Man accused of murdering Iryna Zarutska found not competent to stand trial.

 

Iryna Zarutska before her death. New York Post.

Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of brutally murdering Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte North Carolina has been found not competent to stand trial. New York Post. The finding complicates his state murder charges and will delay the trial 180 days. If the judge in the case decides to accept the report, charges against Brown would be dismissed without prejudice. Under North Carolina law a defendant is found incompetent if they can't understand the charges against them and can't assist with their own defense. Brown is in federal custody for additional charges of violence against a railroad carrier, but has not been mentally evaluated in that case. Zarutska's murder caused massive outrage after it was caught on video and it was revealed that Brown was a habitual offender that was still on the street.  

My Comment:

This is not an unexpected outcome but folks are not going to be happy with it at all. The Iryna Zarutska case was hugely important and anything other than a life sentence or death penalty for Decarlos Brown Jr. is going to be extremely unpopular at the least, and could even lead to changes to how people are found incompetent to stand trial. 

To review, Zarutska was an Ukrainian refugee that fled the war. She was on her way home for work on a Charlotte light rail car. Decarlos Brown Jr. stabbed her in the neck and she died. High quality video of this murder were posted by the government and caused extreme outrage given the pitiful way she died and the total lack of remorse shown by Brown. 

Decarlos Brown Jr. was mentally ill. He was schizophrenic and obviously unwell. But mere mental illness isn't enough to declare someone not competent to stand trial. In order to do so you can't be able to understand the charges against you or help with your defense. It's supposed to be a high bar to clear and without seeing him personally I don't know if he clears that bar or not. 

People are also pointing out that if Brown was so out of it that he can't even understand the charges against him, why was he on the street in the first place? Decarlos Brown Jr. was a menace, having been arrested multiple times, some of them violent. But soft on crime laws let him out on the street and he also wasn't committed. Folks aren't going to tolerate a system where a man can't be held for his crimes and can't be sent to a mental hospital  

The murder of Zarutska might change things, especially in North Carolina. There is already legislation there to make it easier to hold people who have serious mental health concerns and if Brown is found to be permanently unable to stand trial and the case(s) gets dismissed the calls for changes will be even louder. 

Regardless, folks aren't going to be happy about this regardless of the outcome. I do understand that there should be some standards for trying people who are so out of it that they can't even show up in court, but there also has to be some justice. Given the horrific nature of the crime and the outrage already being about how Brown seemed to be immune to actual consequences for his actions, I can't see people accepting anything other than a long prison sentence or an execution. 

Fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States brokered by Pakistan.

 

President Trump and the Strait of Hormuz. UPI/Getty/Orbital Horizon. 

A fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States, brokered by Pakistan, has been called in the conflict. Fox News. President Trump had made threats against Iran, preparing a massive strike against Iran's infrastructure and power plants saying it could end the Iranian civilization if a deal was not made. However, a last minute deal, brokered by Pakistan, stopped the fighting for now and will reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have agreed to start negotiations formally in Pakistan in Islamabad on Friday. 

My Comment:

This is a positive move towards and end to the five week war with Iran. Both sides have some major incentives to end the war and a ceasefire is the first step. But the real question is if the ceasefire will hold and if a real peace deal will be reached. 

To be clear, there is a chance that the deal could fall apart fairly quickly. There are other parties involved besides the Iranian government and the United States. Indeed, the elephant in the room is Israel. They have been more aggressive when it comes to Iran and they want actual regime change as opposed to a simple deal like Trump and Iran want. Israel will probably require, at the very least, and end to the Iranian nuclear program, and end to Iran's ballistic missiles and an end to Iran's support of their proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. Only the first, ending Iran's nuclear program, is likely to be agreed to. 

Iran could torpedo things on their end too. The Iranian secular government seems incredibly tired of this war and want it to end and it looks like the religious Mullahs want it done too. The real problem is the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They have a lot of hardliners and they are in control of some of Iran's forces. They could try to undermine any ceasefire and they actually have been doing so previously. 

Still, this is what is needed to end the war. It's also very possible that talks in Islamabad will end the war. Iran would be allowed to save a little face and Trump will be able to crow that he was able to defeat Iran with very little cost. There's a lot of incentive to make this work and I am cautiously optimistic that it will. 

I will also say that if it does work out it will vindicate a lot of Trump's actions over the past five weeks. Launching this war was controversial to say the least. Folks were mad about it to the point where a lot of folks when fully unhinged. 

But it also shows that brinkmanship does indeed work. Trump launched a very credible threat, one that Iran had to take seriously. If Trump had launched his energy attack it would have destroyed Iran. When a regime can't even keep the lights on that's the end of the road and a major reason why the Ukraine conflict has gone on so long is that Russia has refused to destroy Ukraine's remaining power generation. Seeing this, Iran finally blinked, possibly with a nudge from China as well. 

Some people are accusing Trump of chickening out, but it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trump is. He was always going to try and get a deal. It's like nobody has actually read his book, Art of the Deal, or failing that, a summary of it. Of course those people were also claiming that Trump was going to nuke Iran too, so we probably shouldn't be listening to them anyways.   

City councilor in Indianapolis attacked in anti-data center attack.

 

Bullet holes in the councilors home and a no data center note. CBS News/Ron Gibson.

A city councilor in Indianapolis reports that his home was attacked in an anti-data center attack. CBS News. Ron Gibson reported that his house was shot at 13 times at midnight. A note saying "no data centers" was left at the door. He was with his 8 year old son at the time, and neither were injured. Data centers are used for AI applications but have come under heavy criticism due to the effects on energy prices, water usage and reducing jobs. Gibson was advocating for a new data center in Indianapolis at a recent meeting and faced heavy opposition. 

My Comment:

Of all the things to get upset by, a new data center doesn't seem like it should be one of them. Certainly not to the point where you are trying murder people who disagree with you. That's obviously an extreme reaction, but it baffles me that opposition to an AI datacenter is that extreme. It's lucky that nobody was hurt and the fact that an 8 year old was put at risk is outrageous. I hope this shooter is caught and punished to the full extent of the law. 

To be fair, AI datacenters do have disadvantages for locals. They use a lot of water, most of which ends up being evaporated into the atmosphere. In arid regions where water use is already a problem, I could see that being a legitimate concern. Indiana is not one of those regions, they have the Great Lakes and many rivers to cool these data centers down. 

Power use is another problem and it does lead to higher prices. These datacenters do suck up power like nobody's business and some of those costs are put on consumers. This is compounded by the fact that the same NIMBY people who hate datacenters also hate building new powerplants, most notably nuclear ones. 

There's also general opposition to AI in general. Folks are indeed afraid that they are going to lose their jobs to AI and that isn't really inaccurate. A lot of tech jobs, for example, have already been lost and many of the white collar "do nothing daycare" jobs will probably go away as well. Stopping data centers isn't going fix that but people feel like doing something to oppose AI given how much of a major social change it is. Indeed, I feel a bit of this myself as it's pretty obvious that this blog is obsolete when AI chatbots exist...

