US Perspective on the Iran - Israel / US War

[AZ_HighCountry]

where is solomon's article ? or did he move it to the joke thread

Off topic posts and response to off topic posts have a short life span,

 

[AZ_HighCountry]

You love singing the blues

I like living in reality.

 

[dbc]

Trump risks war backlash from the heartland: American farmers​

Even if Gulf shipping reopens tomorrow, supply lags and energy costs are driving fertilizer and other input costs sky high — just in time for planting season​

Reporting | Global Crises
Blaise Malley
Apr 14, 2026

Fertilizers like these make up somewhere between 33% and 45% of operating expenses for major American corn and wheat crops, according to nonprofit Farm Action.

“The price of [dry urea] in January to February was $560 per ton,” Ben Vig, a farmer and former state representative in North Dakota, told Responsible Statecraft. “At the end of March it was $770 per ton.” According to Vig, that amounts to costs of $140 per acre to fertilize wheat and $135 per acre to fertilize corn, an increase of nearly $40 per acre.

Even though about three-quarters of the fertilizer used in the United States is produced inside the country, domestic costs are nonetheless dependent on the international market. The United States relies on imports of ingredients (potash, phosphate, nitrogen) used in fertilizers made here, as well as fertilizers themselves, such as ammonia and urea, whose production depends heavily on natural gas. Disruptions to gas supplies and rising energy costs in the gulf are pushing prices even higher for American farmers.

"Our biggest struggles are our inputs, be it fertilizer, seed, chemical, parts," one farmer in Nebraska recently told PBS. "There has been so much drastic markup in all of these. And I just kind of feel like the farmer's kind of painted in the corner."

The timeline for recovery may not align with the realities of the agricultural season. Even if shipments begin to move again, the structure of the fertilizer supply chain and the timing of the disruption mean relief may not come quickly.

“To get product from around the world, we have to put the order in, and once we put the order in, it takes four weeks for a cargo ship to go from one side of the planet to another, and then it all goes to [an import hub in] New Orleans, and it takes three to four weeks from a cargo ship to a barge, and then the barge up the river,” Vig told RS. “So, we’re looking at maybe a seven-week period.”

With the Midwest planting season in April and May, some farmers did place their spring orders before the current spike, but many others either locked in fertilizer at elevated prices or cut back orders. Roughly one-quarter of farmers had not placed their orders by early April, according to the Department of Agriculture, and will now be left scrambling to secure supply if shipments resume.

As fertilizer prices surge at a critical moment for planting, some lawmakers are becoming increasingly concerned that the disruption could lead to a crisis.

“In addition to the needless loss of life in the Middle East, fertilizer and diesel costs are skyrocketing at the beginning of growing season, adding to the struggles farmers have faced since the beginning of President Trump’s second term,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who sits on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, told RS in a statement. “At a time when global food insecurity was already on the rise due to this administration’s aid cuts and climate change, this war threatens to turn global hunger into a full-blown crisis.”

Without a sustained de-escalation that restores both production capacity and confidence in global shipping routes, the fertilizer market is likely to remain tight, with the risk that today’s disruption leads to lower crop yields and higher food prices in the months ahead.

...in another shocker the Trump administration will pay 160 B$ in tariff refunds to importers on April 20 - nothing to consumers who paid the tariff but businesses get a 160 B$ windfall.

 

[Davey Crockett]

US Senate Republicans block resolution to limit Trump’s Iran war powers

www.iranintl.com

US Senate Republicans voted down a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s war powers against Iran.

A majority of the Senate backed Trump’s military campaign, voting to block a Democratic-led measure that sought to halt hostilities unless authorized by Congress.

The tally stood at 51–47 to block the war powers resolution, with nearly all Republicans opposing it, as voting continued.

 

[Starlord]

US Senate Republicans block resolution to limit Trump’s Iran war powers

www.iranintl.com

US Senate Republicans voted down a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump’s war powers against Iran.

A majority of the Senate backed Trump’s military campaign, voting to block a Democratic-led measure that sought to halt hostilities unless authorized by Congress.

The tally stood at 51–47 to block the war powers resolution, with nearly all Republicans opposing it, as voting continued.

Republicans and Demo both in AIPAC pocket, unless a order is given from Tel Aviv, don't expect US congress to do anything, let alone look after America and interests of its own people.

