This is an excellent piece that recaps many of the points I've been posting about since the war started. I think it is worth acknowledging that the economic impact of the war is not something down the line that will hit us in years, months or weeks, but is already here. Petrol prices at the pump are now hovering at the £2/l mark and only going in one direction. That means we already - right now, as we speak - have consumers cutting back on discretionary spending in order to fill their tanks. That is to say, we are in an economic contraction even if we're not, yet, in a recession by the orthodox "two consecutive quarters" definition. The only remaining question is whether that contraction will be (a) short and bad, but tolerable, (b) long and bad, akin to the 2008 crash, or (c) historically catastrophic, akin to the Great Depression. Based on what we know about the importance of Gulf shipping to global economic activity, especially wrt raw materials upstream of almost all modern life, the answer seems to be almost certainly (b) but only a fool or a charlatan would rule out (c).
It feels almost banal, if not churlish, to discuss meta-political consequences under such circumstances, but this is PJ so we must. I was pleased to see the reference to a point I have made many times on X, which is that real or perceived closeness to Trump/MAGA has already hurt RW parties in Canada, Australia, and Europe, a trend which shows no sign of abating any time soon. Some of the more intelligent, or at least less idiotic, RWers like the AfD in Germany or Meloni in Italy have already started distancing themselves from the Trump admin substantively and MAGA rhetorically as a result. Others are yet to cotton on, but if the recent French local elections are anything to go by, RW populists have little to be complacent (still less triumphant) about. One may also well note that LW incumbents in Spain and Ireland have also been given a fillip by their vocal opposition to Trump's current war in Iran as well as Israeli conduct in Palestine more generally. This is very much to the detriment of those nations' peoples, and reflects poorly on their RW oppositions.
Speaking of, while it would be too much to say that Trump has saved Labour's bacon, the elephant in the PJ room is that Reform have had an absolute shocker. The strongest case for Reform over Restore from a RW point of view, one made in these pages, is that Reform is a serious and credible government-in-waiting and not a personal hobbyhorse or a vanity project or a naked grift. I have considerable sympathy for that argument, but it gets harder to sustain in light of Reform's inexplicable decision to adopt a position that's opposed by around 80% of the British public, to say nothing of being atrocious on its merits. Between this, and other unforced errors (the defenestration of Chris Parry and nomination of Matt Goodwin to name but two) it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the influx into Reform of former Tories with hardline Atlanticist and Zionist leanings has been an unequivocal disaster. Whatever Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, and Alan Mendoza are bringing to the table in return is very clearly not worth it. Once again, putting side the awfulness of their substantive positions, when the British public start to really feel the economic pain that's coming their way in 2027-8, I strongly doubt that they will be inclined to reward the party that spent March 2026 waving the Pahlavi flag and demanding boots on the ground. It's not too late - still - for Reform to pull back from the edge, change course, and excise the cancer that got them this far. As somebody who wishes the best for the British right, and nothing but ill towards the Labour/Tory Uniparty, I sincerely hope that they do so very soon.
Does it cross anyone's mind that just maybe Donald Trump didn't want this war but had no option? Maybe there was compelling evidence that Iran was on the point of commissioning nuclear weapons and that taking action was the lesser of two evils? I don't know for sure but it might just be a possibility? There's NO political advantage to be had from this war, it's almost a shoe-in that the Democrats will sweep the board in the mid-terms now, guaranteeing the final two years of his Presidency is a sterile rerun of 2017 to 2020, and that they may well now regain the White House at the end of 2028. He must have known that was the card being dealt. I think we need to wait longer before deciding on the viability or otherwise of Operation Epic Fury.
Part of the reason why Iran has been unable to develop nuclear weapons is because there has been a serious campaign by the Israelis for decades to prevent this. I remember stories of Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2000's. But if you want proper evidence, read this article:
Iran had enough 60% enriched uranium stockpiled prior to February this year to enable them to build 10 nukes. During the time of the JCPOA, the IAEA were often blocked from full inspections and German intelligence found the Iranians to be trying to illicitly procure nuclear and ballistic technology. A lack of missiles now does not mean that there was no attempt to develop them, but, from the evidence at hand, is more evidence of how seriously the Israelis were trying to stop the Iranians getting nukes.