Still, the AI genie is fully out of the bottle and these data centers are going to be built somewhere. The demand for more AI generation is extreme, and unless there is a massive crash in AI demand, more data centers will be needed. 

I would rather these data centers be built in the United States. Sure, there are some places they shouldn't be built, like anywhere with water issues, but I absolutely don't want what could be critical infrastructure to be built in foreign countries where China or other adversaries could target them. AI is going to be important and I don't want the United States to be cut off because NIMBY's couldn't deal with it. 

And it's not like the datacenters don't have benefits as well. They do involve some high paying construction jobs and when complete there are also some well paying maintenance tech jobs as well. Those jobs can help locals. Plus there is a large property tax base that these datacenters can provide which will offset some of the costs. 

Regardless, the pro and anti-datacenter arguments should remain those. When folks are shooting up the homes of politicians then things have gotten too heated too quickly. I do think that the anti-datacenter people are going to win a lot of these fights but if they keep resorting to violence it's not going to go well for them... 

US Military recovers two pilots from downed F-15E far behind enemy lines in Iran.

 

File photo of an F-15E Strike Eagle. US Government photo. 

The United States Military has rescued two pilots from a downed F-15E Strike Eagle far behind enemy lines in Iran. NBC News. The jet crashed in Iranian territory and the pilot was rescued immediately. However, the planes Weapons System Officer (WSO) was not and had to escape and evade on the ground. President Trump announced tonight that the WSO was saved by US forces in a major operation that resulted in no US casualties. The plane was shot down by enemy fire, most likely by a MANPADS system, and was joined by an A-10 Warthog which was shot down by enemy fire as well, though the pilot was able to escape to Kuwait before ejecting. 

My Comment:

Late breaking news that deserves a brief post, this is very welcome news. Though the rumors of the rescue have been going on since this evening, it wasn't confirmed until just recently that the WSO was safe. It's very good news to say the least. 

It's also a blow to Iran's pride. They, and their backers online, had been hoping that the WSO would be captured, and that there would be serious casualties in a failed rescue operation. Some accounts were even posting that the WSO had been captured and that the Iranians had set a trap, and were even cheering on the idea that Special Forces troops were in danger. 

Instead they got embarrassed. Shooting down two planes was not much of an accomplishment, but capturing a pilot would have been an embarrassment for the United States. But having both pilots not only survive, but be extracted in complex rescue missions that resulted in no US deaths whatsoever shows just how much the United States is dominating the skies over Iran. 

To be fair, we don't quite have air dominance. Iran still has some anti-air weapons left, obviously. Those weapons are probably mostly MANPADS, shoulder launched missiles, and possibly a few mobile SAM launchers and AAA guns. But it's telling that they weren't able to prevent this rescue with their remaining air defenses. And the F-15 and A-10 were likely shot down in a case of "wrong place, wrong time". They just happened to be over an area that happened to have a guy with a missile launcher. 

Indeed, US air loses have been almost non-existent in this conflict. We have lost five planes, along with a few planes and helicopters being damaged (most notably a couple of E3 Sentry's being damage on the ground). Three of those planes were lost in a friendly fire incident, but we will count them anyways. There have also been about a dozen drones lost as well, not counting our Kamikaze ones. That's insanely low given how absurdly intense our operations against Iran have been. 

Regardless, this incident will likely be turned into a Hollywood movie at some point. People like stories of this kind of heroism and people surviving against all odds. Folks may not all approve of this conflict with Iran but they do like seeing the United States military engage in the kind of professionalism we saw this weekend. 

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration.

 

Pam Bondi and her replacement Todd Blanche. BBC/Getty.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi will leave the Trump administration and will be replaced by her deputy, Todd Blanche. BBC. Bondi's term had been dominated by the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, first promising the release of an "Epstein list" of clients of Epstein but then failing to deliver when no such list existed. Trump had praised her for a crackdown on crime that appears to have had results but the Epstein issue was a drag on his administration. Bondi also faced criticism from Trump for not competently prosecuting Democrats suspected of crimes. Bondi is only the third major Cabinet official to resign or be fired in Trump's 2nd term, along with Kristi Noem and Mike Waltz.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings on this one. There is an argument to be made that Bondi was more effective in her role than people give her credit for. After all, there was a major decrease in crime under President Trump and Bondi probably does deserve credit for it. And she has done a competent job of defending Trump's policies in court, but that could be due to the weaknesses of the cases.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Bondi made a massive error in how she handled to Epstein files. She made a promise that she couldn't keep and made the issue extremely damaging for the Trump administration. Her presentation that suggested the existence of a "client list" that simply didn't exist sent conspiracy theorists into a frenzy and when she couldn't deliver on that it had the appearance of a coverup. 

It was an own-goal because there really was not a client list. There were a few people that were accused of wrong doing but it was mostly figures that we already knew, like Bill Richardson, Marin Minsky, Jean-Luc Brunel and Prince Andrew. None of those cases were prosecutable and that lead to folks feeling like justice was not being done. 

This was damaging to President Trump. I get the feeling that the general public doesn't care, other than the few people out there that care about nothing else. But it did cause a few prominent Republicans to break with the President, most notable Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I was never a fan of either of them, but still, it made enemies. 

Bondi was also having trouble prosecuting some prominent Democrats. Adam Schiff, James Comey and Laticia James should be awaiting trial right now, but Bondi wasn't able to secure an arrest in any of these cases. It's another point of contention with the Trump administration and the Republican base, we generally want to see these people in jail and Bondi wasn't able to get it done. 

So why did Bondi last so long? Like I said before, she did have some successes, but I am guessing it was because she was loyal to President Trump. Bondi helped to defend Trump during his 2020 impeachment and was seen as a personal friend to Trump. But that couldn't protect her forever. 

Will the United States leave NATO?

 

UK Prime Minster Kier Starmer. AP. 

President Donald Trump has stated that he is considering leaving NATO. AP. Trump has been a critic of NATO for a long time but his remarks were more explicit this time. Much of the criticism has been due to the actions of some of the European countries. Despite having some missiles launched at NATO allies like Turkey and a British base in Cyprus, much of Europe has not offered support to the conflict. Indeed, some states, such as Italy and Spain, have vetoed participation in the war and have banned US troops from operating at their bases. However, leaving NATO would be difficult due to US laws that would force leaving the alliance to go through Congress. 

My Comment:

In the short term, it's not really possible to leave NATO. Due to some laws put into place recently, President Trump is unable to unilaterally leave the alliance. He would need bipartisan support that simply doesn't exist even in his own party, let alone a Democrat party that would oppose him no matter what he does, even if it's the right thing to do. So, again, this is more about Trump venting frustration than an actual attempt to leave NATO in the short term. 

