There is the usual praise for the Hong Kong government and Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu's leadership. One striking difference is that Premier Li Qiang included in his annual work report, delivered at the opening session of the National People's Congress (NPC), a call on Hong Kong to improve its governance and align itself with the national plan. Li has made the central government's position clear: improve the city's governance and get with the programme already. [Link]
I don't like this. "National Plans"? That's for socialist economies. Top-down economies. Not capitalist ones like us here in Hong Kong.
I know there are many in the west, in capitalist economies, that are in love with similar things. Like "industrial policy". I'm not sure any has been hugely successful.
Rather leave things to the genius of the market. Of the pricing mechanism. It's the market that’s really best at "shaking up". It’s the most successful of all systems in "speeding up".
Remember how China sped up in the late 1970s? It wasn't by National Plans, but by releasing market forces. I was there when it happened.i saw it with mine own eyes.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi “… urged Manila to
“… be aware of its responsibility, refrain from being distracted by its own self-interests, demonstrate its due commitment, and play a positive and constructive role in promoting regional peace and stability” as Asean chair.
Does that come across as bullying? Sure does to some.
The “Rules based order” that everyone is so obsessed with lately, is the post-war order that was birthed by the United States. The Marshall Plan, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations and its myriad bodies, Japan’s peace constitution, Germany’s peace constitution. All American ideas and ideals. And by any measure most magnanimous.
At the beginning China was the America and the West’s good ally. Until it wasn’t. It was allowed to join the WTO and abided by its rules, until it didn’t.
It loved the United Nations until it found against its expansive “9-dash” claims in 2019. And then it didn’t.
So now is pushing its “Golden Rules” for disputes in the South China Sea. Here’s hoping they are magnanimous.
Just looking at the United Nations alone, it’s extraordinary just how corrupted it’s become. With “human rights” bodies chaired by the likes of North Korea and Yemen. With an anti-Israel, anti Zionist obsession. A dysfunctional Security Council and a virtue-signalling General Assembly. The United Nations, founded and majority funded by the United States. Which one could forgive for getting tired of its nonsense.
International Law expert Natasha Hausdorff once again lays out the case to Hillel Neuer for why the current war in Iran is not "illegal" according to international law.
There will be those who do not trust her, simply because she stands for Israel.
To which I'd say, if you think the war is indeed "illegal" then you have to say WHY.
I have not seen that said, by anyone claiming that it is "illegal". I have not seen anyone address and debunk the points that Natasha makes here and in earlier interviews.
Bernard Haykel speaks to Mishal Husain ex of the BBC, now with her own podcast on Bloomberg television.
Like I said in my first post on this latest mid-east war ("Khamenei is dead. Yay!"), I'm going to post non-Mainstream Media takes, because if you want the take from the Left, you only have to go the MSM itself: the BBCs, the CNNs, the MSNBCs, the New York Times and WaPo's.
But here I am posting something from Mishal Husain, on her Bloomberg TV podcast, mainly because it's been sent to me by a number of left-leaning folks, in one case being labelled "the best so far".
To which I'd ask, "compared to what?" Have these folks watched any of the dozens of non-MSM takes out there? Or even just the ones I've posted on this blog, since the beginning of the war? (see links at the bottom).
Professor Bernard Haykel comes across as a decent and knowledgeable man. I defer to him on his expertise on the Middle East.
Here I'll just quibble with a few points:
1. The framing as Iranian "Retaliation":
Note that right at the outset Mishal Husain talks of an Iranian "retaliation", as if the Israeli and US action was a first strike. But this is patently not the case. I clearly remember when the first Ayatollah, Khomeini, came to power in 1979, and his henchmen took dozens of US diplomats from the US embassy hostage. They remained hostage for 444 days.
The Iranian parliament chants "Death to America; Death to Israel" at the beginning of every session.
For 47 years, Iran has been attacking Israel and the United States.
Let me rely on Gemini AI here to summarise:
Major Historical Attacks by Iran (1979–2000)
Iran Hostage Crisis (1979–1981): Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Beirut Embassy Bombing (1983): An Iran-backed suicide bomber killed 17 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing (1983): Hezbollah, supported by Iran, killed 241 U.S. military personnel in a truck bombing, the highest single-day death toll for the U.S. Armed Forces since the Vietnam War.
