David Frum on X - "According to the self-proclaimed experts who get quoted at times like this, the corpus of international law can be reduced to one simple rule: "Terrorists and communists are always allowed to strike democracies, but democracies are never allowed to strike back.""
Meme - Noam Blum: "This post was about Venezuela, but applies here too:"
Cristian Campos: "If international law cannot prevent me from being tortured in a cell in El Helicoide, but it does protect Maduro so he can keep torturing me in El Helicoide, then international law not only does nothing for me, but it is actually fucking me over."
Meme - Yuan Yi Zhu: "The norm against the use of force to settle international disputes is an important achievement. But if every international lawyer's reaction to scenes such as this is to sourly lecture people to not be happy about scenes such as this, international law will be held in contempt."
OSINTdefender @sentdefender: "Crowds are seen gathering in the streets of Isfahan, Iran following the news of the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during joint U.S./ Israeli strikes earlier today. The crowds appear to be jovial."
AG on X - "The last few years have really exposed so much of the “human rights” establishment. The Islamic Republic massacred hundreds of thousands of Syrians and these groups and the organizations supposed to defend human rights barely said a word. The regime would daily execute people for the crime of speaking out against them or even crimes like women wearing loose clothing, which was met with few condemnations. Even when they shot down 30-40K Iranians for the crime of protesting peacefully, the relative silence was deafening. They were responsible for countless other deaths in Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, and throughout the region via their terror proxies. Yet now that someone is finally making that evil regime pay the price, they whine about international law and other nonsense in defense of evil. For these groups, the only side with agency and that must be held accountable is the west. The worst abusers get a pass. Did you know the UN general assembly has had more resolutions condemning The United States (13) than the Islamic Republic since 2015 (11)? (187 condemning Israel FYI) So can we stop pretending any of these corrupt organization and groups have any moral authority? That their complaints mean anything? They are, for all practical purposes, just tasked to provide cover for our enemies. Despite receiving massive funding from us. The system is broken and we should stop rewarding it."
Dr. Brian L. Cox on X - "During the coming days & weeks, you're bound to encounter all kinds of claims that "attacks on Iran by Israel & the United States are illegal, unprovoked & unjustifiable." These claims are false. Here's why. @Israel has publicly announced - correctly so - it is in an "ongoing armed conflict" against Iran (pic 1). For anyone interested in specific reasons & justifications, I invite you to review an info paper published @IsraelMFA on Op Rising Lion available at this link (pic 1 is screenshot of 1st few paragraphs): https://gov.il/en/pages/opera tion-rising-lion-key-factual-and-legal-aspects-of-the-iran-israel-hostilities-june-2025-11-aug-2025 🇮🇱 is also designated with 🇺🇸 Major Non-NATO Ally status (pic 2). This doesn't provide a specific legal basis for 🇺🇸 to intervene in this ongoing armed conflict, but it shouldn't be a surprise that @POTUS directs @DeptofWar to do so on behalf of our MNNA - as he did for Op Midnight Hammer. Don't let mass disinformation agents like Corbyn here distort reality & rewrite history in service of their preferred progressive social or political agenda. Yes, there have been "illegal, unprovoked & unjustified attacks" in this strategic setting. They were carried out by IRAN & it's regional proxies starting on 10/7. Israel exercised the inherent right of individual self-defense, as reflected in art. 51 @UN Charter, in response. Intervention by 🇺🇸 to support its MNNA 🇮🇱 is an issue of neutrality, not the Charter. Joining an ONGOING armed conflict is not illegal - it just means 🇺🇸 is now a belligerent (again) in the conflict. And yes, "peace & diplomacy" WERE possible. During diplomatic engagement BEFORE Op Roaring Lion, 🇮🇷 refused peace. Now they get an escalation of this ONGOING armed conflict. This IS behaviour of a rogue state. The "rogue state" is 🇮🇷...and now that behavior is met with escalated consequences. Colloquially, I believe this is referred to as #FAFO. Khamenei & his gov't have been on FA axis of that calculation for quite a while. Now, they're transitioning further along on the FO axis. No surprise there. Finally, the "flagrant breach of international law" here occurred on 10/7. Since then, 🇮🇱 has been involved in an ONGOING armed conflict against 🇮🇷 & its proxies. Responding to the enduring threat is NOT "aggression." It is war. Governments like Corbyn's 🇬🇧 can join in or stay out of the way. Either way, ops by 🇮🇱 & 🇺🇸 do NOT constitute a "violation of international law." Jeremy Corbyn here is misrepresenting both facts AND language of int'l law. Also no surprise there, considering the source. But he most certainly won't be the only one. When you encounter disinformation like his rhetoric going forward, now you'll know exactly how you're being misled. #TheMoreYouKnow"
