Trump killed 50 of Iran's top leaders, did at least $1 trillion worth of damage to their military equipment and infrastructure, totally wiped out their naval fleet and air fleets, put their government in a state of endemic internal conflict, and left them totally incapable of meaningfully attacking their neighbors in the region any time soon. By the end of it, all Iran could do is rig the strait with mines and take pop shots at passing ships.
The loss of insurance coverage had more of an impact on the flow of marine traffic than Iran did.
I personally would have preferred the total destruction of the IRGC (which technically isn't off the table if they decide to FAFO) but it would have been difficult to accomplish without more civilian casualties -- something third worldist leftoids were already complaining (and campaigning) about.
In the meantime, consider the following:
No boots on the ground. No prolonged conflict. No permanent occupation. No military draft. No lasting impact on energy prices. No multi-trillion dollar boondoggle. None of the things anti-war retards with Israel tunnel vision like Dave Smith and Candace Owens predicted would happen.
In addition:
- Oil and gas prices are falling in time for summer and the midterms.
- "Free Palestine" third worldists like Graham Platner have less ammo on which to campaign for Congress.
- Russia is bringing in less revenue.
- The U.S. got a foot in the door to block China's Belt and Road projects.
- Trump has greater latitude to tighten sanctions on Russia without exacerbating supply shocks to energy markets.
- Europe and America have agreed to increase cooperation in providing for the national defense of Ukraine.
- Israel isn't a signatory to the MOU and isn't bound by its terms, leaving it free to independently defend itself from threats if necessary.
- America isn't creating a power vacuum for China and Russia to fill by absconding and surrendering its own influence over the region.
The people who say this is a "humiliating defeat" for Trump?
- Russia
- China
- Iran
- Democrats
- The leftist Drudge-led media establishment
All the worst people you know have joined arms and are pretending like Iran pulled one over on the Bad Orange Man in hopes that it will piss off Republicans and Israelis enough to get them to kill the deal themselves.
It's very transparent. Don't let your enemies control you with such a stupid and obvious Reflexive Control op.
“We have one group that we broke up that these young ladies are claiming they were raped 600-700 times…We have one that we just broke up recently that was a ring of people that had kept these kids down in a tunnel. You couldn’t write a horror story about how bad this was, couldn’t write a horror story. It’s stuff that I’ll never forget.” —@SecMullinDHS on saving missing migrant children smuggled in under the Biden Administration
🚨#BREAKING: It has been revealed that the man charged with m*rdering a pregnant mother and her unborn son in Atlanta...
...WAS RELEASED EARLY FROM PRISON FOR M*RDER JUST TWO YEARS AGO!!!!
He served just 11 MONTHS in prison for m*rder!!!!!!!
His name is Devin Anthony.
He was originally indicted in a 2024 case for, felony m*rder, aggravated assault, and a gun charge.
So what happened?
They let him plead it down to voluntary manslaughter.
They gave him "First Offender" status, meaning he wasn't even formally convicted.
He was ordered to serve just ELEVEN MONTHS behind bars and 19 years on probation.
Then, this February, he violated that probation. He skipped reporting. He failed a drug test. He blew off his anger management course. He didn't comply with the program.
They held him for 60 DAYS... AND THEN LET HIM GO!!!
...and then he used his probation to fire about a DOZEN shots through a bedroom window, into a home where 23-year-old Shakiya Pridgen was asleep in bed with her two babies.
She was hit.
So was her unborn son.
Shakiya was two weeks from giving birth.
She'd already had the baby shower.
She'd named him Kyren.
They are both gone.
Her two other children, ages 1 and 3, were in the bed beside her and they watched their mother pass away.
Shakiya's own mother said: "He got a second chance. Shakiya doesn't get a second chance. He should have never been let out."
Name the prosecutors. Name the judge. Name everyone who signed off on letting this man walk.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!
Starlink is connecting 100,000 students and 1,500 teachers in Malawi across 30 rural schools to online learning resources. For many, this is the first time students, teachers and families have access to reliable internet 🛰️❤️
EVERY FUCKING PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT THE EPSTEIN FILES FOR MONTHS...
...IS DEAD FUCKING SILENT ABOUT A QUARTER-OF-A-MILLION WHITE GIRLS BEING GANG RAPED BY MUSLIMS!!!
I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT ANY OF YOU FUCKING PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY EVER AGAIN!!!!!!
This take is VERY American. And that’s why our country has a history of only getting serious about threats after it’s been surprise attacked with a high casualty count.
In the post nuclear age, we as the world’s super power are in a Catch 22 of sorts.
>Ignore threats to make citizens happy. Opening ourselves up to a mass casualty event.
>Proactively engage threats and make citizens angry.
Americans HATE war. We are at our very best when we are drug into them by providence.
Anything beyond that looks like a war of choice. And coming off the heels of two REALLY shitty ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, I get it.
But you guys don’t know how bad Iran really is. Most people don’t. I mean what I say when I say that it was only a matter of time before a “sum of all fears moment” happened in the U.S.
But you, me, and every other American are never gonna know that. Because it was prevented. All you get now is the higher gas prices and frustration that we’re still entangled there.
I won’t lie, it’s messy. But what’s messier? This or a ground burst low yield nuclear detonation in a mega city?
Up to you, but I know what my answer is.
The E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump is one of the strangest civil cases in American history. The foundational problem is this: Carroll could not identify when the alleged incident occurred — not even the year with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was. That is not a technicality. It is a due process violation at the constitutional level.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed after the incident could have occurred. The sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
The resulting verdict was then weaponized in a defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already "proven" in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees. When you systematically destroy a defendant's ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence. Process without substance is not law. And a verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status.
Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll, but every other person involved as well. Trump is owed serious damages here, and there may be a few people who belong in prison for their roles in the case.
Her name was Isabella Stroupe.
She was 19. She loved books. Her family called her Bella.
She was tied to a bed with a tow strap and tortured for months in an east Charlotte NC apartment.
Multiple broken bones.
St*b wounds.
R*ped repeatedly.
Her mother said she screamed and screamed when she found out.
Thomaz Hamilton, a violent repeat offender is charged with first-degree m*rder and first-degree r*pe.
Months. She was alive in there for months.
Say her name. Isabella Stroupe.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS.
Food for thought.
Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride
For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface.
The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities.
Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed.
In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines.
In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive.
A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent.
By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right.
In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.