Trump has a difficult choice -- give up, or forever war

Trump has bitten off more than he can chew with Iran, and he knows it. The Iranians will not be easily defeated. However much Trump escalates, the Iranians have the manpower and the resources, especially backed up by Russia and China, to give back with interest anything the US throws at them. At this stage, it's unclear what will happen next. Trump may launch ground troops at Kharg Island, or other locations. Or, Trump may turn tail and run. Trump is even acknowledging he has no capacity to open the strait of Hormuz, which will mean oil prices will continue high for a very long time. None of these options are even remotely attractive, and Trump has no one to blame but hiself for this. The nidterms are likely to be a disaster because of this, for the GOP, whatever Trump does, or doesn't do. If he uses ground troops, massive casualties are likely, and the war will continue. If Trump simply "declares victory", oil prices remain high, the US economy remains weak. In either case, the voters will punish him in November. The question is, can Trump survive the year 2027?

Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is an event of massive historical significance

Throughout human history, nations that controlled the trade routes, controlled the world. The Minoans, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the Spanish, the British, the Americans -- they all achieved the apogee of their power, by controlling the seas, the routes of trade, the means of acquiring and transferring wealth, and goods. In particular, the Ottoman Empire transformed itself from a regional power, to a world superpower, by conquering Constantinople, at the isthmus of the Dardenelles, the route to the Black Sea, and thus cutting off the West from the trade routes to Russia, India and China. It may be happening again. The real and critical consequence of the current Iran war, is proof that Iranian drones and missiles are cheap enough, and effective enough, to defeat the most advanced and expensive weapons systems in the world, including those fielded by the US and Israel. Most changes in power dynamics in world history are caused by advances in weapons systems by new powers, who thus overtake and conquer the old powers. We may be witnessing one, right now. While Israel and the US are babbling about "winning overwhelmingly", Iran has systematically shut down the middle east, and hobbled the entire world economy. Thus, Iran has acquired immense power, a power only slightly and occasionally being acknowledged by the West. We may, actually, be witnessing the birth of a new Persian Empire, a new superpower.

Sing Sing Sing on Jeff Pressler's Magic Ballroom

Every year Jeff Pressler presents in his wonderful 91 year old radio program "The Magic Ballroom", the full 12 minute version of Benny Goodman's arrangement of "Sing Sing Sing", performed at Carnegie Hall in 1938, much of which was improvised on the the stage itself. I think Jeff Pressler actually understates how great this is. It is magnificent, it is poetry, it is rhapsodic, it is brilliant, it is miraculous. Benny Goodman has created something on a par with the finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. This is Benny Goodman's true and perfect "Ode to Joy", and I think he knew it, too! #music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyht_FPMidI

Donald Trump has drawn up the curtain on an emerging Iranian super-state in the Middle East

As Iran has demonstrated its ability to simultaneously defeat both Isarel and the US in prolonged continuous warfare, and to crush all other nations in the region as well, while hobbling the entire world economy by controlling the strait of Hormuz, it is becoming quite clear that -- far from "destroying" Iran -- all Donald Trump has succeeded in doing is showing that Iran effectively controls the entire middle east, single-handed, and there's nothing whatsoever the US, or the West can do about it. This is the nightmare scenario that the West has been desperately trying to avoid since the Ottoman Empire was totally destroyed, in WWI. This is why the entire Middle East was systematically balkanized, with an aggressive Jewish State of Israel placed in the middle of it, as the icing and cherry on the top of the cake. All to ensure that the arabs would never unite again, to pose a threat to the West. Well, this nightmare scenario is now a reality. Saudi Arabia is already conducting behind he scenes diplomacy with the Iranian leadership, to try to iron out a modus vivendi with the new middle east superpower. They know they can't fight Iran. Iran has proven that they are more than a match for both Israel and the US. Iran controls the straits of Hormuz, and nothing can be done about that ever. The Ottoman Empire is reborn! The Caliphate is reborn, at last!