International law is becoming a suicide pact for Western democracies - "World peace is a long-held dream, but ironically the agendas of some of its loudest cheerleaders expose the hypocrisy that often accompanies such lofty goals. During his nearly 30 years as head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth led the politicisation of both the organisation and the wider movement through the use of the institutional facades of international law as applied to modern war. A blatant example is Roth’s recent essay in the Guardian, arguing that joint American-Israeli strikes against the Tehran regime constitute an illegal “act of aggression” and “no different from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine”. In facile terms, he effectively claims that, according to the law of armed conflict, the use of force is illegitimate unless it responds to an attack that has already occurred, is obvious and visible to all (so not, presumably, through proxies or thinly disguised attackers), and acknowledged by the United Nations Security Council. It is a simple theory. It is also dangerously removed from the real world. Roth condemns the joint US-Israeli attack against Iran’s top leadership and military assets as though the decision was taken totally out of the blue, and not a necessary response to aggression. To make this case, he conveniently omits the central fact that, for decades, the Islamic Republic has been waging a violent war against the United States (the Big Satan), Israel (the Little Satan), and many of its Arab neighbours... Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the inherent right of self-defence. That right is not erased because the aggressor pretends to aim its attacks at military targets or operates through intermediaries. Then there is the nuclear question. Iran’s nuclear weapons programme has long violated both the spirit and letter of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The combination of advanced enrichment capacity, ballistic missile development, and explicit threats against Israel creates a uniquely destabilising mix. A regime that calls for the elimination of another UN member state cannot reasonably expect that state (i.e. Israel) to treat its march toward nuclear capability as a routine matter of sovereign discretion, regardless of actual international agreements. Roth’s analysis leans heavily on a narrow conception of “imminence”. Under such a reading of international law, unless a nuclear weapon is about to be launched, preventive action is supposedly unlawful. But international law has never been suicidal. The entirely justified Caroline standard of anticipatory self-defence – rooted in 19th-century diplomacy – recognises that, when a threat is “instant, overwhelming”, with no time for hesitation, preventive action is entirely justified. In a world of precision missiles and nuclear breakout timelines measured in weeks, not years, waiting for the mass slaughter of a mushroom cloud is not prudence; it is abdication. Critics often counter that striking Iran would inflame the region and erode global norms. But norms erode primarily when they are weaponised by aggressors who exploit legalisms as shields to hide their preparations for slaughter. The Islamic Republic has built a regional architecture of terror: Hezbollah’s entrenchment in Lebanon; Shiite militias violating Iraq’s fragile sovereignty; Houthi missiles from Yemen targeting Israel and attacks against international shipping. This is not a justifiable defensive posture, as apologists like Roth repeat. It is a bellicose strategy aimed at destroying Israel and hurting America. In the face of these very tangible threats, the responses available to the United States and Israel are limited. Allow Iran to consolidate a missile-and-nuclear umbrella under which its terror proxies can operate with impunity, or act decisively and precisely to block and dismantle that capability. The first course risks a future in which deterrence collapses and nuclear war in the Middle East becomes far more likely. The second may cause limited destruction, but it preserves the basic moral and political principle that violence and aggression will not be allowed to succeed. Roth’s attempts to market his interpretations of the ambiguities of international law by erasing the history of Iran’s terror are the antithesis of justice and morality. If accepted, they would become a suicide pact for democracies and for status-quo states opposed to the mass killing in the name of religion or ideology. The war against Iranian tyranny is not the result of lust for conflict in Washington or Jerusalem – it comes because Tehran has made the status quo untenable. In the pursuit of justice and the rule of law, the correct question is not why the United States and Israel struck the regime, but why those claiming to embrace justice condemn this necessary act of self-defence."
Erielle Azerrad on X - "The big “secret” of modern international law is that it is now designed to cripple the West, make wars impossible to win, and keep us trapped in hostile quagmires. That’s the end game. It’s the great “equalizer,” the pinnacle of post-liberal equality. Under international law, bad actors have the privilege of acting with impunity while Western forces that respond get chastised by various Singham-funded NGOs and the Atlantic. Trump is the first president to buck this nonsense."