Now, aside from the question of nukes, Iran has been a major sponsor of terrorism for decades. The Iranians formed an alliance with Al Qaeda in the 90's, and it has developed in such a way that IS have started declaring Al Qaeda to be an Iranian proxy at this point (see the latest editorial in the IS paper Naba). Iranian backed organisations such as the IHRC also help campaign in support of the laws that enable mass non-White immigration in the UK. Iran is likely also helping to bankroll the corrupt ANC in South Africa in their ongoing campaign of White genocide.
None of this is to say that I am in favour of the war or that I support Israel. Britain's regional allies are Jordan and the countries of the GCC, not Israel. This should inform any British policy regarding Iran. We should understand that the Islamic Revolution in Iran and throughout the Middle East has been involved in some degree of war against our actual allies for decades, ranging from the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to the attack on the Saudi Aramco Abqaiq processing facility in September 2019. This doesn't mean we should join a war that we have no real ability to contribute positively to or support it, but it does mean that we need to understand that the Iranians are hostile towards us.
"No they weren't. They could inspect anywhere, and the a simple P5+1 majority could overrule any Iranian objection."
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a series of resolutions from June 2020 that called on Iran to satisfy more recent requests regarding possible undeclared nuclear activities that were not responded to. In December 2015, the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors diplomatically mentioned that the Iranian cooperation in inspections were not always "timely". So no, the Iranians were not completely cooperative and were seen as potentially blocking full inspections given the requests for information regarding possible undeclared nuclear activities.
"The IRGC literally fought Al Qaeda in Syria, as did their proxies. Their proxies fought AQ in Iraq."
With Iran and Al Qaeda, the relationship started in 1991 or 1992, which resulted in a meeting between Bin Laden and Imad Mugniyah, a fully commissioned IRGC officer and the military chief of Hezbollah, to co-ordinate actions against the West. Al Qaeda sent delegations to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon in 1993 where they received training in explosives, intelligence, and security from Iranians. Al-Zawahiri went to Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars where he established a working relationship with Mugniyah. The IRGC set up shop inside of Bosnia, helping to organise the jihadists who went to assist Izetbegovic. The Iranians and Al Qaeda worked together in the 1996 Khobar bombings in Saudi Arabia, which was run out of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and the Syrian government enabled the perpetrators to flee through its territory. There is likewise strong evidence showing that Iran and Al Qaeda co-operated in the 1998 bombing of the US embassy in Dar es Salaam, which made use of the truck bombing techniques used so effectively by Hezbollah in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Iran also helped facilitate the movement of the Al Qaeda commander in Yemen, Abd al-Rahim-al-Nashiri, both before and after the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole on October 12 2000. Iran was directly involved in setting up Al Qaeda's Yemen network, helping to support training and logistics for Al Qaeda in the region. To skip forward to 2007, Bin Laden wrote a letter in 2007 to the predecessor of IS to reprimand them for inciting against Iran, with Bin Laden writing We expected you would consult with us for these important matters, for as you are aware, Iran is our main artery for funds, personnel, and communication, as well as the matter of hostages”. Conflict between certain Al Qaeda franchises and Iranian proxies does not negate the long history of co-operation between the two.
All of this information is readily available. Calling it "2003-level propaganda" does not negate that. One of the huge ironies about calling it "2003-level propaganda" is that the big CIA propaganda piece of that era was the claim that Iraq had no connection to Sunni jihadists. The CIA was involved in a bureaucratic turf war with the Pentagon and pushed the false narrative about Saddam's regime being incompatible with Islamism, despite the start of a Faith Campaign in 1993 and Egyptian Islamic Jihad members having been provided with safe houses. This narrative was then pushed by the anti-war left. None of this justifies the war in Iraq, but it is important to understand this to create some form of actual coherent view on the Middle East.
To get back to Iran, Britain's allies are the Gulf Arabs and Jordan. The Iranians are hostile to the Gulf Arabs and have been involved in various terrorist attacks against the Gulf states since the 90's. We shouldn't get involved in bombing Iran, but we should not consider the Iranians as a potential ally and should regard them as a hostile regime much like how we should consider the ANC in South Africa as a hostile regime. It's simple. It doesn't require being actively hostile (e.g. sanctions, war etc), but it does require recognising the problem and taking action to restrict Iranian activities in Britain.