Kidnapping/Murder of William Buckley (1984): Iran-backed terrorists kidnapped and later killed the CIA station chief in Beirut.
Khobar Towers Bombing (1996): Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hijaz killed 19 U.S. Airmen in Saudi Arabia.
Attacks by Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan (2001–2020)
Iraq War Casualties (2003–2011): The U.S. Department of Defense assessed that Iran was responsible for the deaths of at least 608 American troop deaths in Iraq, representing 17% of all U.S. service personnel deaths in that period. These casualties were largely caused by EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) supplied by Iran.
Karbala Provincial Headquarters Raid (2007): IRGC Quds Force operatives were implicated in a raid that killed five U.S. soldiers.
Afghanistan Attacks (2001–2020): Iran provided weapons and funding to Taliban factions, contributing to the deaths or injuries of over 30 U.S. personnel.
Al-Asad Air Base Attack (2020): Following the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the U.S. base in Iraq, causing traumatic brain injuries to over 100 U.S. service member
===========================
The above doesn't cover what Keir Starmer of the UK admitted recently: that they had -- "luckily" -- foiled at least 20 Iranian terror attacks in the UK, in just the laset year. The same in the US. As well as a number of assassination attempts on the US president.
Then there's Israel, which has been surrounded by a "Ring of Fire" of Iranian proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. They have carried out regular attacks on Israel, killing many, and vowed to continue doing so.
The would-be genocidal Hamas attack on 7 October 2023 was only the latest outrage.
So, spare me the "retaliation" framing, Mishal and Bernard!
This -- the current war -- is US and Israel retaliation for half a century of attacks.
Arguably one that should have been done much earlier.
2. Iranian people's reactions:
There is nothing mentioned about the diaspora Iranians celebrations, the celebrations of Iranians within Iran, at the killing of Khamenei, and 48 of his top henchmen. Nothing. The video shows only -- and in many places -- mourners of the regime, black-burka clad professional cryers. But not the women happily ripping off their hijabs. The women, by the way, that no liberal western woman has had the guts, or honesty, to speak up for.
Even Haykel mentions that the regime is supported by "perhaps 20%" of the people. Others who know something of Iran and the region, like Younes Sadaghiani, say that it's only 10%. Let's say then it's 10% to 20% who support the regime. That leaves 80 to 90% who do not support the regime.
Neither Haykel nor Husain think it worth talking about that?
3. Murder of innocent Iranian civilians:
Not a mention, not a squeak, not a passing reference to the regime of "religions lunatics" machine-gunning down their own civlians because they had the temerity to demonstrate against the Mullahs. This happened just the other day. With numbers up to 40,000 being killed. Murdered. Nothing of that, Mishal? Not words for them, Bernard?
4. "Chaos" as the most likely outcome?
Perhaps. But even Haykel admits that other outcomes are possible, in each case, very much preferable to what we have now. Elsewhere I have posted videos of experts on Iran who list up to six possible outcomes (see below). It's not necessary to know which specific outcome is most likely to happen, if you believe, as I do - as many Iranians do -- that any of them is better than what we have now.
5. Two state solution: ??
I was shocked when Haykel mentioned, towards the end, this as being some kind of solution to regional strife. That's truly bizarre. When we know that Hamas, the dominant force in both Gaza and, de facto, in Judea and Samaria, state, repeatedly and explicitly that they do not want a state, that that is NOT their aim, and that their aim is the extirpation of the state of Israel and the extermination of all Jews in the world. We have to internalise this, professor! Sad and uncomfortable as it is.
That's it for now.
I was interested to watch this video above and it was far from the worst analysis that I've seen. But "the best"?
In the meantime, I invite those that find "the best" analysis in a video like the one above, to read and watch a bit more widely.
Younes Sadaghiani, Iranian born, U.K. based filmmaker and international affairs commenter, speaks to Stand Tall Israel.
Fantastically eloquent. Here, about the “morons” who defend the Iran regime, the mad mullahs, the Theocratic lunatics.
He calls out the hypocrites in the west. Those who fail to support minority rights and women’s rights when it’s in the middle east and is not anti Israel.
Called out by name: Tucker Carlson, Candice Owen’s, Cenk Uyghur, Ana Kasperian, Mahdi Hasan. I don’t want to highlight them, as I usually do with name, because they’re such hypocrites, liars and snakes in the grass..