David Bernstein on X - "The mainstream of the Western international law establishment thinks/hopes that the purpose of international law is to restrain the United States from acting without the approval of the UN and the like. For those who specialize in international humanitarian law, it’s to make sure Western powers can’t defeat their enemies. Neither are concerned about human rights."
Haviv Rettig Gur on X - "I say this as gently as I know how, because it seems to me unforgivably obvious. You cannot simultaneously build a strong international law system while also hating the West. International law is a Western idea born of a particular Western historical, cultural and political experience. And because God loves irony, no one exemplifies this fact more than the evil regime whose travails since yesterday have sparked so much legalistic hand-wringing. Both Khamenei himself and his teacher and predecessor Khomeini consistently and explicitly rejected international law as a tool of "global arrogance" (estekbar-e jahani) — i.e., of powerful secularist, individualistic democracies. Khamenei was even more explicit, routinely declaring legal frameworks like UN conventions as "colonial" traps. These declarations weren’t marginal to their ideology. They were fundamental planks of the regime’s political theology. I’ll say this, again, as gently as I can: The fact that international law and international institutions have transformed in practice into a system that more often than not runs defense for the most virulent and explicit enemies of said law might have something to do with their decline as an organizing framework of international affairs. For example, when UN agencies and international institutions target Israel more than Iran, or more than China, Iran and Russia put together, or more than all the dictatorships and wars in the world combined — they’re doing more harm to the law than to Israel. Similarly, it matters that so many of international law’s loudest spokespeople had nothing to say about Khamenei’s crimes just six weeks ago, but swung into action only when Khamenei’s long reign of terror was finally brought to an end. That’s not law. It’s the opposite of law. International law can be saved, but only if its scholars and practitioners grow up and shed the instinctive anti-Westernism and racist paternalism of the present-day academy. When international law is no longer seen by its own practitioners primarily as an instrument for containing, weakening and delegitimizing the West, but becomes genuinely about actual law, it will once again have a claim on us. If you fail to see in Khamenei the bitter foe of international law that he was, if in the midst of your legitimate critique of a war you can’t summon at least a little joy that this avowed enemy of your purported moral system is dead and gone, then you haven’t actually been fighting for international law."
Randy Barnett on X - "The social contract is not a real contract but without reciprocity, there can be no rule of law internationally—or domestically. Without reciprocity, the rule of law is a sucker’s game."
Meme - Stephen R. C. Hicks @SRCHicks: "Fascinating (and new to me) 1979 NYT article on Ayatollah Khomeini, who is apparently: (1) an honest man, (2) surrounded by moderates concerned w/ human rights, (3) one who will leave his internal enemies (Jews, atheists, leftists) free to express themselves, & (4) overall a beacon of hope for the region's future. (File under: 100% wrong wishful-thinking predictions.)"
"Trusting Khomeini"
Ajit Pai on X - "In Feb. 1979, the @nytimes ran “Trusting Khomeini,” an op-ed from a @Princeton “expert” who opined: “Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance.”
Some other quotes from the op-ed (whose author was appointed by @UN @Refugees in 2008 as "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories"):
- "The news media have defamed [Ayatollah Khomeini] in many ways, associating him with efforts to turn the clock back 1,300 years, with virulent anti‐Semitism."
- "More even than any third‐world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten."
"[Khomeini] has also indicated that the nonreligious left will be free to express its views in an Islamic republic."
- "To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief."
- "What is also encouraging is that his entourage of close advisers is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals" who "share a notable record of concern for human rights and seem eager to achieve economic development that results in a modern society."
From the New York Times obituary of Ayatollah @khamenei_ir: “He affected an avuncular and magnanimous aloofness, running the country from a perch above the jousting of daily politics.”"
The US submarine which torpedoed the Iranian frigate will soon be flying the Jolly Roger
Does a submarine in combat make any effort to rescue survivors when they surface if enemy sailors are in the water? If yes, how much room does a sub have for prisoners? - Quora - "Submarine warfare is essentially “unrestricted warfare”. However, submarine commanders will endeavor to take prisoners, within the sensibilities of safety. That is, submarines are not ideal ships due to the compactness of their design to mission to have enemy combatants onboard. A handful of prisoners might be reasonably accommodated without endangering the submarine."
