes turning enemies into friends and is practically begging the Iranians to play ball. This is most likely a pretty obvious attempt to intimidate them into playing ball. 

And they absolutely should. The war has been pretty one sided at this point. Iran hasn't had any real victories so far, just some missile strikes that accomplished very little in terms of stopping the Israeli air strikes. And their air force and air defenses have been complete no shows. They are at the point where they can claim the strikes they have done have satisfied honor and making a peace deal is the best move they can make. Hopefully they will do so. 

Trump says he is trying to get a deal to end the war between Israel and Iran.

 

President Trump at the 250th birthday celebration for the US Army. Reuters. 

President Trump says that he is trying to get a deal that would end the war between Israel and Iran. Reuters. Trump said that there are meetings happening that could help and that he hopes that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has influence over Iran, will help set up a peace deal. Israel and Iran have hit each other hard in the conflict though it's unclear if Israel will stop before their goal is complete. Trump lamented the fact that he gets very little credit for his efforts as a diplomat and cites the recent end to the conflict between India and Pakistan as evidence that he could get the job done between Israel and Iran. Republicans seem split on the war, with many being critical of aiding Israel and wanting to avoid conflict, while others, like Lindsey Graham, want to join the war. 

My Comment:

Unlike the war between Russia and Israel, I do think that a negotiated settlement is likely to happen. Israel is more powerful than Iran, but they are unlikely to be able to destroy Iran's government. And Iran isn't anywhere near powerful enough to destroy Israel. So if the fighting is to be stopped then a deal must be made eventually. 

I think this is why Trump vetoed Israeli plans to kill Ayatollah Khamenei. Though Khamenei isn't the secular leader of Iran, he is the de facto one and if Israel had killed him then there wouldn't really be anyone to negotiate with. Indeed, the folks they did kill were the hardliners that were resisting any chance a deal as they assumed Israel would attack anyways. They may have been right, but they are dead now and with them gone and Iran under siege their replacements might be more amicable to a deal. 

The real problem is the Israelis. Their hardliners are still in place and they might not want to settle until the Iranian regime collapses. Such a thing is unlikely, I know Iran's government isn't exactly popular among their people, but they are also very good at controlling rioting and proto-revolutions. I don't really believe that Iran was close to getting a nuke so I don't really think it's about that, but I also don't think they can accomplish those goals militarily. But they might double down regardless. 

The real hope is that America isn't drawn into the war. President Trump pretty obviously doesn't want that to happen, if he wanted to be in the war he would be. And he knows that his base would not be happy if we got involved in the war unless something really stupid happened, like a rash of terrorism across the United States at the direction of Iran. 

And it does seem that Iran doesn't want the United States in the war either. Obviously they are already in a tough fight with Israel and they absolutely do not want American air power involved as well. They could have at any time struck US bases in Iraq and Syria. The fact that they haven't is good evidence that they want to keep the United States out of the war, and Trump has told them directly that it would be an extremely bad idea to attack US interests in the Middle East. 

I do think that Trump is capable of cutting a deal. He has absolutely done so in the past and was able to end the India-Pakistan conflict. He is a diplomat at heart and if anyone can end the war it is Trump. The problem is that I don't think either side is desperate enough to end the war just yet and until that happens, the killing will continue... 

Two Minnesota politicians attacked in politically motivated attack.

 

Flyers found in the suspects vehicle referencing the "No Kings" protest today. New York Post/Police hand out.

Four people were shot, including two prominent Minnesota Democrats and their spouses, in a deadly politically motivated rampage. New York Post. A suspect, Vance Boelter, shot and wounded State Senator John Hoffman and his wife before moving on to shoot and kill State House member Melissa Hortman and her husband. Hortman is the former Speaker of the House for the state of Minnesota. Boelter is on the run despite getting into a gunfight with police that responded to the shooting of Hortman. The suspect was dressed as a police officer and wore a chilling latex mask during his crimes. The motive of the case is unclear though leaflets saying "no kings", a reference to the anti-Trump protests today, were found in his car, along with several rifles. Boelter had been twice assigned to positions by Democratic Governors, most recently by failed Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz. A manifesto was apparently written by the suspect that named many Minnesota Democrats as potential targets, but also included pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood. The manifesto has not been released. 

Surveillance video showing the attacker wearing a latex mask. Police handout. 

My Comment:

Strange and disturbing case out of Minnesota and one that isn't easily explained. Boelter appears to be a radical leftist and one that was associated pretty strongly with the Democratic Party, but he assassinated a Democratic Lawmaker and wounded another one. He also supposedly was going to target Planned Parenthood, which would be very odd for a Democrat. It's possible that is misinformation as I don't think police have released it directly, but if it's true it doesn't make much sense. 

What it looks like to me is another example of a purity spiral. Melissa Hortman just voted to end medical benefits for illegal aliens in Minnesota, and was the only Democrat to do so. Because of her joining the Republicans, the legislation passed. The problem with the purity spiral theory is that Senator Hoffman did not vote with Republicans, though there was quite a bit of confusion about that this morning, so it's possible the attacker was misinformed as well? 