 

[pashtunkoum]

Republicans and Demo both in AIPAC pocket, unless a order is given from Tel Aviv, don't expect US congress to do anything, let alone look after America and interests of its own people.

They're both in AIPAC pocket but do you really thing the world would be on fire if democrats had won? Republicans have some outright crazy insecure Americans in them.

 

[Ali_Baba]

They're both in AIPAC pocket but do you really thing the world would be on fire if democrats had won? Republicans have some outright crazy insecure Americans in them.

Democrats helped Israel do an actual genocide…..

 

[pashtunkoum]

Democrats helped Israel do an actual genocide…..

I agree. As I said they're in AIPACs pocket but you can't ignore republicans madness. There is a reason Netanyahu is so happy with republicans in charge. Israel got some of the heaviest arms under this regime. The middle east has not been more unstable. There is no law and order at all.

I highly doubt democrats would be as insane

 

[Fatman17]

Inside Pakistan’s turnaround with Trump

Moves ranging from a Nobel Peace Prize nomination to a crypto deal helped build ties to the administration and the Trump family during the president’s second term.

share.google

Pakistan turnaround with Trump

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Fatman17]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Davey Crockett]

$1B Bet On Falling Oil Prices Pre-Ceasefire Now Under Investigation​

Nearly $1 billion was bet on falling oil prices—just hours before the U.S. announced a ceasefire with Iran. That’s the trade now under scrutiny.

U.S. Congressman Ritchie Torres pushed regulators on Tuesday to investigate a burst of oil market activity that hit within a one-minute window ahead of the announcement. The trades were effectively wagers that oil prices would drop. And drop they did. Crude futures fell about 15% after the ceasefire became public.

These were paper bets, or contracts tied to the future price of oil. If a trader thinks oil prices will fall, they sell those contracts ahead of time and buy them back cheaper later. The bigger the move, the bigger the profit. And timing is everything.

$1B Bet On Falling Oil Prices Pre-Ceasefire Now Under Investigation | OilPrice.com

Nearly $1 billion was bet on falling oil prices—just hours before the U.S. announced a ceasefire with Iran. That’s the trade now under scrutiny.

oilprice.com

 

[gambit]

The bold part is, it's still law tho, and UNCLOS is universally acknowledged by the world, making it "international."

At one time, most of the world believed the world was flat, making it 'international'.

I understand am being slightly facetious, but the point remains that just because enough, if not majority, believes in 'something', does not make it true. In the case of 'International laws', the majority of the world do not believe them, they obeyed them out of fear of the few.

Again, I agree, power sometimes determines law;

Power ALWAYS determines law.

Take God, for example. For us mortals, there is no one more powerful. God is all powerful and what He sez, we obey. Simple as that. Theoretically, the UN is supposed to be all powerful on the planet and theoretically, what the UN sez, the rest of the world obey. But we know that is not the case.

if you have money, you are more likely to get away with things, even in the US. But that does not mean the law should not be respected because you can do that.

Respect for the law is a MORAL impetus. And morality is best taught from birth. The UN have never trained any country from birth.

Again, I agree the power structure and power dynamic within those organisations need to change, but that's not the point I am talking about.

Law works on people upholding it, and the legal system would always have flaws. The problem is, people see that there are social consequences (going back to the red light example, you crash), but if the people in the top start going back on it, and start publicly flaunting it, that's where the entire trust nature breakdown. And I can assure you, whether it's domestic or international law enforcement, it's 100% passive, as in it's ALWAYS a reaction, instead of a proactive action. So if you started to think you are going to get attacked anyway and there are no social recourse, what do you think people will start to do? They will start to take matters into their own hands.

I hope this article is not behind a paywall.

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order

The Hormuz crisis is pushing the global system to the brink, exposing not only geopolitical fault lines but the moral contradictions embedded in the international order itself.

www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order​

The 'Rules-Based Order' is a MORAL foundation. And guess what...moralities are TAUGHT FROM BIRTH. And the UN have never trained any country from birth.

In that sense, the veto was not merely obstructionist; it was a deliberate challenge to what many in the Global South increasingly perceive as selective enforcement of international law.​

The 'veto' that paragraph referenced was about Freedom Of Navigation (FON). China and Russia veto-ed. When the most physically powerful countries in the world, ie nuclear weapons states, often ignored 'international laws', the facade or the jig is up: There is no such thing as 'international law'.