"Prisoners of War could reasonably be taken and there’s precedent in ww2 for recovering pilots shot down - both friendly and enemy. However: when your submarine is surfaced, it’s sonar is less effective, it’s noiser and takes longer to dive. It also is much more susceptible to pitch and roll on the surface. So it’s blind, lame and very much out of its best performance envelope. If it was detected or sighted by other enemy ships (or planes) responding to the distress call of the sunken ship, you can bet they will be able to detect the submarine easily. Submarines, once detected, are much less effective at engaging the enemy - and much more vulnerable. So surfacing to recover enemy prisoners is at best a risky endeavour and at worst can be considered such a tactically bad idea as to be almost suicide. Any captain choosing to recover POWs will most likely be doing it under direct orders - as it endangers the lives of every sailor and the submarine. That POW better have some amazing intelligence they are willing to share if you want to risk 100’s of sailors and an expensive if not irreplaceable submarine."
"Nuc boats rarely surface- they don’t need to and (as noted in pretty much all the other answers) doing so is huge security risk. Likewise, engagement of surface targets can be done from many nautical mines away with modern torpedoes, even farther with anti-shipping missiles. So the odds of you being in the proximity of the sunk ship is low, in addition to hazardous."
"They have no space for survivors. The best a u-boat can do is to provide compasses, maps, food, maybe blankets. Actually providing assistance proved fatal to u-boats more than once, the most memorable instance being the Laconia incident"
Left wingers were very upset, of course, and went on about how this was a war crime, because they don't understand anything
Left wing logic: left wingers call it a war, but even though it's a war, you're not allowed to attack the enemy military first (and the clock resets with each individual engagement, so you must always wait for the enemy to attack you first). But of course, from Oct 7th we know they think you're not allowed to fight back either if you're from the West
Bob Koonce on X - "I should know better than to actually share my thoughts as I doubt you really want to hear from someone who was in that position. But here goes. As a former SSN captain, I would certainly be weighed down with the thought of those sailors drowning and those that died - every sailor is a human and anyone who is sane would feel for them. However, this was a lawful order that my crew carried out against a regime that has spewed hate and killed Americans for decades. So, my crew and I would do our duty. As for a rescue attempt, modern nuclear submarines are not designed to surface and open hatches in open ocean without significant risk to the crew and the ship (low free board - possible flooding). So I would not endanger my ship and crew to attempt a rescue. And that doesn't even factor in the risk of exposing my ship to the enemy while on the surface. So surfacing and rescuing "enemy" sailors is out of the question. I could radio in for help in the clear to local coast guard or authorities - as we would do for a peacetime at sea accident for a military or civilian crew. But I am pretty sure the explosion was enough to get others' attention to conduct a rescue. And my mission likely was Top Secret and I was under EMCON orders - no unsecure communications. I may break that EMCON for a civilian accident in peacetime, but again I think others were notified of the problem by the explosion. So, years later in my rocking chair, would I think of those sailors? Yes. But as a professional military officer and submariner under lawful orders, I did my duty. I would sleep well at night. God will judge someday, but I personally would not carry that burden nor want my crew to. War sucks."
ثنا ابراهیمی | Sana Ebrahimi on X - "The father of one of the Islamic Republic Navy personnel says they were warned by the U.S. forces to evacuate the ship before the attack. But their commanders refused to let them leave. Eighty members of the crew died as a result."
Damn US killing "unarmed" sailors!
Eitan Fischberger on X - "Mehdi Hasan says the U.S. military is worse than the Nazis because it sank an Iranian submarine and didn’t save the crew"
Mark Dubowitz on X - "This supporter of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood says the U.S. military is worse than the Nazis. He naturalized as an American citizen in 2020 and lives in the U.S. Disgraceful."