The plea bargain of Ali Mohamed, an Egyptian Islamist involved in the Embassy bombings of 1998. I can also link to well-researched books that go through various other sources to discuss the links between Iran and Al Qaeda as well as Iran and other Sunni jihadist groups. What is detailed here is different to the US bribing the Taliban not to attack them when transitioning through mountain passes. It also means that the 2007 letters are again different to the US bribing the Taliban, rather being more evidence of a relationship that had tensions. Iran fighting IS is not a sign that Iran has not supported Sunni jihadism, but rather that some Sunni jihadist groups are opposed to Iran.
Now, please explain where I have argued that we need to view Iran as an existential threat like the Israelis do? I have been stating that we need to understand that Iran is hostile towards us and take action to limit Iranian influence in Britain. I think we should try and limit any foreign influence, but especially so with regard to hostile powers that are a threat to the Gulf monarchies and Jordan. I have openly said that we should not be involved in the war, but that we need to accept that the Iranians are a threat to our allies and are hostile towards us.
"And the idea that the pro-Iraq War contingent only made the limited complaint about a few safe houses in Iraq in the early 90's is revisionist history. The claim was that they were deeply tied together to the point where Saddam was going to give them anthrax."
The claims about co-operation were not baseless. Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, Saddam's personal secretary and a distant cousin, admitted that Mahfouz Ould al-Walid, a member of Bin Laden's Shura council, was received by senior Iraqi officials in Baghdad in 1998 to discuss funding. There was also evidence of IIS having a liaison relationship with the Ansar al-Islam statelet in northern Iraq. There are also other cases where there was some degree of co-operation, though it differed to Saddam's relationship with the Palestinians. Discussing this does not mean that I endorse the entirety of the claims of the pro-Iraq War contingent and it does not mean that I view the Iraq War positively. I was opposed to the war when it began, and it was poorly handled due to a variety of reasons that resulted in the war being a waste of blood and treasure that helped to weaken America and strengthen her regional enemies. What I am pointing out is that the narrative about Saddam's regime being opposed to Islamism was wrong, and that this idea in part originated with the CIA operating on an a priori theory that religious militants like Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists could not co-operate. See Douglas Feith (2008), War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, p. 260-263.
Good article, but a couple of things: California is not sovereign, and does not have the power to enact amnesty. And the end of the white majority in the United States has been a demographic inevitability since the 1990s. Deportations on the scale that would be necessary to affect demographics were never a legal or practical possibility. The United States lacks the capacity to expel millions of people against their will, and Trump was hardly the man to build that capacity.
Any politics premised on the United States remaining majority white is a pipe dream.
Rubio, Hegseth, and Trump himself have all explained clearly why the war was necessary at this time (Iran's buildup of a conventional shield, its continuing nuclear ambitions, etc.). I don't see a reason to dig much deeper. Sure, the war has unpleasant consequences, but having Iran as the deranged mistress of one of the world's most important shipping lanes is far worse.
Except that Iranian leadership wasn't a "deranged mistress", they didn't close the Hormuz even during the twelve-day war, only when the US explicitly aimed to achieve regime change.
Using this to claim that Iran is deranged is quite the logical fallacy (circular reasoning).
Besides, if the Trump administrations' goal is to secure the Strait (no longer "having Iran as the deranged mistress of one of the world's most important shipping lanes"), then they would have to put (many) boots on the ground, and I don't see the readiness to do it.
Of course they were. You can't allow anybody hostile to have this kind of power (assuming you can deny it). In a way, the war demonstrates its necessity - it proves that Iran is the sort of thing America cannot allow.
Claim about NL definitely wrong, don’t think it’s accurate to say other European right-wing parties have been badly affected either. On the 27/03/26 the two furthest right parties achieved their best polling figures ever and the right block as a whole is outperforming their results in both of the last elections https://maurice.nl/2026/03/29/zeven-grootste-partijen-steeds-dichter-bij-elkaar/
Because China is doing just fine, so if this was a move against them it was utterly moronic. Europe and the rest of Asia are far more vulnerable to supply shocks from the Gulf than China.
It's a little early.
This is an excellent piece that recaps many of the points I've been posting about since the war started. I think it is worth acknowledging that the economic impact of the war is not something down the line that will hit us in years, months or weeks, but is already here. Petrol prices at the pump are now hovering at the £2/l mark and only going in one direction. That means we already - right now, as we speak - have consumers cutting back on discretionary spending in order to fill their tanks. That is to say, we are in an economic contraction even if we're not, yet, in a recession by the orthodox "two consecutive quarters" definition. The only remaining question is whether that contraction will be (a) short and bad, but tolerable, (b) long and bad, akin to the 2008 crash, or (c) historically catastrophic, akin to the Great Depression. Based on what we know about the importance of Gulf shipping to global economic activity, especially wrt raw materials upstream of almost all modern life, the answer seems to be almost certainly (b) but only a fool or a charlatan would rule out (c).