And the presence of the "No Kings" flyers, obviously hand made, seems to indicate something as well. The No Kings protest was a leftist one held today that was anti-Trump. If the guy was really a right wing attacker, why would he have those flyers in his car? Some kind of weird false flag is possible, but again, the guy was a leftist political appointee, it wouldn't make much sense for him to flip on his beliefs 180 degrees. Such a thing is possible, but very unlikely. 

I am guessing that whatever the motive was, that it is probably damaging to the Democrats in some way. Usually if it's a right wing attacker the motive will be released almost instantly, but when it's damaging in some way to the left it either never comes out at all or comes out months later after leaks, like the transgender shooter in Nashville Tennessee, Audrey Hale, that shot up a school. 

Of course, it's very possible that this is just another insane person who has motives that may not even make sense to him. It's not as likely due to this man being older and having a steady career, it's certainly possible he had some kind of mental break. It might even be a personal motive, like when Charles Guiteau assassinated President Garfield because he thought he was owed a political position. 

What is sure is that political violence is becoming fairly common these days and it appears to be mostly coming from leftists. This is the third politically motivated assassination since Trump got inaugurated and if you count the two assassination attempts against him as well, it's part of a very disturbing trend. And that's on top of the politically motivated Los Angeles riots and all the attacks on Tesla owners and dealerships that were downplayed and excused by the media. 

In short, it seems like this country is heading towards a dark place where political violence is tolerated to a degree that we haven't seen since the 1970's. And it obviously seems to be backfiring on Democrats as the golem they created by not purging the most radical and unhinged voices in their party is now fully out of their control.  

Of course the elephant in the room is that the suspect in this case is still on the run as of this writing. How he was able to escape from police on foot is a mystery but it's very possible that he could launch follow up attacks, though with his car and rifles captured he would be pretty limited in what he could accomplish. He supposedly still has a handgun, but given he shot four people and a dog and got into a gunfight with police he's probably out of ammo. I am guessing that he will either be captured or found dead, either from wounds inflicted during the shootout with police or by his own hand, shortly. 

Finally, as an aside, I have to say that the pictures of the assassin wearing the latex mask are absolutely chilling. I almost wonder if the killer was inspired by the scene in the movie Drive, where Ryan Gosling does something similar during the climax of the movie. Either way, I know that I would not have opened the door for him if I had gotten a good look at that mask... 

 

Israel strikes Iran leading to fears of a major regional war.

 

Smoke rises from Tehran Iran. AP. 

Israel has launched a major attack on Iran, leading to fears of a wider regional war breaking out. AP. Israel said the strikes were targeted at Iran's leadership and nuclear weapons program. The strikes are a major break with the United States. President Trump was still negotiating with Iran when Israel launched the strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the United States was not involved with the strikes and that their priority was protecting US forces in the region. Trump had warned Israel to wait on any strikes on the outcome of talks with Iran which were scheduled to continue this weekend. 

The following news outlets have live updates for this conflict:

AP. 

CNN

Jerusalem Post.

New York Times.

My Comment:

After yesterday's evacuation orders for US posts in the Middle East, I am not surprised that the situation devolved into a conflict. It seemed pretty likely at that point, but what I wasn't expecting was the conflict beginning so soon. 

The good news, if there is any, is that we appear to be staying out of it. We were not involved in these strikes and it was clear that President Trump didn't want them to happen. Indeed, this is a major break between Israel and the United States. Trump was actively trying diplomacy as late as today and had meetings with Iran scheduled for this weekend, that probably aren't going to happen now. I hope we continue to stay out of it, this was not our fight and the last thing we need is to be dragged in. 

But it might not be up to us. Right now it's unclear what Iran is going to do in response to these strikes. The real fear is that they will hit targets in Iraq or possibly other US interests in the region. Doing so would not be in the interest of Iran, but I am not sure they are rational actors even before these strikes. Hopefully they limit their retaliation to Israel and Israel alone. 

These strikes seem to be pretty effective. Early reports are never reliable but if even some of them are accurate Iran got humiliated here. Supposedly much of the leadership of Iran's military is dead along with some of their nuclear scientists. There are even rumors that the President and Ayatollah are dead, though that hasn't been confirmed at all.

That means that Iran will likely have to respond in extreme fashion to save any amount of face. I am guessing they will use whatever they have left for a massive strike against Israel, to the point that it's possible or probable that Israel will not have enough to defend themselves. I am guessing they will probably take some casualties when Iran decides to respond. 

My real fear is that Iran will resort to terrorism to hit targets outside of Israel. Iran has sleeper agents across the world, some of them in Hezbollah, some of them as normal Iranians. Iran could use these folks to strike at Israeli targets globally, including in the United States. And at this point why wouldn't they? The only consideration is not drawing other countries into the war and they might not care about that if they think they have already lost. 