Trump has finally self-destructed completely with his War on Iran, just like Saddam Hussein

Remember how powerful Saddam Hussein seemed, before his war on Iran? Remember how he seemed invincible? Remember how popular he was in the US, and Europe, for "getting Iran in hand", after the Shah fell, and the Iranian hostage crisis? How did that work out for him? Having lost the war, and having to give back all the territory he had held in Iran, beccause his nation was totally exhausted, and he couldn't possibly fight anymore, despite the fact the US was 100% behind him, Saddam Hussein found his financial and political situation so weakened, that he had the really bright idea that he'd invade Kuwait. After all, they had plenty of oil, plenty of money, why not just "take them over"? Doesn't that sound just like Donald Trump? Of course it does! But, Saddam Hussein was biting off more than he could chew here, once more, because he had bitten off more than he could chew, by invading Iran. And, Saddam Hussein ended up paying the ultimate price, didn't he? Is history repeating itself, once again?

"Can"t buy me love", as Philosophy

https://www.thebeatles.com/cant-buy-me-love While Paul McCartney is not generally considered to be a great philosopher, there is something to this partcular song that may represent a unique and signifcant analytical treatment of the limitations of Capitalism. Sure, we have many, many commentaries on the limitations and problems with money. Money is the root of all evil. Money will not protect you in the hour of anger. Money is a good tool, but a bad master. Money can't buy you happiness. However, the conjunction of 'I don't care too much for money', with "money can't buy me love', represents a remarkably accurate summary of all of the limitations of capitalism. Notably, Paul McCartney does not say he doesn't care for money at all, just that it has its limitations. It can't buy him love. What is love? That which is most important to us, in our lives, whatever that may be. Money has its uses, but, that which is most important to us can never be obtained with money alone, no matter how much money we may have. Paul McCartney is willing to give all his money away, to help someone. However, what would satisfy him, is to know that his friend doesn't want money at all, but those things that are more important than money, and cannot be bought with money. Because such a person, understands life, and is worthy of his time and trouble. He insists that his friends share his values, and also understand that money is not the most important thing in life. The song is remarkably simple, but, actually, I think it may be the best critique of Capitalism that exists.

Trump is unlikely to get any more money to fight his Iran war, anytime soon.

While Trump is preparing a new 50 billion dollar supplementary request for funding his fantastically expensive war on Iran -- with costs of a billion dollars a day, or more -- the Congress is expected, because of extreme public dissatisfaction, and Democratic Party pressure, to simply stonewall the request for an indefinite period of time, while the Democrats systematically pillory the administration for its total incompetence and lack of planning in this incredibly destructive and pointless war of attrition between Israel and the US, on one side, and Iran and its allies like Russia and China, on the other. If they get anything at all, the Democrats are rather likely to offer only a fraction of the requested funds, and those will be tied strictly to defensive operations, to prepare for a retreat. If this is unacceptable to the Trump administation, the Democrats are likely to leave both Trump and the military hanging, to fend for themselves. This war is so very unpopular, that the American public are likely to blame Donald Trump, and not the Democrats, for any negative fallout, or blowback. Trump created these problems for himself, and the US military, the American people have had enough of his nonsense.

Trump is right when he says that his Iran war isn't like Iraq

Trump's current war in Iraq is, of course, nothing like the Iraq war. The US won the Iraq War, quite easily. There were problems in maintaining control of the country after this victory, of course, but even these were only moderate. Over a long period of time, they were significant, though. In Iran, in contrast, there isn't the slightest possibility of achieving victory. Iran is a superpower, whether the US chooses to acknowledge this fact, or not. The entire power of the US military combined, including all possible ground troops, could not defeat Iran. The US would probably have to triple the size of its military to do this. And, there isn't the slightest possibility of that happening. What, Trump's Iran war is somewhat like, is the War in Vietnam -- an unwinnable war, with no endgame, at all. However, it's rather worse than the US invading Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. It's rather more like if the US had invaded communist China following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in 1964. Now, they could have done this, of course, it might even have made a certain amount of sense. After all, China was Vietnam's chief backer, along with the USSR, so taking out China would kill two birds with one stone. China was, like Iran, an up and coming world power, developing nuclear weapons. So, why didn't President Lyndon Johnson decide to attack China? I think the reason was quite simple. He didn't want to bite off more than he could chew. It seemed possible that he could defeat Vietnam, a small, but formidable country. As it turned out, he couldn't do it, and neither could Richard Nixon, but, they couldn't really know this, at the time. There was no possibility of the US defeating China, a nation of 600 million people developing nuclear weapons. The Congress would never have supported it, he would have obtained no funding, and would have gotten precisely nowhere, in any case. And, that is precisely the situation currently. The Congress won't give him the money to proceed further, and he is getting nowhere. On the contrary, the Iranians are having a terrific time shooting up the entire region, shutting down its economy, and massively disrupting the entire world's economy. The question is, as Trump indicates he is "almost done", will the Iranians stop? Why should they?