But Trump's frustration is more than justified. Europe isn't just not supporting this conflict, they are throwing monkey wrenches into it by banning use of bases. This is despite the fact that NATO allies, most notably the UK and Turkey, have come under direct attack from Iran and that NATO members outside of the United States benefit a lot more from what we are doing in Iran that we do. 

Indeed, Iran was pretty close to being able to threaten the capitals of much of Europe. I still don't think they were that close to nuclear weapons, but even a conventional ballistic attack on Europe's capitals would have been dangerous. If Iran had been able to create a nuclear weapon, after all North Korea was, all of Europe would have been threatened and we would have had a much more dangerous and high stakes conflict compared to the rather anemic one we have today. 

And they are also demanding that we open the Strait of Hormuz for them. We don't really benefit from that directly, and there would be actual risk there compared to the rest of the conflict, it would lower energy prices and ease some of the pain at the pump, but we are energy independent and not only have our own oil but Venezuela's as well. NATO doesn't have either and are refusing to buy oil from us as well. 

And it's not like we have asked Europe to do much. Indeed, Canada is off the hook here just because they supported the mission with words and not actions. All NATO had to do is let us use there bases and offer some words of support and they couldn't even do that. And it's threatening the alliance. 

Though the alliance was in trouble in the first place. The Russia-Ukraine war is a large part of it. Europe has largely depleted their weapons and bankrupted their economies in a war that is no longer necessary. Indeed, our goal now is to end the war and normalize relations with Russia. And, as critical as I am of Ukraine I have to note that they have done more to help in Iran than most of NATO, at this point I'd rather ally with them and Russia (were such a thing possible) than NATO. 

But the real problem is this question. Does it make sense to ally with people that don't have a future? As far as I can see it, much of Europe doesn't, and the US government agrees with me. Instead of focusing on their economy or military, they focused on social programs. Indeed, I am not impressed with much of NATO's military, again, Ukraine is a lot better than the majority and only Turkey, Poland and maybe France, are going to be useful in a military conflict. The UK is a joke and much of the rest are just as bad off. 

Immigration though is the elephant in the room. Europe brought in millions of military aged males in the last decade and its going to permanently change their demographics and future. It's to the point where I don't think they can make them leave without a conflict and I think that conflict is coming soon. I don't think Europe is going to be able to integrate their millions of Muslims the way America is able to do so with our immigrants and that means that NATO is likely doomed long term...

The Supreme Court has struck down bans on conversion therapy.

 

File photo of the Supreme Court. Politico/AP.

The Supreme Court has struck down a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. Politico. The case, Chiles v Salazar, in an 8-1 ruling found that Colorado's law that banned the practice was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Conversion therapy is a practice that attempts to reduce or remove same sex attraction and transgenderism through talk therapy. The practice has become controversial and 20 states have bans on the practice when used with minors. However, the court ruled that banning the practice was a violation of free speech. 

My Comment:

I have always thought that bans on conversion therapy were a pretty obvious violation of the 1st amendment, both on free speech grounds and religious freedom grounds. The government shouldn't get to have a say if a patient and his or her doctor want to talk out desisting from homosexuality or transgenderism. This wasn't a case where it was doctors prescribing medication or surgery, just talk therapy and the government is always going to get in trouble with the courts when they regulate talk.

The key problem here was that Colorado was pretty obviously and egregiously promoting viewpoint discrimination. Conversion therapy was banned but therapy that promoted or encouraged homosexuality or transgenderism for children was allowed. This is the government promoting one viewpoint and discriminating against another and the politics of it didn't matter to anyone but Ketanji Brown Jackson. 

Justice Kagan did point out that it was the discrimination that was the problem. Theoretically, a ban on the same kind of therapy encouraging homosexuality and transgenderism, would be just as legally suspect as Colorado's law. Outside of cases where people are being prescribed medication or surgery, you could face the same kind of ruling for a ban on that kind of therapy. You either have to allow both, or ban both, but picking and choosing is not going to be allowed anymore. And that means a lot of these conversion therapy bans are going to be removed. 

None of this is a judgement on if conversion therapy works or not. Given how politicized it is, I am guessing there isn't an honest study out there. My gut says that it probably does work when it comes to transgenderism but not so when it comes to homosexuality. I generally see transgenderism as a social contagion, not something that is natural, while homosexuality appears to be something that just happens naturally, though the cause is unknown.   

It also depends on what you mean when you say "works". I don't think homosexual attraction is something that you can talk yourself out off. But I do think that certain behaviors, like promiscuous or dangerous sex, are things you can talk yourself out off and that it could absolutely be helpful to talk those things out with a professional. And I think even from a secular perspective, there are reasons to encourage this, it's generally good to talk people out of their worst instincts. 

And for things like transgenderism? I absolutely think that this kind of therapy could help. I generally view the T portion of LGB to be a social contagion, not something that is real and that if people were allowed to talk it out with a therapist that wasn't trying to encourage it, most if not all transgender people wouldn't be transgender. 

Can I prove any of that? No, and that's the main problem. Studies are going to be so hopelessly politicized that we don't really have science as a tool and it's a real problem with modern science. My feeling is that every study showing conversion therapy doesn't work or does work would only be useful in telling who actually funded the study. 

Regardless, all of that is simple speculation that has little to do with the ruling. This was a very simple legal question, could the State of Colorado discriminate one political/religious point of view while promoting another? Obviously, they could not and that is why the ruling was so one sided. 

US airports return to normal after Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid.

 

Travelers at a TSA checkpoint in Baltimore. Reuters. 

US airports return to normal after President Trump ordered TSA agents to get paid. Reuters. Waits at TSA checkpoints went from hours to minutes after Trump ordered the paychecks to be cut and ordered ICE to help with the lines. TSA Agents received two paychecks worth of backpay and will get the half-paychecks for the first week worked after the government shutdown. The shutdown has caused some TSA agents to quit and thousands of other DHS employees are going without paychecks. Democrats have refused to fund DHS due to funds going to ICE and CBP. 

My Comment:

The Democrats strategy here was to make plane travel as annoying as possible. That was working for a short period but that is no longer in the cards. TSA is back to work and the long lines travelers were facing are now gone, thanks to these paychecks and the assistance of ICE. Almost all of their leverage is now gone. 

I do feel pretty bad for the TSA workers. Missing out on two and a half paychecks because the Democrats are throwing a fit is terrible. Many of those folks had to quit or take temporary jobs just to get by. The TSA isn't a great job to begin with but it's absolutely sad that they have to deal with constant congressional disfunction. Of course there are still thousands of DHS employees that are still out of work and I feel bad for them. 

It is bizarre that the Democrats are still trying to make the ICE issue into something. I don't think people cared that much when ICE was in the news every day and folks realized that Alex Pretti and Rene Goode caused their own deaths and shouldn't be mourned. This seems like another 80/20 issue that the Democrats are on the wrong side of. 

I do wonder when the shutdown is going to end. The Senate had passed a deal that would have funded all of DHS except for ICE and CPB and the House rejected it. I think the Republicans were right to do so. ICE and CPB are critical government functions and it's absurd to think that the Democrats should get there way here. They need to fund both agencies in full. 