90% of Iranians support the current war, support the United States and Israel attacks and hopes for regime change. “Hope … and apprehension. Hope … and concerns. But overall, HOPE”.
19:55 is Mossad infiltration of Iran. They knew when Khamenei was going to the toilet. Elsewhere I’ve read the head of Iran’s anti- Mossad Unit was himself.Mosssd.
0:00 Introduction – Who speaks for the Iranian people?
0:57 Younes responds to pro-Palestinian narratives
2:32 Why many Iranians celebrated Khamenei’s death
4:42 Western media double standards
5:56 Hypocrisy of global protests
6:55 Western influencers and the Iran narrative
9:58 Sectarian politics in the West
11:31 “This is not starting a war — it’s ending one”
12:47 Why Israel is not the enemy of the Iranian people
14:39 Why Iran attacked its Arab neighbors
16:20 Should the Islamic Republic still have a voice at the UN?
17:46 What happens if the regime collapses?
19:55 Mossad infiltration of Iran
21:24 Will the Iranian military defect?
23:12 Could Iran fall into civil war?
24:35 What happens to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis?
25:37 Message to Iranians inside and outside Iran
26:23 The personal cost of speaking out
28:07 The real Iran the world doesn’t see
One of the best things the Trump administration has done is Radical Transparency.
DOGE started it all, February last year, with Elon Musk at its helm. Revealing the corruption at the heart of America's international aid industry, via USAID. The reason the Left went bananas — torching Elon's businesses, was not because their beloved poor folks were being squeezed, but because they'd miss their gravy train.
We have Minnesota and its $19 BILLION fraud empire, stealing taxpayer money, cash taken out of America in suitcases by Somalian gangsters in Minneapolis to Somalian gangsters in Mogadishu. All via a naive or complicit government aid programs. Namely: the people's money.
We have California, and its $24 BILLION in fraud, via NGOs, to "address homelessness", but in fact funding a vast array of NGOs who did nothing about homelessness (except change its name to the "unhoused"), and who made sure their Democratic sugar daddies got their cut. Result: homelessness increased.
Also California: the "fast train to nowhere", $13 BILLION spent. Result: not a single slab of track has been laid.
In New York City: entire luxury hotels taken over for illegal immigrants (aka, to Democrats, "newcomers"), with hefty cuts going to city councillors.
In Boston, Chicago, Seattle, in Blue city after Blue city, the same pattern: vast sums to charities and NGOs, funded by taxpayer money, the money pathways never revealed, with a cut always going to local Democrats.
There's an argument to be made that the American Democratic Party is, at its core, a massive criminal organisation. I could make it.
I've focused my comments on taxpayer money. The article above is more about money from oligarchs, the bulk of which is in the Democratic bubble. Soros and co. They're intertwined.
Natasha Hausdorff, expert in International law, explains why the current et attacks on the Iranian regime are entirely lawful according to international law.
Of course we’re all instant experts these days. Me, if it’s a choice between believing a random Tik Tok post or an actual, real, expert, like Natasha, then I’m going to go with Natasha. If it’s a choice of Jane Fonda or Natasha Hausdorff then it’s Natasha every time!
We must remember: this was NOT America declaring war against Iran. Iran declared war against America and the west since 1979. For nearly fifty years Iran has been attacking and killing westerners, including thousands of Americans.
ADDED: critics will say "oh, she's just a shill for Israel", or some such. To which I' say, if you disagree with her, if you don't like the points she makes, you have to come up with some refutation. So far, on the Left, all I've heard is the bleating "this was is illegal". In not a single case have I heard anyone make the case "WHY".
Masih Alinejad is an Iranian journalist and activist, based now in America.
I’ve posted about her going back to 2010, see here. It seems I’ve always called her a “brave Iranian woman”. Indeed she is, a bravery she shares with all Iranian women.
She was most recently on CNN giving the host, Dana Bash, conniptions for being so gloriously happy at the killing of the Ayatollah and 48 of his co-thugs.
A celebration, a happiness she shares with millions of her compatriots around the world. And on the streets of Iran.
In her X post below, she has a go at Elizabeth Warren for hypocrisy. Western liberal women have failed to support women in the Middle East, because … well… kind of “who knows”, except that they were not in the hated, misogynist, imperialist, racist America and so “you can’t pass judgement”. Or something.