It feels almost banal, if not churlish, to discuss meta-political consequences under such circumstances, but this is PJ so we must. I was pleased to see the reference to a point I have made many times on X, which is that real or perceived closeness to Trump/MAGA has already hurt RW parties in Canada, Australia, and Europe, a trend which shows no sign of abating any time soon. Some of the more intelligent, or at least less idiotic, RWers like the AfD in Germany or Meloni in Italy have already started distancing themselves from the Trump admin substantively and MAGA rhetorically as a result. Others are yet to cotton on, but if the recent French local elections are anything to go by, RW populists have little to be complacent (still less triumphant) about. One may also well note that LW incumbents in Spain and Ireland have also been given a fillip by their vocal opposition to Trump's current war in Iran as well as Israeli conduct in Palestine more generally. This is very much to the detriment of those nations' peoples, and reflects poorly on their RW oppositions.
Speaking of, while it would be too much to say that Trump has saved Labour's bacon, the elephant in the PJ room is that Reform have had an absolute shocker. The strongest case for Reform over Restore from a RW point of view, one made in these pages, is that Reform is a serious and credible government-in-waiting and not a personal hobbyhorse or a vanity project or a naked grift. I have considerable sympathy for that argument, but it gets harder to sustain in light of Reform's inexplicable decision to adopt a position that's opposed by around 80% of the British public, to say nothing of being atrocious on its merits. Between this, and other unforced errors (the defenestration of Chris Parry and nomination of Matt Goodwin to name but two) it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the influx into Reform of former Tories with hardline Atlanticist and Zionist leanings has been an unequivocal disaster. Whatever Robert Jenrick, Suella Braverman, and Alan Mendoza are bringing to the table in return is very clearly not worth it. Once again, putting side the awfulness of their substantive positions, when the British public start to really feel the economic pain that's coming their way in 2027-8, I strongly doubt that they will be inclined to reward the party that spent March 2026 waving the Pahlavi flag and demanding boots on the ground. It's not too late - still - for Reform to pull back from the edge, change course, and excise the cancer that got them this far. As somebody who wishes the best for the British right, and nothing but ill towards the Labour/Tory Uniparty, I sincerely hope that they do so very soon.
Does it cross anyone's mind that just maybe Donald Trump didn't want this war but had no option? Maybe there was compelling evidence that Iran was on the point of commissioning nuclear weapons and that taking action was the lesser of two evils? I don't know for sure but it might just be a possibility? There's NO political advantage to be had from this war, it's almost a shoe-in that the Democrats will sweep the board in the mid-terms now, guaranteeing the final two years of his Presidency is a sterile rerun of 2017 to 2020, and that they may well now regain the White House at the end of 2028. He must have known that was the card being dealt. I think we need to wait longer before deciding on the viability or otherwise of Operation Epic Fury.
Part of the reason why Iran has been unable to develop nuclear weapons is because there has been a serious campaign by the Israelis for decades to prevent this. I remember stories of Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities in the 2000's. But if you want proper evidence, read this article:
https://www.ideologymachine.com/p/maximum-pressure-minimum-strategy
Iran had enough 60% enriched uranium stockpiled prior to February this year to enable them to build 10 nukes. During the time of the JCPOA, the IAEA were often blocked from full inspections and German intelligence found the Iranians to be trying to illicitly procure nuclear and ballistic technology. A lack of missiles now does not mean that there was no attempt to develop them, but, from the evidence at hand, is more evidence of how seriously the Israelis were trying to stop the Iranians getting nukes.
Now, aside from the question of nukes, Iran has been a major sponsor of terrorism for decades. The Iranians formed an alliance with Al Qaeda in the 90's, and it has developed in such a way that IS have started declaring Al Qaeda to be an Iranian proxy at this point (see the latest editorial in the IS paper Naba). Iranian backed organisations such as the IHRC also help campaign in support of the laws that enable mass non-White immigration in the UK. Iran is likely also helping to bankroll the corrupt ANC in South Africa in their ongoing campaign of White genocide.