Finally, I do have to say that I am glad I didn't have to travel in this mess. The last time I traveled via plane was back in 2017 and then the TSA line was basically empty both from my small local airport as well as the airport in Las Vegas. Had I had to wait an hour I would have been furious. Thankfully, that shouldn't be a problem anymore. 

Of course, there is always a chance that some judge will issue an injunction despite it not being supported by the law at all. That has been the Democrats plan throughout Trump's 2nd term and it would be a real problem in this case. Hopefully the government shutdown will be resolved before that can happen. 

Will the United States take Kharg Island from Iran?

 

Smoke from a missile strike on The UAE on March 14th. CNBC/AFP/Getty.

President Trump hinted that America might "take Iran's oil" and may take over Kharg Island, Iran's main oil hub. CNBC. Trump compared it to the successful action in Venezuela that led to a change of leadership and de facto control over the states oil. The Iran conflict has lasted around five weeks and has caused some disruption to oil markets. The Washington Post says that the Pentagon is preparing for a weeks long ground operation as thousands of troops have entered the region. 

My Comment:

Keep in mind that Trump is pretty good at misdirection when it comes to foreign policy. His words really don't mean that much and we don't actually know what he is thinking. This could be an effort to force Iran to defend Kharg Island while the actual target could be elsewhere. 

Do we have enough troops in the region to take Kharg Island? Yes. We have around 10,000 combat troops there, including two Marine Expeditionary Units aboard our amphibious assault ships, along with a couple thousand paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne. That's more than enough troops to take the island, and hold it, from the Iranians. 

Does that mean it's going to happen? Absolutely not. I see this more of a threat than anything else. Trump usually doesn't telegraph moves so transparently and doing so is not likely in this case. I feel that this is more of a threat than anything serious. 

Trump's main goal here is to get the Iranians to give up there nuclear material and cut a deal with the United States. This is another threat like the previous one to destroy Iran's energy generation. Again, we could have easily done that as well, but we backed off on it, most likely due to humanitarian concerns. It's probably why the threat didn't work, Iran didn't believe that we would do it, but they might believe that we could take Kharg. 

Is it a good idea militarily? You could say so. Iran absolutely needs Kharg Island if they want their oil to be sold, it's their most important hub. Taking it would cripple them. Doing so would not be difficult and neither would be holding it. The Marines and the 82nd would be well suited to take the island and much of the defenses there have already been destroyed, though Iran has made moves to reinforce it. 

Politically though? I am not sure. Such an operation would absolutely lead to US casualties and most Americans are opposed to boots on the ground. The casualties might even be heavy, though not so heavy that the operation wouldn't be sustainable. That too would play extremely poorly politically, folks want to avoid a "quagmire" and any casualties for our ground forces would play into that narrative. 

It's why I think if ground operations do happen, they will be raids, not taking and holding territory. Think the Venezuela raid, not the Iraq War. And I think there would be very different targets than Kharg Island, the main goal would be to fully open the Gulf of Hormuz, so a raid on areas with missile bases or naval docks would be likely goals. 

As for the course of the war itself, I do think that it's likely to not last too much longer. Trump is clearly talking to somebody, though it's also obviously not the IRGC or the Ayatollah. My guess is the actual secular Iranian government, or perhaps the military, wants to make a deal wile the country's religious leadership, including the IRGC, are keeping this from happening. I just don't see how the IRGC can stay in power long term with so much of their leadership dead and eventually a deal will be made. 

President Trump sends Iran 15 point plan to end the Iran conflict.

 

President Donald Trump. CNBC/Getty.

President Trump has sent Iran a 15 point plan to end the conflict. CNBC. President Trump said that Iran was eager to make a deal and that talks were proceeding, though Iran has denied the specifics. The New York Times reported that a 15 point plan had been delivered to Iran via Pakistan. Pakistan has offered to broker an end to the war. Trump also repeated claims that Iran has already lost the war and is willing to give up nuclear ambitions. 

The New York Post detailed the 15 point plan. One of those demands was not revealed but 14 of the points were released. 

Iran would agree to the following:

Iran must dismantle existing nuclear capabilities

Iran must commit never to pursue nuclear weapons.

No uranium enrichment on Iranian territory.

Iran must hand its stockpile of enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

The Natanz, Isfahan and Fordo nuclear facilities must be dismantled.

The IAEA must be granted full access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran must abandon its “regional proxy paradigm.”

Iran must cease the funding, directing and arming its proxies.

The Strait of Hormuz must remain open. 

Iran’s missile program must be limited in both range and quantity.

Iran must limit its use of missiles to self-defense.

In return Iran would get the following:

The end of sanctions imposed by the international community.

US assistance to advance its civilian nuclear program. 

A “snapback” mechanism allowing for the automatic reimposition of sanctions if Iran fails to comply would be removed.

My Comment:

Like I said yesterday, it's unclear who Trump is negotiating with. Ayatollah Khamenei remains missing in action and nobody appears to be in charge of Iran's religious leadership. My guess is that we are negotiating with Iran's secular leadership. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, remains alive, probably for this very reason. I am guessing it is his leadership that Trump is negotiating with, not the religious leaders, or, failing that, someone else in his government or the military.  

This plan seems more than fair. Iran would be forced to stop doing all the things that have made every government in the region hate them and made them a threat to most of the hemisphere. Getting rid of their nuclear material was always going to be the biggest issue and without agreement there the war will absolutely continue. 

Iran's missiles are a major threat too and one that probably justified the war. Recently, Iran attempted and failed to target Diego Garcia, our base in the Indian Ocean. The attack failed but it showed that Iran had the missile capability to hit most of the capitals of Europe. They will be forced to give up this capability in any peace deal as well. 

Most notably, Iran would be forced to cut off funding for their armies of proxies in the region. This means that Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen would have to self fund. In all likelihood, this would lead to those groups dissolving, as nobody is going to want to fight for a cause that can't afford to buy weapons or even pay their troops. This would hugely increase the stability of the region and would be a massive win for everyone, outside of those groups of course.  

Iran would get a lot out of this deal as well. They would get an US managed nuclear program, not that they really need it. But they would also lose the sanctions that have crippled their economy. One assumes that Iranian oil would be allowed to be sold on the market and foreign companies would be able to invest in Iran again. This would again be good for everyone, gas prices would plumet and Iran's economy would recover.

So will Iran go for this? Again, it depends on who is in charge. Iran's religious nutjob leadership will never accept this, but it doesn't seem like they are in charge. Iran's secular leadership seems a lot more reasonable and if they are in charge I can absolutely see this happening.

The problem is that they aren't the only ones with a vote. Both Israel and the Gulf States may have different demands on ending the war, mostly demanding regime change. Given that Israel is a party to the conflict, getting them on board will be critical. I don't know if Iran will be receptive to a regime change or not and it could be the stumbling point to any peace deal. 