Still, with all that being said, I think the most likely outcome is that Iran and Israel launch their tit-for-tat strikes and the conflict ends fairly quickly. A major war is unlikely for no other reason that neither side shares a border and would be hard pressed to attack each other directly. Eventually both sides will run out of munitions and I am guessing after that the conflict will end. 

I do have to say that I can't really understand what Israel was thinking here. This is not a move I support and like I said yesterday, Israel has enough on their plate already. They were already fighting Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. Starting a major war with Iran is not in their best interests even if they were close to getting a nuke. 

And personally? I doubt Iran was. Iran has been a "few weeks" away from owning nuclear weapons for as long as I can remember and so far they haven't actually gotten one. If they did then perhaps this is justified but they would have to actually produce the weapon before I would believe it. 

I am also not expecting World War III. I think it's unlikely that any other countries get involved unless Iran somehow uses weapons of mass destruction or terrorism to target Israeli interests overseas. And there is no reason for the big three, Russia, China and the United States, to go to war over a Middle East war, that I am guessing none of them wanted. Like I said, the most likely scenario is the tit-for-tat strikes like the last time this happened, though at a much larger scale. 

United States to partially evacuate embassy in Iraq as tensions with Iran increase.

 

File photo of Blackhawk helicopters near Baghdad. BBC/Getty.

The United States will partially evacuate the embassy in Iraq as tensions with Iran increase. BBC. Families of diplomats throughout the Middle East have also been given permission to evacuate. The move comes as talks with Iran appear to have reached an impasse with President Trump saying that he was growing less confident that Iran would stop enriching Uranium. Trump also had a "tense" 40 minute phone call with Israel's Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu who has long favored a military solution to Iran compared to Trump's diplomatic approach. The Pentagon believes that Iran is moving closer to a nuclear weapon. It is unclear if the moves are due to a genuine fear of war, as Iran has threatened US troops and diplomats in Iraq if a war happens, or if it is an attempt to leverage Iran into a deal. 

My Comment:

Other sources are saying that Israel is prepping a strike on Iran to disable their nuclear program, though they didn't really have any other information or confirmation in their articles that wasn't included in the BBC report. This is not unexpected, Israel has been saber rattling against Iran as long as I have been alive. But it certainly is concerning. 

With that being said, this could just be saber rattling and an attempt at bringing Iran to heel. Trump may be acting as the "good cop" while Israel is acting like the "bad cop". The theory would be that the threats and evacuations show that they are willing to go to war if Iran doesn't play ball, but leaves open the possibility that peace could break out. 

Unfortunately I don't think that's the case, as relations between Trump and Netanyahu have cooled, largely over this issue. Trump obviously doesn't want a major Middle East War to break out as it isn't something he wants. And it's certainly not what his voters want either, Trump was elected on an anti-war platform. But given that Trump made a separate peace with the Houthi Rebels in Yemen and has been somewhat critical of their war in Hamas, with a deal still not made, I don't know how much influence Trump has in this situation.

As for Israel, I think this is completely boneheaded. Iran has been "close" to a nuclear weapon as long as I can remember, and I honestly don't think anything has changed. And keep in mind that Israel has not even finished the wars against Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen yet. Though they have at least neutralized Hezbollah and most Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, they are still not in a position to open yet another front. 

It's also unclear how a war would play out. My hope is that it will follow the same pattern that we have seen between Israel and Iran for awhile now. Israel makes a strike, Iran takes some damage and launches a strike to save face and then everything calms down again. Neither side is really powerful enough to destroy each other, even with nuclear weapons, so I think both sides know that they can't do all that much to each other. If strikes happen I expect there to be the same tit-for-tat strikes we have seen for awhile now. 

Of course it could go worse than that. An attack on nuclear weapons research may demand a larger response from Iran than in previous cases. Iran has large unconventional forces and could launch terror attacks globally, even in the United States proper. And it's possible that Iran possesses chemical, biological or radiological weapons (even if they don't have a proper nuke) and that would escalate things greatly. It would be extremely bad for the region, to say the least. 

In either scenario, it's possible America would be dragged into it. I don't know if Trump will back Israel's play or not, but even if we don't we could be dragged into it due to Iran saying they would strike our troops and diplomats in Iraq. My hope is that Israel would act alone and face any consequences alone, but it's also possible that we will not participate in any strikes on Iran but would defend Israel from any retaliation attack, much like we did in the Red Sea against the Houthis. 

My hope now is in the diplomats. I really don't think Trump wants war, though it's clear that Israel does at the very least. But if a deal is made, Israel might back down. The real question is what Iran will do. If they are smart they will take whatever deal Trump has proposed and be thankful for the opportunity. But I don't know if Iran is a rational actor, not that I am sure Israel is either, so who knows what will happen? 

I do know that even if the United States does not participate in any war with Iran, protests and violence from the anti-Israel left is likely. They have been apoplectic since October 7th and a whole new war against Iran will likely enrage them even further. Though I like Israel more than Iran, even I would be flabbergasted and annoyed if they started yet another war for what looks like non-serious reasons. I don't think the anti-Israel camp, who are already deranged, will remain at all sane.