The violence of "bloody Sunday" in the 2006 Russian production of Dr. Zhivago is ridiculously downplayed.

As part of their effort to whitewash the image of "Saint Nicholas", the newly canonized Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the producers of the 2006 Russian version of Boris Pasternak's masterpiece, Doctor Zhivago, ridiculously downplay the incredible violence of "Bloody Sunday", during the Russian Revolution of 1905, in which thousands were pointlessly slaughtered by Tsar Nicholas II. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ygd24 To look at this version, you would think there was no violence at all, and the soldiers were merely defending themselves against overly aggressive protesters using minimal force!

Trump's intention to endorse "moderate" Cornyn in Texas Senate race, shows how frightened he is that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November

It is rather unusal for Donald Trump to want to endorse the more "moderate" Senate candidate -- the one who isn't to the right of Attila the Hun -- these days, but, he appears to be about to do just that, in the Texas Senate race. The Democratic candidate, James Talarico, is an appealing moderate, with an excellent chance, given Trump's unpopularity, that is infecting all Congressional races this year. The favored Republican Senate candidate to win the primary, Ken Paxton, is scandal ridden, but, an extreme right, MAGA candidate, of the type that Trump generally approves of. However, for the first time in over thirty years, the Democrats have an excellent chance of taking a Senate seat in Texas, so, Trump is considered quite likely to endorse the relatively moderate incumbent, John Cornyn, instead. Will this help? If Ken Paxton refuses to leave the race, probably not. And, Paxton says he is refusing to leave the race. Paxton might still win, after considerable damage being done in preparation for the runoff in the Republican primary. If John Cornyn wins, he'll be beaten up so badly in the runup to the runoff election, that he'll probably lose, since MAGA voters will stay home. If Ken Paxton drops out, and John Cornyn is endorsed by Trump, then, that would probably give him a better chance of surviving. But, given the current electoral climate, who knows? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bad-him-trump-gives-toxic-182803838.html

Trump wants to control Iran, but, he probably never will!

As the vague Cold War "threat" of Communism motivated the development of the expanding military-industrial complex in the twentieth century, Donald Trump is attempting to motivate a new, expanding military industrial complex, perhaps purely for business reasons, on the basis of fear of "radical" Islam. So, Donald Trump is presenting as "intolerable" the idea of Iran presenting a nuclear weapon, in a world in which the far less democratic and far more unstable leadership of North Korea certainly does possess many nuclear weapons. It's pretty clear that Trump neither knows nor cares what really happens in Iran. He just feels like doing some damage. Of course, this is totally shutting down the entire region now. What is the end game here? There isn't one. Will there be "boots on the ground". I suspect probably there will be, perhaps up to 50,000, not enough to fully invade and occupy Iran, but, just possibly, enough to assist in destroying more thoroughly some underground missile and nuclear sites. Possibly, there may be some attempt to "overthrow" the regime using these 50,000 troops and local opposition. However, it seems unlikely that local support will be strong enough, for that. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-trump-attacking-iran-hes-180140133.html So, what happens next? More bombing, more counterattacks by Iran. Continued shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz, and all travel in the area. Effective shutdown of the economy of the entire region. Will Iran be "degraded" enough that Iranian counterattacks will cease? I doubt it very much. How will the 50,000 US troops far in their attempt to land and attack within Iran itself? Not well, I strongly suspect. And, I think that's the rub here, for Trump. If the American troops are stopped cold, or suffer massive casualties, as seems fairly likely, this mission will be over. I think that may be how this ends.