Either way, I do think we should be optimistic that a deal will be made. I think it's moderately more likely than Trump simply declaring victory and going home now. A lot can still go wrong but I think it's very possible that Iran will decide that peace is the best option now. 

President Trump announces energy cease fire in Iran, claiming talks are ongoing.

 

President Donald Trump. BBC/EPA.

President Trump announces a five day energy cease fire in Iran, claiming talks are ongoing. BBC. Trump had previously threatened to destroy Iran's energy production. Iran has denied any talks are ongoing but it is unclear who in the Iranian government Trump is negotiating with. Trump said that Iran had agreed to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, a major war goal. Some question if the story is even real as Trump is well known for keeping his personal thoughts about military conflict close to the vest and is known to mislead his enemies on military matters. 

My Comment:

It's hard to comment on what President Trump is doing when it comes to military conflict because he does believe that it's stupid to telegraph what he is planning. He's got a point, keeping your enemies confused is a valid strategy and one that has worked for him in the past. 

And I also think that's just as true for Iran. I would be shocked if they weren't talking to the United States in some fashion and I have seen other media reports that they are using intermediaries in the region to pass messages to and from the United States. 

The real question is who Trump is actually talking to. He has specifically denied that he's talking to the new Ayatollah Khamenei, who might not even be alive after injuries sustained in airstrikes. But could it be the Iranian President? Some general that wants out? Some other high ranking figure? Or someone representing Khamenei? Who knows? 

I am guessing that whoever it was blinked. Iran's government's grip on the country is already weak for many reasons, most notably a water crisis in the capitol. Had Trump actually destroyed Iran's energy infrastructure it would be the end of the Iranian regime as it stands right now. It would be an absolute disaster for them. They would not survive. 

It does raise the question on why Trump didn't just do it. I am guessing it's because it would be a humanitarian disaster as well. It would also mean that it could turn Iran into a failed state. That would be a good way to end the war but it seems likely that the war is going to end with a negotiated settlement at this point. 

So, will that happen? It's probably the 2nd most possible outcome. I still think Trump declaring victory and going home is the more likely option. But it's more likely now that a deal will be made with someone from the regime. It does seem like a complete regime collapse is a lot less likely than the other outcomes at this point.  

ICE Agents will assist in airport security as DHS shutdown continues.

 

Long lines due to a lack of TSA agents. BBC/Getty.

ICE Agents will assist in airport security as the DHS shutdown continues. BBC. Travelers have been facing hours long lines due to a lack of TSA agents for security. ICE agents are well suited for the role as many of them use similar machines on the border. ICE will not be involved in screening passengers directly, but they will be used to free up TSA agents so they can do so. The lack of funding for DHS has caused TSA agents to go without pay for more than a month and 400 agents have quit.

My Comment:

I've got mixed feelings about this. First, the negative. I don't really want ICE agents doing anything other than deporting illegal immigrants. I know that deportations are still going on but the problem is big enough that even the 3 million that have been deported or left is hardly a drop in the bucket. I want that number to go up by a very large amount and every agent helping at our airports is an agent not deporting illegal immigrants. From what I understand the impact will be minimal, ICE has 22,000 agents and only a hundred or so are going to be used here, but still. 

But I have to admit that this is a great solution to the TSA shutdown. ICE agents are going to be able to help the TSA with these long lines and will eliminate much of the leverage the Democrats have on this issue. ICE already has experience with the kind of roles they will be used for so it's a natural fit. 

The Democrats whole strategy was to put pressure on the Republicans to somehow defund ICE and they were relying on making travelers miserable in order to do so. With this deployment they aren't going to accomplish that. Indeed, they won't accomplish anything whatsoever and the longer the shutdown occurs the more criticism they are going to get. 

What will the Democrats do now? My guess is they will get some kind of temporary injunction to prevent President Trump from doing something he clearly has the authority to do. They will find some judge that cares more about screwing over President Trump over the law, just like they have done so many times before. But eventually the ruling will be overturned. 

Regardless, I do think this is going to backfire on the Democrats. ICE hasn't been affected by this shutdown at all, it's already funded, so all this is accomplishing is punishing the people at the TSA, FEMA and the Coast Guard. Given the current security situation it's insane that the Democrats are holding this funding up. All it would take is one major terrorist attack and the whole thing will be beyond bad for the Democrats. 

And it's not like the issue is exactly relevant anymore. The conflict with Iran has stopped the momentum of every single other news story in the country. Nobody is talking about ICE and deportations anymore and the Democrat's "martyrs", Renee Goode and Alex Pretti, have been almost completely forgotten, except when the Republicans mock them for causing their own deaths. It's a non issue now and people are going to be upset. 

USS Gerald R Ford to head to port after damage from a fire.

 

File photo of the USS Gerald R. Ford. BBC/Reuters.

The USS Gerald R. Ford will head to Crete for repairs after major damage from a fire. BBC. The Ford, America's newest and most powerful aircraft carrier was deployed in the conflict against Iran. A major fire broke out in the ships laundry room, destroying it and causing over 100 beds to become uninhabitable due to the effects of the fire. 200 sailors were exposed to smoke inhalation while three were treated for injuries. The ship remains operational but will return to Crete for repairs. The ships deployment has become controversial as it has been at sea for nine months, and has faced combat in both Venezuela and Iran. The USS George HW Bush is expected to replace the Ford soon. 

My Comment:

The fire that damaged the Ford was a pretty severe one. Fires on a ship are always a big deal but this one made part of the ship uninhabitable and destroyed the laundry room, which is very important on such a large ship. It is not a surprise that the ship will have to be repaired and refurbished. 

Laundry fires are a common threat to most naval vessels. In a large ship like the Ford, these facilities are often in constant use and given the extreme length of this deployment it's possible maintenance and safety could have been put at risk. Of course, fires happen on ships all the time so it's not surprising that this happened. 

I also think there is no evidence that this was anything other than an accident. Some pro-Iran accounts are pushing the idea that this was an attack by Iran, but that seems ludicrous to me. The Ford is in the Red Sea and even if the Iranians had the exact location they would be very unlikely to be able to strike the ship at this point in the war. They simply don't have the weapons or intelligence capabilities to locate and strike the Ford. And if they were somehow able to do so, it wouldn't be possible to hide it. 

Sabotage is similarly extremely unlikely. It's possible some sailor wanted to sabotage the ship, as things like this have happened before, but I can't see them starting a fire in the laundry room of all places. And, again, that's not something you would be able to hide either. 

The real issue is that the deployment of the Ford lasted too long. It's almost been 10 months at sea for the ship and that's almost a record. Given how new the ship is and how intensely it's been used in both Iran and Venezuela, it's no surprise that things have gone wrong. In addition to this fire, the ship had major problems with sewage as well, which is also a common problem for deployed ships. It's possible the extreme length of this deployment contributed to the fire. 