None of this is to say that I am in favour of the war or that I support Israel. Britain's regional allies are Jordan and the countries of the GCC, not Israel. This should inform any British policy regarding Iran. We should understand that the Islamic Revolution in Iran and throughout the Middle East has been involved in some degree of war against our actual allies for decades, ranging from the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to the attack on the Saudi Aramco Abqaiq processing facility in September 2019. This doesn't mean we should join a war that we have no real ability to contribute positively to or support it, but it does mean that we need to understand that the Iranians are hostile towards us.
"No they weren't. They could inspect anywhere, and the a simple P5+1 majority could overrule any Iranian objection."
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a series of resolutions from June 2020 that called on Iran to satisfy more recent requests regarding possible undeclared nuclear activities that were not responded to. In December 2015, the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors diplomatically mentioned that the Iranian cooperation in inspections were not always "timely". So no, the Iranians were not completely cooperative and were seen as potentially blocking full inspections given the requests for information regarding possible undeclared nuclear activities.
"The IRGC literally fought Al Qaeda in Syria, as did their proxies. Their proxies fought AQ in Iraq."
With Iran and Al Qaeda, the relationship started in 1991 or 1992, which resulted in a meeting between Bin Laden and Imad Mugniyah, a fully commissioned IRGC officer and the military chief of Hezbollah, to co-ordinate actions against the West. Al Qaeda sent delegations to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon in 1993 where they received training in explosives, intelligence, and security from Iranians. Al-Zawahiri went to Bosnia during the Yugoslav wars where he established a working relationship with Mugniyah. The IRGC set up shop inside of Bosnia, helping to organise the jihadists who went to assist Izetbegovic. The Iranians and Al Qaeda worked together in the 1996 Khobar bombings in Saudi Arabia, which was run out of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and the Syrian government enabled the perpetrators to flee through its territory. There is likewise strong evidence showing that Iran and Al Qaeda co-operated in the 1998 bombing of the US embassy in Dar es Salaam, which made use of the truck bombing techniques used so effectively by Hezbollah in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings. Iran also helped facilitate the movement of the Al Qaeda commander in Yemen, Abd al-Rahim-al-Nashiri, both before and after the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole on October 12 2000. Iran was directly involved in setting up Al Qaeda's Yemen network, helping to support training and logistics for Al Qaeda in the region. To skip forward to 2007, Bin Laden wrote a letter in 2007 to the predecessor of IS to reprimand them for inciting against Iran, with Bin Laden writing We expected you would consult with us for these important matters, for as you are aware, Iran is our main artery for funds, personnel, and communication, as well as the matter of hostages”. Conflict between certain Al Qaeda franchises and Iranian proxies does not negate the long history of co-operation between the two.
All of this information is readily available. Calling it "2003-level propaganda" does not negate that. One of the huge ironies about calling it "2003-level propaganda" is that the big CIA propaganda piece of that era was the claim that Iraq had no connection to Sunni jihadists. The CIA was involved in a bureaucratic turf war with the Pentagon and pushed the false narrative about Saddam's regime being incompatible with Islamism, despite the start of a Faith Campaign in 1993 and Egyptian Islamic Jihad members having been provided with safe houses. This narrative was then pushed by the anti-war left. None of this justifies the war in Iraq, but it is important to understand this to create some form of actual coherent view on the Middle East.
To get back to Iran, Britain's allies are the Gulf Arabs and Jordan. The Iranians are hostile to the Gulf Arabs and have been involved in various terrorist attacks against the Gulf states since the 90's. We shouldn't get involved in bombing Iran, but we should not consider the Iranians as a potential ally and should regard them as a hostile regime much like how we should consider the ANC in South Africa as a hostile regime. It's simple. It doesn't require being actively hostile (e.g. sanctions, war etc), but it does require recognising the problem and taking action to restrict Iranian activities in Britain.
"The first paragraph is mostly comprised of assertions in various reports with little to no evidence."
If you want a readily available piece of evidence, here is some:
https://kyleorton.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/united-states-v-ali-mohamed-plea-hearing-20-october-2000.pdf
The plea bargain of Ali Mohamed, an Egyptian Islamist involved in the Embassy bombings of 1998. I can also link to well-researched books that go through various other sources to discuss the links between Iran and Al Qaeda as well as Iran and other Sunni jihadist groups. What is detailed here is different to the US bribing the Taliban not to attack them when transitioning through mountain passes. It also means that the 2007 letters are again different to the US bribing the Taliban, rather being more evidence of a relationship that had tensions. Iran fighting IS is not a sign that Iran has not supported Sunni jihadism, but rather that some Sunni jihadist groups are opposed to Iran.