The Security Council, designed as the linchpin of collective security, is once again paralyzed by veto politics. Each permanent member claims to defend order while shielding its allies. The result is a form of strategic nihilism: a system that recognizes rules but lacks the cohesion to enforce them consistently.​

See the highlighted...???

YOU, a veteran and a former LEO, know better than most on this forum. Substitute the word 'recognizes' for 'respect' in your arguments and all is clear. Countries 'respect international laws' only when it suit them. YOUR personal moral codes would not allow you to be selective in law enforcement. But in international affairs, selective moral outrages are the norm, and their consequences are selective wars. When there are ideological differences, and I mean up to existential level, selective outrage and 'enforcement' of 'international laws' are INEVITABLE.

What do you think NKR would do if China starts issuing an unapproachable demand?

There is nothing, or maybe few, NKR can do. China can make a snuff film out of NKR.

But invading Iraq and Afghanistan did not stop the problem, did it? Terrorist attacks still happen across the United States and will probably continue, yes, it's less of a smaller scale than it was in 9/11 (probably will never be able to again because that's very hard to pull off). But we are still getting attacked by the ISIS group, by AQ group and anyone that hate us. In fact, going down and invading those countries creates a bigger resentment

If we forego international law, people in those position will be more encouraged to attack us, because they don't believe there is a recourse anymore, that's again, going back to my point, you need to be perfect to stop an attack, but they only need to be lucky once.

Terrorism means complete disregard for 'international laws' in the first place.

Actually, it isn't, because the emperor had been taken out of the power structure, and Japan was a military government at the onset of WW2. Most historians will tell you that

The emperor was the moral and symbolic leader of JPN. If that position was irrelevant, there would not have been an attempted palace coup to prevent Hirohito from making the surrender broadcast.

This is what I disagree with you.

We actually didn't do anything in Iraq and Afghanistan after 911. Iraq is very pro-Iran after our intervention. Look at how the Popular Front shot up? Funny thing is, we overturn the Iraqi government just to form another one that hates us, actually, more than they hate the Farsi, which they went to war with for 8 years before we got in there the first time in 1991.

And we completely lost control of Afghanistan after 20 years of occupation. The same fraction that fought us, the people I physically fought and killed during my time in Afghanistan, get back up and in control. If you ask me, as a person who fought in that country, what did we get out of that? I cannot asnwer you that question.

I was talking about the response to Sept 11, 2001. The US botched the occupation in 'nation building' in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with unintended consequences. No debates there. But my point regarding power is that in the final analysis, physical power in international affairs remains the overwhelming background monster that no one wants to talk about but know the monster is barely chained.

In hindsight, I will concede that Iraq was not necessary in exacting revenge for Sept, 11, 2001. B41 was right but B43 was wrong. But neither dispute the argument that in international affairs, physical power remains the first and foremost fear that the UN membership always bear.

The problem is, the Strait WAS open, and it's now closed because of Trump's action.

Iran so-called 'closed' the Strait of Hormuz via physical, not legal/moral, means.

Iran have always have that option, but it was the last option, and the other options have worked. Until now. The physical closure of the strait means Iran have nothing left. If the closure fail, Iran is finished as a regional power in the ME.

And nobody in the world has an issue with how Iran governs or even whether or not having nuclear weapons; that does not concern Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, let alone China, probably actually helping them to get one.

Now they know.

Iranian hostility against Israel is theological, nothing else. But the problem with theology is that it is global, never regional.

You don't just go and unilaterally attack a country and then say, " I am done and let the world deal with it.

Poutine did -- against Ukraine.

Going back to the geopolitical source...

Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is a warning. It reveals how quickly the scaffolding of global order can buckle under the weight of competing narratives and unchecked escalation. It also underscores a quieter truth: power without restraint on any side leads not to stability but to perpetual insecurity.​

Ref the highlighted.

Should we care about REGIONAL power without restraint?

We know that China can take Taiwan, but we also know that Taiwan is %90 origin of the world's semicon products. Is that potential economic disaster enough to galvanize the world into defending Taiwan?

Should we 'allow' regional powers to do as they please regardless of global consequences?

Should we 'allow' Iran to commit a nuclear 'final solution' to the Jews in the ME?

 

[mythbuster]

At one time, most of the world believed the world was flat, making it 'international'.

I understand am being slightly facetious, but the point remains that just because enough, if not majority, believes in 'something', does not make it true. In the case of 'International laws', the majority of the world do not believe them, they obeyed them out of fear of the few.