How much does this affect the conflict with Iran? Short term, it's not great, but it's also not the end of the world. The Ford may be capable continuing combat operations, but it's going to be out of position in Crete, which is a Greek Island in the Mediterranean. It will still be able to launch some strikes but it will cause some issues until it is replaced. 

There is good news though too. The replacement of the Ford, the USS George HW Bush, is probably only a week away. And it's not like the Ford was the only Carrier operating in the area, the USS Abraham Lincoln is also deployed and will be able to pick up the slack. In addition, the USS Tripoli, carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) and a squadron or so of F-35B Lightnings will be in the region shortly as well. The disruption caused by this fire will be a short one. 

As for the conflict itself, the timing of this fire isn't the worst. Given how badly Iran's military and navy have been mauled by our forces, having a carrier be out of position isn't really that relevant anymore. It would have been one thing if it happened right at the beginning of the conflict, but now? It's not going to affect the war much. 

I do think that the real story is that we shouldn't be deploying carriers for this long. The problem is that most of our fleet is down for repairs. Plus the Nimitz is about to be decommissioned and the Kennedy hasn't been fitted out yet. I know the timing of this conflict was probably important but it might have made more sense to push the Bush to take over for the Ford before the conflict even began. 

The left is canceling Cesar Chavez, a famous union activist, for unspecified allegations of misconduct.

 

Cesar Chavez. AP file photo. 

The United Farm Workers union is distancing themselves from Cesar Chavez following unspecified allegations of misconduct. AP. The Union said that Chavez had been accused of abuse of young women or minors. They did not say they had any direct knowledge of these allegations and have not received any direct reports of abuse. Chavez was a famous organizer for farm workers unions and organized strikes against poor working conditions for farm workers. He died in 1993 at the age of 66. 

My Comment:

This is a fairly odd thing to happen. As far as I am aware there have never been credible accusations of Cesar Chavez being a sex pest. None whatsoever. It's very strange that all of a sudden the union he founded has distanced themselves from him and are encouraging their supporters to do anything but celebrate the man and his legacy. 

And he does have a major legacy. Chavez is someone that most people find pretty impressive given that he was able to protect workers on farms from bad conditions. He organized strikes and got better conditions for workers. He's the kind of guy that the Democrats have lionized for years and it's absolutely shocking to see him cut loose after this, especially after he's been dead for 30 years. 

What is even more shocking is that this is happening before any allegations have even been released. Supposedly the New York Times is writing a long form article that will detail these allegations. But the article hasn't been released yet and nobody has even vetted the allegations 

This is crazy to me as the left has been very reluctant to cancel other heroes they have. Martin Luther King was credibly accused of extramarital affairs and even accused of rape, but his legacy remains intact. Harvey Milk was openly dating a 16 year old boy and he didn't get canceled either. But they are canceling Chavez now?

This tells me one of two things. The first possibility is that Chavez is a next level sex pest. It would have to be worse than extramarital affairs or openly dating a 16 year old. The allegations are for abuse of young women and minors and that could mean anything from "he dated a 17 year old consensually" to "he abused small children". If it's the latter than I could see why they are distancing themselves so dramatically. 

It's also possible that this is a huge over reaction The New York Times piece, if it even exists, has not been released and hasn't been vetted. Like I said, these allegations are totally new and do not gel well with what we know about Chavez and his personal life. It's very possible that the allegations are bunk and they are just cutting him lose.

Why? Part of it is due to the impact of #MeToo. In today's Democrat Party you can't even be accused of any kind of mistreatment of a woman, no matter how long ago it happened and how weak the evidence is. Though #MeToo is not the force it once was, it still had a major impact on the way the Democrats and left feel. 

But honestly? It was probably because Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration. He considered illegal immigrants to be strike breakers and called INS (the forerunner to ICE) on them. He was even opposed to guest worker programs that would put him two the right of most Republicans and President Trump himself on the issue. Indeed, it's almost certain if Chavez was around today he would have voted for Trump just because of this issue alone, at least the 1970's version of him. Given that illegal immigration is now a sacred cow on the left, it's not surprising they are canceling Chavez. 

Trump hints that Cuba may have major changes soon.

 

President Donald Trump. Politico/AP. 

President Donald Trump is hinting that Cuba may have a major change in leadership soon. Politico. Cuba may have been sent a warning as Trump said that he "might have the honor of taking Cuba" and that he could do "whatever he wanted" with the communist nation. Cuba and the United States have had some talks but the island is under an extreme energy crisis after being cut off from Venezuelan oil. Cuban Americans have wanted Cuba's communist government to fall for decades now. 

My Comment:

The communist regime in Cuba is at it's weakest point in recent history. Cutting of the oil and money from Venezuela has been a disaster for them and nobody has picked up the slack to provide them oil due to the extreme pressure from the United States. Power went out completely today to the point where even essential services aren't working. 

It's not something Cuba can sustain long term. There is a limit that the Cuban people will accept and losing power long term is not something they will tolerate. If a deal isn't made soon, the Cuban people might just take out the regime themselves. 

Talks are ongoing and the sticking point is likely the Trump Administration's demand that Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, step down. How strict that demand is isn't something I know, but I am guessing it's pretty non-negotiable. Trump wants to do what he did in Venezuela, replacing a hostile president with a lot more friendly attitude. 

The real question is if they are going to keep the regime without the leadership like they did in Venezuela or are they going to go for a full replacement? I can't see the Cubans going for the 2nd option, but I would also think that Marco Rubio and other prominent Cuban American settling for the 1st. Perhaps some kind of compromise where the regime stays in place for now but new elections are held soon?

Regardless, I do think that the Cubans will be motivated to make a deal. They simply don't have much of a choice. Getting cut off from energy is going to destroy their regime, and fairly quickly as well. Like I said, they won't want to wait until the Cuban people take matters into their own hands. 

But they have to be thinking about Trump's more aggressive foreign policy. They know that they won't have much of a chance if Trump decides to take them out, just look at what happened in Venezuela and Iran. President Diaz-Canel must understand that not making a deal with the United States is likely to end his life. 

I would not expect it to come to that though, and certainly there aren't the forces in the area to press the issue and there won't be until the Iran conflict ends. The US military probably could handle two conflicts at once, but there is the idea they should finish one conflict before starting another. 

But we can do two things at once. We can negotiate with Cuba and fight Iran at the same time. And if a deal is made we will get another vassal in our collection, to go along with Venezuela. Cuba isn't as valuable as Venezuela is, but they have been a thorn in our side for my entire lifetime and beyond and ending the Cuban regime would be a major accomplishment. 

Tucker Carlson claims that he will be charged as a unregistered foreign agent.

 

Tucker Carlson at TPUSA. Newsweek/AFP.

Tucker Carlson claims that he will be charged as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Newsweek. Carlson said that the CIA had read his text messages he had sent to people in Iran and were preparing to sent a recommendation to the FBI to arrest Carlson under FARA. Carlson has denied any wrong doing. Once a prominent pro-Trump voice, Trump himself has said Carlson has lost his way and was "not MAGA". Carlson has had a major shift in his coverage, almost exclusively critical of Israel, in the past year or so. 