He needs to be protected from a fate worse than what the Nazis did by removing his citizenship and evacuating him to a safe country so the US can't persecute him anymore
The Iran War began on 7 October - spiked - "Not even three years ago, paid goons of the Islamic Republic murdered a 13-year-old British girl. They bashed their way into the room in which she had scrabbled for sanctuary with her mother and sister and shot her to death. The tyrants in Tehran celebrated. They marshalled their supporters on to the streets to sing and dance over this orgy of violence that entailed the merciless slaying of a British innocent. It’s a ‘turning point in history’, they crowed in the wake of that unconscionable horror. Her name was Yahel Sharabi. And I intend to say it to every fellow Briton who says the crisis in the Middle East ‘has nothing to do with us’. And to every slack-jawed Labour minister twiddling awkwardly with their ties as one of the great geopolitical emergencies of our time swirls all around them. And to every keffiyeh-smothered smug leftist who is currently painting the Islamic Republic as the innocent victim of an ‘unprovoked war of aggression’. Was the killing of a British girl not a provocation? Was the murder of her in the arms of her mother and sister – who were also killed – not an act of aggression? Was the slaying that day of a thousand others who were guilty of the same crime as young Yahel – they were Jews – not war? Yahel was one of 18 British citizens murdered by Hamas and its allies on 7 October 2023... And their killers were backed by the Islamic Republic. The Iranian regime funded Hamas to the tune of $100million a year. It provided Hamas with weapons tech and logistical support. It had intimate knowledge of Hamas’s fascistic plans for 7 October. It has since held numerous official celebrations of the barbarism of that day. Nothing to do with us? The Iran-backed murder of 18 British citizens, most of them Jews? Perhaps Britain’s handwringers might let us know their threshold for Jew-murder, the point at which the foreign-funded killing of our Jewish compatriots might finally prick their slumbering consciences. Tell us: how many dead British Jews would be the price of your moral concern? Twenty-five? Fifty? A hundred?... The woke left’s depiction of Iran as the guiltless victim of Western imperialism is an outrageous lie. The crank right’s claim that Israel is the cause of every war in the Middle East – if not the whole world – reeks to the heavens of anti-Semitic ahistoricism. The UK government’s flummoxed nonchalance about the whole thing speaks to how thoroughly the technocratic mind-virus blinds one to truth and morality. This tyrannical regime funded the murder of our Jewish countrymen. Including a child. Does that mean nothing to you?... When people describe the Israel-US attack on the theocrats in Tehran as ‘unprovoked’, what they are really saying is that they do not consider the mass murder of Jews to be a provocation. When they call it unwarranted aggression, they’re saying the violent destruction of Jewish life is not something worth getting aggressive about. When they describe Israeli strikes against Tehran as an ‘escalation’, and never used that word for the Tehran-sponsored barbarism inflicted on Israel, they betray their own hyper-paternalistic Third Worldism. They confirm that in their Western-centric worldview, America and Israel are responsible for every earthly ill, while child-like states such as the Islamic Republic merely respond. Or ‘resist’. It’s ‘resistance’ when the Islamic Republic and its proxies kill Jews, but a ‘war crime’ when the Jews and their allies push back. We see you. Events in Iran speak not to any criminal madness or bloodlust on the part of the American Empire and the Jewish State, but rather to the suicidal lunacy of 7 October. You don’t have to support the current regime-change efforts to recognise that the Iranian regime and its murderous proxies brought this calamity upon themselves. The 7 October attacks will go down as the most self-destructive military adventure of modern times, an act of apocalyptic vanity. Yahya Sinwar, the architect of that grim day, thought he would bring Zionism to its knees and provoke a Nazi-like expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land. Yet now he is dead, his movement of Hamas is decimated, Hezbollah is flagging, and the Iranian backers of their anti-Semitic crusade are under severe pressure. The Islamic Republic did this to itself. It forgot that killing Jews has consequences now. It isn’t the 1490s or the 1930s. The rape and murder of Jews comes with repercussions these days. That the regime forgot this is somewhat understandable. It is, after all, consumed by cosmic delusions, by an inflated sense of holy importance as the final boss of Jew hatred. The Western left’s neglect of this truth, however, is less forgivable. You would think that woke agitators who love to talk about ‘consequence culture’ would recognise that murdering a thousand Jews might provoke war. Their demonisation of Israel and absolution of the Islamic Republic is not ‘anti-imperialism’ – it is the double racism of seeing the Jewish State as the sole author of violence in the Middle East and ‘brown’ Persians and Arabs as witless, wide-eyed victims... What concerns me is that the military suicide committed by Islamists on 7 October is finding its echo in the moral suicide of the West in the same period. Witness the Hamas sympathy on our streets these past two years or the current floundering of our rulers who can’t even bring themselves to say the Islamic Republic is a wicked regime whose Jew hatred, misogyny, homophobia and intolerance run counter to the moral virtues of our own civilisation. If you don’t think the killing of Yahel Sharabi and a thousand other Jews is an act of historic importance, then you have been defeated, too. Iran and its proxies may not have succeeded in destroying the Jewish nation, but they destroyed your soul."