Power ALWAYS determines law.

Take God, for example. For us mortals, there is no one more powerful. God is all powerful and what He sez, we obey. Simple as that. Theoretically, the UN is supposed to be all powerful on the planet and theoretically, what the UN sez, the rest of the world obey. But we know that is not the case.


Respect for the law is a MORAL impetus. And morality is best taught from birth. The UN have never trained any country from birth.


I hope this article is not behind a paywall.

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order

The Hormuz crisis is pushing the global system to the brink, exposing not only geopolitical fault lines but the moral contradictions embedded in the international order itself.

www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order​

The 'Rules-Based Order' is a MORAL foundation. And guess what...moralities are TAUGHT FROM BIRTH. And the UN have never trained any country from birth.

In that sense, the veto was not merely obstructionist; it was a deliberate challenge to what many in the Global South increasingly perceive as selective enforcement of international law.​

The 'veto' that paragraph referenced was about Freedom Of Navigation (FON). China and Russia veto-ed. When the most physically powerful countries in the world, ie nuclear weapons states, often ignored 'international laws', the facade or the jig is up: There is no such thing as 'international law'.

The Security Council, designed as the linchpin of collective security, is once again paralyzed by veto politics. Each permanent member claims to defend order while shielding its allies. The result is a form of strategic nihilism: a system that recognizes rules but lacks the cohesion to enforce them consistently.​

See the highlighted...???

YOU, a veteran and a former LEO, know better than most on this forum. Substitute the word 'recognizes' for 'respect' in your arguments and all is clear. Countries 'respect international laws' only when it suit them. YOUR personal moral codes would not allow you to be selective in law enforcement. But in international affairs, selective moral outrages are the norm, and their consequences are selective wars. When there are ideological differences, and I mean up to existential level, selective outrage and 'enforcement' of 'international laws' are INEVITABLE.


There is nothing, or maybe few, NKR can do. China can make a snuff film out of NKR.


Terrorism means complete disregard for 'international laws' in the first place.


The emperor was the moral and symbolic leader of JPN. If that position was irrelevant, there would not have been an attempted palace coup to prevent Hirohito from making the surrender broadcast.


I was talking about the response to Sept 11, 2001. The US botched the occupation in 'nation building' in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with unintended consequences. No debates there. But my point regarding power is that in the final analysis, physical power in international affairs remains the overwhelming background monster that no one wants to talk about but know the monster is barely chained.

In hindsight, I will concede that Iraq was not necessary in exacting revenge for Sept, 11, 2001. B41 was right but B43 was wrong. But neither dispute the argument that in international affairs, physical power remains the first and foremost fear that the UN membership always bear.


Iran so-called 'closed' the Strait of Hormuz via physical, not legal/moral, means.

Iran have always have that option, but it was the last option, and the other options have worked. Until now. The physical closure of the strait means Iran have nothing left. If the closure fail, Iran is finished as a regional power in the ME.


Now they know.

Iranian hostility against Israel is theological, nothing else. But the problem with theology is that it is global, never regional.


Poutine did -- against Ukraine.

Going back to the geopolitical source...

Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is a warning. It reveals how quickly the scaffolding of global order can buckle under the weight of competing narratives and unchecked escalation. It also underscores a quieter truth: power without restraint on any side leads not to stability but to perpetual insecurity.​

Ref the highlighted.

Should we care about REGIONAL power without restraint?

We know that China can take Taiwan, but we also know that Taiwan is %90 origin of the world's semicon products. Is that potential economic disaster enough to galvanize the world into defending Taiwan?

Should we 'allow' regional powers to do as they please regardless of global consequences?

Should we 'allow' Iran to commit a nuclear 'final solution' to the Jews in the ME?

Power is the ugly version of gravity , a galactic phenomenal... morality has no say in it.

 

[j_hungary]

At one time, most of the world believed the world was flat, making it 'international'.

I understand am being slightly facetious, but the point remains that just because enough, if not majority, believes in 'something', does not make it true. In the case of 'International laws', the majority of the world do not believe them, they obeyed them out of fear of the few.


Power ALWAYS determines law.

Take God, for example. For us mortals, there is no one more powerful. God is all powerful and what He sez, we obey. Simple as that. Theoretically, the UN is supposed to be all powerful on the planet and theoretically, what the UN sez, the rest of the world obey. But we know that is not the case.