When you discover the CIA has been reading your texts in order to frame you for a crime. pic.twitter.com/XgoluHw8EG

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2026

My Comment:

I have to say that I am very disappointed in Tucker Carlson. Carlson was a conservative darling for a long time but in the past couple of years he has gone full Nicholas Fuentes. It's very sad when someone falls into Israel Derangement Syndrome. 

That isn't to say that people shouldn't be critical of Israel. Like every country Israel has done some bad things. Those bad things aren't usually what critics like Carlson cite, but it's true. People should indeed be free to criticize Israel. 

But when only Israel gets criticized? Something else is going on. I think it's ok to be critical for the war against Iran, I question the wisdom myself (but not the results). But blaming it entirely on Israel is a joke. Israel had an influence, to be sure, but that's absolutely ignoring the fact that the Gulf States, most notably Saud Arabia, wanted this conflict as well. 

And so did President Trump! He's been an Iran hawk for years, even before he was politically active. Indeed, I am pretty surprised that folks were surprised when he did bomb Iran. It's not like he wasn't saying that he was considering it for years or anything. Indeed, I wasn't surprised at all when conflict with Iran happened, it was always backed in when it came to Trump. Is it fair to criticize Trump for that? Sure, and if his Iran gamble had failed I would do so. But the criticism should go to Trump for being Trump, not because Trump is some kind of "slave to Israel" like the nonsense Carlson is peddling. 

I tend to think that the anti-Israel right is just antisemitic. I'm not pro-Israel per se, but I think the criticism of Israel is so over the top that I can't take it seriously. Israel might do bad things, but their enemies do worse and if they want to help us destroy our common enemies than so be it. 

So is Carlson a foreign agent? I doubt it. If he is it will be easy to prove it as it would require him to have taken money from Iran or another foreign source, like Qatar. Plus, Carlson is a journalist so he would have first amendment protection as well. Unless he was passing sensitive information to Iran then I don't see how he could get charged.  

What I think is likely is that Carlson is worried about his texts with Iran being released. That has happened before, Carlson's attempts to get an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin were leaked in 2021 and I think the same thing is likely to happen here. 

I don't think Carlson is going to get charged with a FARA violation or anything else. He's just angry that his text messages to people in Iran are going to be released and it's probably going to be damaging to him. Folks aren't going to be happy that Carlson was talking to Iran, especially if he was bad mouthing America while he was doing it and this is just playing the victim. 

I do think that the CIA was probably reading texts that Carlson was sending. But that has nothing to do with Carlson and everything to do with the fact that the CIA was probably monitoring every communication Iran was sending. They have a clear government interest in doing do and honestly, what did Carlson expect to have happen? 

ISIS attack on ROTC class at Old Dominion University stopped by student.

 

Police at Old Dominion University. CBC News/AP.

An ISIS attack on Old Dominion University in Virginia was stopped by a student armed with a pocket knife. CBS News. The suspect, 36 year old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, was a former Virginia National Guardsman who had been convicted in 2016 for being a member of ISIS and planning a similar attack. He entered the classroom and asked if it was an ROTC course and when he was told it was, he opened fire, killing the instructor, Lt. Col. Brandon Shah. A student armed with a pocket knife attacked the attacker and managed to kill him. Two other people will wounded in the attack. 

My Comment:

This wasn't the only Islamic terror attack in the United States today. There was also a car ramming attack against a Synagogue in Michigan, but in that case the only person that died was the attacker, though there were injuries due to the car hitting someone and smoke inhalation. This attack in Virginia is the more serious of the two as it resulted in a death. 

One has to wonder why Jalloh was out on the street. From what I understand he had served most of his required sentence and was out on supervised release. One wonders how he was able to get a firearm as he would not have been able to purchase one legally. One also wonders why he was still in the country. Jalloh was a naturalized citizen from Sierra Leon. From what I understand it wasn't possible to revoke his citizenship as he was already past the five year limit for doing so when you join a terror group. 

Since he wasn't denaturalized and deported, he was able to conduct this attack. The attack was mostly a failure as a courageous student stabbed him to death with a pocket knife. Given the circumstances, a gunman in a classroom, it was the smart thing to do, but it still takes an insane amount of bravery to attack a man armed with a gun when you only have a pocket knife. 

I don't think the cadet will be charged in this case. From what I understand he was able to carry a pocket knife in Virginia, even on campus. Plus, the prosecutor would have to be insane to charge the cadet under these circumstances, but if any state would be willing to do so it would be Virginia under their new far-left Governor, Abigail Spanberger.  

The motivation for this attack hasn't been specifically discovered, but given this was a member of ISIS it is pretty obvious. I don't know if this attack was related to the war in Iran though. Again, much like the attackers in New York that threw a bomb at a protest, this was a Sunni Muslim ISIS supporter. I doubt they care too much about Iran being attacked. I am guessing he did this because he hated his term in the National Guard and didn't like the idea that the US military was used against Sunni Muslims in the ISIS war last decade, with the Iran conflict being a tertiary concern at best, though it may have been the thing that stirred him into action. 

It does seem like I was right that the Iran war could "stir up the crazies". This is the third major terror attack since the war started that I am aware off, and thankfully most of them have been failures. This was the most successful one, and even though it's tragic that LT. Col. Shah was killed, it's still nothing compared to what we were seeing last decade. 

FBI warned that Iran could attack targets in California.

 

A recovered Shahed 131. US government photo. 

The FBI has issued a warning that Iran could attack targets in California with drones. ABC News. The FBI said they had gathered intelligence indicating that Iran could use drones in such an attack if a conflict broke out. The attacks could come from shipborne drone carriers or from troops in Mexico. However, Governor Gavin Newsom said that he was unaware of any threats. There have been major incidents with drones from the Mexican border, but those have been operated by the Drug Cartels, not Iran. 

My Comment:

It's very strange that this report is coming out now given that if there ever was a threat from Iranian drones, it's almost certainly over now. Iran's fleet is in taters at this point and their drone carrier, the IRIS Shahid Bagheri, has either been crippled or destroyed. I don't know if Iran possesses any vessels at this point that could even reach the United States, let alone launch a drone attack. 

In theory, the threat was serious. Iran theoretically could launch a drone attack from a ship, either their dedicated carrier or from a converted cargo ship. If they were able to achieve surprise they could potentially launch an attack. 

But even then, I doubt it would have been successful. The Pacific Ocean is protected by the US Navy and they are regularly patrolling for suspicious vessels. This has only increased due to naval operations against drug smugglers. The Iranians would have to somehow evade the US Navy an Coast Guard. 