Masih’s post:
I’m not just angry. I’m furious with you Elizabeth Warren.
Stop using the suffering of my people as political ammunition against Donald Trump.
You say you are grieving for those killed in this “unnecessary war.”
Really? I checked your social media. More than 20 posts attacking President Trump after he removed a monster terrorist of Iran, Ali Khamenei, but not one post grieving the massacre of more than 32,000 unarmed Iranian people. Why? Shocking.
More than 10,000 protesters were intentionally blinded by security forces. Young women were shot in the eyes. Students were beaten to death. Families were burying their children. Where were you then?
We are not a tool. The pain of us Iranians is not a talking point for your partisan battles.
As a woman, your silence while women in Iran were being shot, jailed, and blinded is more than disappointing. It is insulting. No it is beyond that. It is a slap in the face of Iranian mothers burying their children who have been killed by Islamic Republic.
I cannot ignore this hypocrisy.
Our suffering did not fit your narrative. Our voices were inconvenient. Now that the situation serves your political agenda, you speak loudly.
Very heartbreaking to see, powerful women in the West totally ignoring Iranians being slaughtered. 💔 Link to Masih's X post
Because I'm an Alliteration Addict, I came up with this to describe Keir Starmer over the Iran war:
He's a Pusillanimous Pissant.
Checking the Google description of this, I see I've nailed it:
"Pusillanimous pissant" is a harsh, alliterative insult combining two words to describe someone as extremely cowardly, weak, and contemptible.
Pusillanimous: An adjective meaning lacking courage, strength, and resolution; cowardly or faint-hearted.
Pissant: A contemptible, insignificant, or annoying person (often used as a term of disdain).
Usage and Context
This phrase is used to describe someone who is seen as timid, afraid to take risks, or lacking in moral fortitude.
It has been used in political commentary and media to insult individuals perceived as weak or shirking responsibility.
Synonyms for the general sentiment include "lily-livered," "fainthearted," or "weak-kneed".
In short, it is a phrase used to mock someone's lack of bravery.
I could have quoted Paul Keating, the ex Labor PM of Australia, describing his political foe, leader of the opposition Liberal Party John Hewson as
"A shiver looking for a spine to run up".
Love it!
But seriously, folks. Starmer's pathetic non-support of America and non-support of the Iranian people, attempting to overthrow a hated, long-term terrorist mass murderer and his regime, is a horror to behold. Shame on him.
If this operation is called, in America "Epic Fury" and in Israel is "Roaring Lion", then in the UK, it's a Keir Starmer op, called "Operation Pusillanimous Pissant".
This is classic "Astroturf". Make the fake grass (astroturf) look like real grass (grassroots). I get it now! Astroturf! Fake grassroots.
As Nate Friedman says: "If it weren't for the money supporting all this [from George Soros, Roy Singham, etc] there would be no protests".
It's America's First Amendment (on Free Speech) working against itself. Working against the foundation of America, working against its tolerance and its free speech. It's a tough issue. Because how do you deal with it, without breaching free speech codes, and one's commitment to being a Free Speech fundamentalist?
What are they all about, these activists? The ones shown here by Nate are pushing for socialism. They've never experienced socialism, and don't know, apparently, how bad it is in practice. I do. Many do. Those that have experienced it do know -- myself, I know from personal experience in 1970s China -- that if socialism takes over America, Free Speech is gone. That's number one. Number two and the rest are all the freedoms that these young sign-holders in this vid, take for granted.
The picture on the left is when I visited Iran, the capital Tehran and cultural capital Isfahan, 1974. Under the (alleged) "brutal oppression" of the Shah of Iran.
The one on the right is how women are expected to dress today and for the last fifty years. Under the (actual) tyrannical theocrats of Shia Islam.
I remember Iran in 1974. When I visited. In a car I drove, with 3 friends, from London to India. That's what Iran was like. Modern. Free. Open. Friendly. Even though the Shah of Iran, the Pahlavi dynasty had secret police. Shudder! The fact is, life was then better than it is under the Mullahs today.
As Thomas Sowell says: "There are no solutions; only trade-offs". Here the trade off is between a monarchy and a theocracy. Both are less than perfect. So which is better? Clearly the monarchy. For all its faults.