Oct 7th showed us that there is no atrocity left wingers think justifies retaliation on the part of a Western countries, because they just hate the West (which Israel is considered part of)
The Atlantic on X - "Most of the press corps is not allowed into the Pentagon, where decisions about the war in Iran are being made. This lack of information makes it harder for journalists to do their jobs and harder for the American public to understand what’s happening, @nancyayoussef argues:"
John Ʌ Konrad V on X - "Why do you think these operations are going so well? It’s not just that they locked out the MSM. They also locked out, many think tanks, self proclaimed experts and allies. They are letting the warfighters cook."
L A R R Y on X - "Press corps is allowed in the Pentagon. They just forfeited their hard passes and their offices because they wouldn't promise to not peddle classified information. @seanspicer"
Meme - "EVERYBODY GANGSTA 'TIL THE SKY STARTS MISSING PIXELS *stealth bomber*"
Konstantin Kisin on X - "It's the third time WW3 has broken out in a year and as many smart people have predicted we're all going to die. Like the last two times. It's been a pleasure knowing you all and I hope to see you in the afterlife. Or just back here tomorrow reading the same panic slop."
Raffi on X - Remember when taking out Soleimani in Jan 2020 was FOR SURE the start of world war 3??"
Matt Van Swol on X - "So let me just get this straight… 12 months ago - Ukrainian flags 9 months ago - Palestinian flags 6 months ago - Mexican flags 1 month ago - Venezuelan flags Now - Iranian flags WHAT ON EARTH?????!!!!!! Do Leftists literally stand for EVERY COUNTRY but America?????"
Moy Miz on X: - "The Muslim world is divided about Iran:
Muslim countries in favor of removing the regime: Jordan 🇯🇴 Kuwait 🇰🇼 UAE 🇦🇪 Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦 Oman 🇴🇲 Qatar 🇶🇦 Bahrain 🇧🇭
Muslim countries against the removal of the regime: Great Britain 🇬🇧 France 🇫🇷 Spain 🇪🇸"
Debra Lea on X - "This is the first time in history where the citizens of a country being bombed are celebrating, while some citizens of the country who did the bombing are protesting. Leftists man, they’re retarded."
The Iran Watcher 🇮🇷 on X - "The selective outrage of the “I hate the West but live in the West” leftists over Iranian deaths is pure hypocrisy. Not once did Mehdi post about Iranians being massacred by the Islamic Republic regime, many of them children. Now he suddenly cares about Iranian children because it fits his West-bashing political narrative."
Asra Nomani on X - "2:34 AM: 10 minutes BEFORE Trump even revealed strikes against Iran, a U.S. nonprofit network funded by China-based tycoon Neville Roy Singham activated foot soldiers to hit the streets for PRO-REGIME, ANTI-U.S. protests. Read my latest @FoxNews Digital ⬇️"
Eric Schwalm on X - "Their ability to respond is ridiculous. They have the ability to respond with protests faster than your local emergency services center. In the military we call this "flash to bang time". It is the difference in time it takes from seeing a bomb hit until the sound wave hits you. Their flash to bang time is Fortune 500 level stuff. They responded faster than Trump could announce it. "Organic"...My ass."
Insurrection Barbie on X - "Catastrophizing escalation rhetoric. Take a surgical, limited military action and describe it in the most apocalyptic terms possible to attach a 20-year war prediction and make the audience emotionally unable to distinguish between “airstrike” and “Iraq War.” This is not just about being wrong and these people know it. What Carlson, Bannon and their whole network do is structurally identical to Iranian state propaganda, and that’s not an accident. Trump authorized the Twelve-Day War strikes as a limited, surgical operation to degrade nuclear infrastructure and then brokered a ceasefire within days. That is the Trump doctrine in action: decisive, fast, no boots on the ground, out. Iran is already economically shattered, militarily degraded, facing its own people in the streets and cannot sustain a prolonged conflict. According to World Bank projections, Iran’s economy is expected to contract by 2.8% in 2026, with inflation near 50% and the cost of basic goods having risen at least 50% in the past year. There’s a reason why the same people who are screaming bloody murder about a war right now are being amplified on Iranian State TV. Their messaging does not serve the best interests of the United States of America. Their messaging only serves the best interests of the Iranian regime. And whereas in June, you could’ve given them the benefit of a doubt . Today not only are they doing this but they know exactly what they are doing. They hate Israel so much that they would side with genocidal head choppers over their own president who they campaigned and voted for. And that is why Jew hatred is a brain virus from the pits of hell."