Respect for the law is a MORAL impetus. And morality is best taught from birth. The UN have never trained any country from birth.


I hope this article is not behind a paywall.

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order

The Hormuz crisis is pushing the global system to the brink, exposing not only geopolitical fault lines but the moral contradictions embedded in the international order itself.

www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

Crisis in Hormuz Exposes Fragility of the Rules-Based Order​

The 'Rules-Based Order' is a MORAL foundation. And guess what...moralities are TAUGHT FROM BIRTH. And the UN have never trained any country from birth.

In that sense, the veto was not merely obstructionist; it was a deliberate challenge to what many in the Global South increasingly perceive as selective enforcement of international law.​

The 'veto' that paragraph referenced was about Freedom Of Navigation (FON). China and Russia veto-ed. When the most physically powerful countries in the world, ie nuclear weapons states, often ignored 'international laws', the facade or the jig is up: There is no such thing as 'international law'.

The Security Council, designed as the linchpin of collective security, is once again paralyzed by veto politics. Each permanent member claims to defend order while shielding its allies. The result is a form of strategic nihilism: a system that recognizes rules but lacks the cohesion to enforce them consistently.​

See the highlighted...???

YOU, a veteran and a former LEO, know better than most on this forum. Substitute the word 'recognizes' for 'respect' in your arguments and all is clear. Countries 'respect international laws' only when it suit them. YOUR personal moral codes would not allow you to be selective in law enforcement. But in international affairs, selective moral outrages are the norm, and their consequences are selective wars. When there are ideological differences, and I mean up to existential level, selective outrage and 'enforcement' of 'international laws' are INEVITABLE.


There is nothing, or maybe few, NKR can do. China can make a snuff film out of NKR.


Terrorism means complete disregard for 'international laws' in the first place.


The emperor was the moral and symbolic leader of JPN. If that position was irrelevant, there would not have been an attempted palace coup to prevent Hirohito from making the surrender broadcast.


I was talking about the response to Sept 11, 2001. The US botched the occupation in 'nation building' in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with unintended consequences. No debates there. But my point regarding power is that in the final analysis, physical power in international affairs remains the overwhelming background monster that no one wants to talk about but know the monster is barely chained.

In hindsight, I will concede that Iraq was not necessary in exacting revenge for Sept, 11, 2001. B41 was right but B43 was wrong. But neither dispute the argument that in international affairs, physical power remains the first and foremost fear that the UN membership always bear.


Iran so-called 'closed' the Strait of Hormuz via physical, not legal/moral, means.

Iran have always have that option, but it was the last option, and the other options have worked. Until now. The physical closure of the strait means Iran have nothing left. If the closure fail, Iran is finished as a regional power in the ME.


Now they know.

Iranian hostility against Israel is theological, nothing else. But the problem with theology is that it is global, never regional.


Poutine did -- against Ukraine.

Going back to the geopolitical source...

Ultimately, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is a warning. It reveals how quickly the scaffolding of global order can buckle under the weight of competing narratives and unchecked escalation. It also underscores a quieter truth: power without restraint on any side leads not to stability but to perpetual insecurity.​

Ref the highlighted.

Should we care about REGIONAL power without restraint?

We know that China can take Taiwan, but we also know that Taiwan is %90 origin of the world's semicon products. Is that potential economic disaster enough to galvanize the world into defending Taiwan?

Should we 'allow' regional powers to do as they please regardless of global consequences?

Should we 'allow' Iran to commit a nuclear 'final solution' to the Jews in the ME?

Well, I don't really have time to go through the points one by one, and I don't see how this is actually related to the Iran war. So I will just say here, we can agree to disagree on all your points.

But I will just say this, people who argue "Might is right" usually weren't thinking about it on the other side of the equation. The question is not whether or not "Might is right," the question is whether or not you will always be in that position. Can we always be number one? What happens if China comes and bites us in the ass? Or god forbid, what if the EU chooses China over us?

I don't know how long we can keep the edge. I do know one thing: no empire lasts forever, so when you become the minority, and someone is taking the power? What happens then when things don't go our way? My point is, we should plan for the future and assert an international system that people will respect, rather than when we do lose our power status and we are going to be cast aside and cry in the corner, you can argue we should use the sail for maximum effect when we are riding on top, but that's not going to be forever.

That's what I am going to say with this topic, and I am not going to get into this anymore as I have shitload of work to do.