Now, please explain where I have argued that we need to view Iran as an existential threat like the Israelis do? I have been stating that we need to understand that Iran is hostile towards us and take action to limit Iranian influence in Britain. I think we should try and limit any foreign influence, but especially so with regard to hostile powers that are a threat to the Gulf monarchies and Jordan. I have openly said that we should not be involved in the war, but that we need to accept that the Iranians are a threat to our allies and are hostile towards us.
"And the idea that the pro-Iraq War contingent only made the limited complaint about a few safe houses in Iraq in the early 90's is revisionist history. The claim was that they were deeply tied together to the point where Saddam was going to give them anthrax."
The claims about co-operation were not baseless. Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, Saddam's personal secretary and a distant cousin, admitted that Mahfouz Ould al-Walid, a member of Bin Laden's Shura council, was received by senior Iraqi officials in Baghdad in 1998 to discuss funding. There was also evidence of IIS having a liaison relationship with the Ansar al-Islam statelet in northern Iraq. There are also other cases where there was some degree of co-operation, though it differed to Saddam's relationship with the Palestinians. Discussing this does not mean that I endorse the entirety of the claims of the pro-Iraq War contingent and it does not mean that I view the Iraq War positively. I was opposed to the war when it began, and it was poorly handled due to a variety of reasons that resulted in the war being a waste of blood and treasure that helped to weaken America and strengthen her regional enemies. What I am pointing out is that the narrative about Saddam's regime being opposed to Islamism was wrong, and that this idea in part originated with the CIA operating on an a priori theory that religious militants like Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists could not co-operate. See Douglas Feith (2008), War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, p. 260-263.
Good article, but a couple of things: California is not sovereign, and does not have the power to enact amnesty. And the end of the white majority in the United States has been a demographic inevitability since the 1990s. Deportations on the scale that would be necessary to affect demographics were never a legal or practical possibility. The United States lacks the capacity to expel millions of people against their will, and Trump was hardly the man to build that capacity.
Any politics premised on the United States remaining majority white is a pipe dream.
This was a) virtually unreadable; b) mostly bollocks; and c) midwit.
Disappointing.
LOL. I thought there were some good points but it’s obviously written from the POV of an (a) outsider (b) who spends too much time on the Internet.
Tucker is not popular. He is in freefall among Republicans. Sneako represents no one but a few deranged non-white groypers.
Because his brother said something? There goes faith in your judgment
Rubio, Hegseth, and Trump himself have all explained clearly why the war was necessary at this time (Iran's buildup of a conventional shield, its continuing nuclear ambitions, etc.). I don't see a reason to dig much deeper. Sure, the war has unpleasant consequences, but having Iran as the deranged mistress of one of the world's most important shipping lanes is far worse.
Except that Iranian leadership wasn't a "deranged mistress", they didn't close the Hormuz even during the twelve-day war, only when the US explicitly aimed to achieve regime change.
Using this to claim that Iran is deranged is quite the logical fallacy (circular reasoning).
Besides, if the Trump administrations' goal is to secure the Strait (no longer "having Iran as the deranged mistress of one of the world's most important shipping lanes"), then they would have to put (many) boots on the ground, and I don't see the readiness to do it.
Of course they were. You can't allow anybody hostile to have this kind of power (assuming you can deny it). In a way, the war demonstrates its necessity - it proves that Iran is the sort of thing America cannot allow.
Claim about NL definitely wrong, don’t think it’s accurate to say other European right-wing parties have been badly affected either. On the 27/03/26 the two furthest right parties achieved their best polling figures ever and the right block as a whole is outperforming their results in both of the last elections https://maurice.nl/2026/03/29/zeven-grootste-partijen-steeds-dichter-bij-elkaar/
America and its supporters in Europe should be prepared for violence in the mainland.
Iran has so far only targeted neighbours.
But if things escalate, you may expect action back home via proxies and sleeper cells.
Europeans should in particular also get ready for large influx of refugees if the war goes on long.
Ctrl+F China - 1 result. Uh oh
Because China is doing just fine, so if this was a move against them it was utterly moronic. Europe and the rest of Asia are far more vulnerable to supply shocks from the Gulf than China.
Good article. I agree with the writer - to some extent...😉
Jesus, what a fucking mess