And even if they launched an attack? They would have to have their drones evade our air defenses. US air defenses are pretty good and we have pretty good anti-drone technology as well. Indeed, we have used our anti-drone lasers and other weapons against drones threatening our homeland before. In theory, if Iran somehow achieved total tactical and strategic surprise, they might be able to evade our defenses. But right now, I can't see it happening. 

The main threat cited by the FBI was an airborne attack from the ocean. The ABC article cited an expert that said the threat could come from Mexico. That seems even less likely than the attack from the sea. Mexico does have a small Iranian presence, but I seriously doubt that the Iranians were able to get a bunch of drones into the country without anyone noticing. And, again, the border is where our anti-drone defenses are the strongest. 

Regardless, I generally think that this report is outdated and the threat was mostly theoretical in the first place. Iran could have tried this before their fleet was destroyed and their military capabilities were degraded but if there ever was a threat, it's gone now. 

Indeed, I don't think that Iran would have even wanted to do this. A direct attack on the US Homeland would be a massive escalation. If they had tried this and succeeded it would be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Blowing up a lot of Californians would likely unite the country and silence any anti-war voices and would invite a retaliation on a scale that the Iranians can scarcely imagine. And it could even lead to an actual ground invasion. Iran's strategy appears to just be to wait it out at this point and hope that President Trump will settle with the destruction of their military. Launching a major attack on the American homeland would be cross purposes for that. 

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it.

 

Senate Majority John Thune. Senate Photo.

Senate Majority leader John Thune says the SAVE America Act will get a vote, but he won't get rid of the silent filibuster to pass it. AP. The act would greatly tighten election security by requiring Voter ID, eliminating mail in voting and requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also ban transgender surgery for minors and biological males participating in woman's sports. The bill is popular but is expected to fail as zero Democrats will vote for it and cannot pass without 60 votes. There has been a large push for the Senate to get rid of the "silent filibuster" which would force Democrats to actually speak to block the bill, which would most likely allow the bill to pass. Thune says there are not enough Republican votes to actually get rid of the silent filibuster rule. President Trump has vowed to not pass any new legislation (except funding for the Department of Homeland Security) until the SAVE America Act is passed.

My Comment:

This is just another example of how dysfunctional our Congress is. Voter ID is extremely popular and is supported by around 75 to 80% of voters. In a normal world 75 to 80% of the vote in the Senate would be voting for this too. But instead we can't even get 60 Senators to vote for this. 

I do understand why the Democrats are opposed to this. They absolutely hate the idea of voter security as they depend on voter fraud, mail in ballots and non-citizens voting in order to win. We don't know how bad this problem is, due in part because we simply don't have any national legislation like this. But I do think that cleaning the voting roles alone would be enough to secure the election for the Republicans in 2026. 

But for Thune and the other Republicans? I just don't get it. They claim that preserving the filibuster is more important than winning the 2026 elections. They don't seem to realize that the filibuster only exists because the Democrats still had a couple of moderates, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, back in 2022. Those two Senators saved it but if the Democrats ever gain control of the Senate again, they will almost certainly kill it. And if that happens Thune is going to look like an absolute idiot, especially if it happens in 2026 specifically because this bill didn't pass. 

The failure of the bill will likely have a demoralizing effect on Republicans. This is a hugely popular bill and passed in the House easily. To see the Senate do absolutely nothing to defend it even though it is extremely popular is bad enough. To see them not do it when it could win the Republicans the Senate, House and probably the presidency in 2028? Absolutely infuriating. And it could lead to folks simply staying home because they don't think they can win an election that isn't' fair. And to be sure, our elections without voter ID are not fair. 

Keep in mind that Thune has been extremely obstructive to the executive branch. His commitment to tradition is blocking recess appointments and supporting non-MAGA candidates in various Senate elections, most notably in Texas this year with John Cornyn over Ken Paxton. At this point it seems like enemy actions and it seems he cares more about the stupid filibuster and obscure Senate rules than actually fighting the Democrats and working to help America. 

President Trump signals that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer.

 

President Trump at a press conference. NPR/Getty.

President Trump has signaled that the conflict with Iran may not last much longer but has not given an end date. NPR. Trump said that the United States had great success against the Iranian fleet and Air Force. He also said that due to the destruction of Iran's military he could end the operation now and call it a great success, but he would not end the war until Iran's nuclear capabilities were totally eliminated. Trump said that he had held off on hitting certain Iranian targets, like power generation. The conflict with Iran has caused volatility in the oil markets, but prices dropped today after a weekend panic. 

My Comment:

Folks are pretty happy that Trump is announcing this. Though people are divided on the war, nobody likes the economic disruption it is causing. Oil prices spiked dramatically yesterday, but dropped just as dramatically today, for multiple reasons. Nobody wants a long war with Iran and everyone would be a lot happier if it ended very soon. 

I do think that Trump is absolutely right, so far the Iranians have been rocked. As many as 42 of their ships have been destroyed, their Air Force is grounded and wrecked and even the last F-14's in active service appear to have been completely destroyed. Much of Iran's leadership is dead and every time one gets replaced they get killed as well. Indeed, there are already rumors that Iran's latest Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former Ayatollah, may already be wounded or dead. 

And Iran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz? Not effective. Though many ships are stuck waiting for the conflict the end or for escorts to show up, there have been as many as 20 ships that have run the strait and none of them have been sunk. They just shut their transponders off and go through the Strait and Iran hasn't been able to do a thing about it. 

Given the military situation, i do think Trump is right. He could end the war today and call it a success and it would be hard to argue otherwise. It will take years for Iran to rebuild their drone and missile forces and decades to try and build up air defenses, an Air Force and a Navy again. And I do think that this is a possible way that the war will end, especially if the economic disruptions end up being real. 

But I do think there are a couple of war goals that aren't yet accomplished which will prevent President Trump from doing this. First, the nuclear material that Iran produced has not been secured and either it will have to be destroyed through an airstrike (which is unlikely), surrendered as part of a peace deal, or secured directly on the ground. The last operation has been hinted in the media but if that's the case I am guessing we are in for weeks of bombings to make sure that operation isn't opposed. 

Second, I don't think President Trump wants the current Iranian regime to survive. And neither does anyone else, with the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah being the only exceptions. Israel has their own war goals and they absolutely want the Iranian regime gone, and so do the Saudis and the other Gulf States. A Venezuela situation where the United States turned it int a vassal state, or more accurately a suzerainty, doesn't seem possible with the current Iranian regime and I don't see how the war ends with the current Iranian government still in power. They would have to give up a lot in order for that to be acceptable to the Israelis and the Gulf States, and I don't know if the Iranians are there yet. 

Regardless, it does seem like the war is more likely to last weeks as opposed to months or years. Iran no longer has a credible military and there are signs of extreme stress on the regime. The main issue is like I said, the regime still exists and so does the nuclear material. But I also don't think that this will last much longer. Of the three outcomes I think the Iranian regime bending the knee to Trump or falling completely would be the most likely, and a special forces raid to be the least likely. But in any case, I do think we are close to the end game.