Michael Doran gives some interesting takes and counters after that. He does not see any role for the Pahlavi family, the last Shah’s son in particular.
He describes the massive fortified tunnels through Iran — underground two-lane highways— that will make it difficult to impossible to completely degrade.
Michael and Gadi describe themselves as “classical liberals”. Wikipedia describes them, of course, as “right wing”.
If you want the views of the Left then go to any of the mainstream media, like CNN, BBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Haaretz. Bearing in mind that in all cases their views and analyses will be coloured by self-admitted TDS. Eg: “chaos and uncertainty” from the Guardian and the NYT.
Though some Left wing media have been forced to recognise huge Iranian diaspora support for the attacks.
In a scale of 0 to 10 -- how important is actual war experience?
I'd say it's a 10.
Which is huge issue in terms of what we think should there be a China-US confrontation over Taiwan. U.S. has had the experience, and continues to have ongoing experience. China has had none since its embarrassing loss in its war with Vietnam in 1979.
Not that I hope for war with China, or push for one. My consistent view has been: keep the status quo. That's been working just fine for everyone.
But.. IF.... Then how much more than sheer numbers (which is the China advantage) does the fact of battle-tested ultra-modern tech (the American advantage) count? My guess... a lot.
~ NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran, which killed the Ayatollah Khamenei and his cabinet.
Sure they do.
But you don't get peace by capitulation. You get slavery. Capitulate to Iran, next thing you're in Sharia hell. Not freedom. Not quite the "peace" you wanted.
Mamdani, a jihadi-socialist, would welcome capitulation by the US. Because there will be more Islamist immigrants to the US, and in the west. Thus progressing the Muslim Brotherhood aim of "defeating the west from within".
Neville Chamberlain waved a pice of paper signed by Adolf Hitler proclaiming "We have peace in our times". That was 1938. We all know what happened next. Certainly not "peace".
We don't want another "peacein-our-times" type mistake. We have to fight radical Islam, all the more when its in the guise of a whole country, of 90 million people, which supports proxies to attack the hated Jews.
We're done with you, Mamdani. Go stay in your lane: which is trying to run New York City.
A theocratic tyrant, a murderous mad, millenarian “Twelver” gone to meet his god. Together with, as we speak, 40 other of his bearded henchmen.
Three cheers!
I visited Iran in 1974 to see my besties who were working there. It was wonderful. Iranian people friendly and gracious. Those same Iranian people became slaves to extreme Islamic theocracy just a few years later.
The Ayatollahs have murdered, in just the past few weeks, 38,000 of their own Iranian people, young people who simply wanted a better life. Want a better life.
Good riddance to tyrannical rubbish.
“Eliminated” in US Operation "Epic Fury". In Israel "Roaring Lion".
What next? Let time tell…
Israel Updates looks at War Aims. Michael Doran and Gadi Taub, I’ve found insightful. Mike doesn’t thin the Pahlavi son option is viable. No return of the monarchy, according to him.
Dems stay seated when asked who would stand for the American people.
Those sitting, in the screengrab above, are Democrats. Who are not standing for the proposition, from president Trump, to "Stand up if you agree that the primary aim of our government is to help American citizens and not illegal aliens".
This is going to come back to bite them. Because it's literally their Oath of Office that they work for the American people.
While they have shown they cannot stand for that.
And then! And then! They stayed seated when the United States Gold Medal winning Ice Hockey Team entered the chamber. They did not even clap. For Gold Medal winners! That's just amazing, and horrible. My goodness.
You really have to hate your country to refuse to cheer your own team in the Olympics. Think about it! Your own team! Which last won a Gold Medal in 1980, in the "Miracle on Ice" win against the Soviet Union. Which, in those less frenetic times, EVERYONE celebrated.
The Huffington Post opined: “if you feel uncomfortable and yucky cheering for the American Olympic team wins, you’re not alone”. And was promptly roasted by its own readership. Rightly too. I can’t imagine any Australian gold medal winning team of being cheered by all sides. Booh-shucks to the American hating media.
The Dems may say something about "division". But let's remember. It was then Speaker of the House, the Democrate Nancy Pelosi who sat behind Trump and tore up her copy of his speech right in front of the camera. I was astounded, shocked and appalled. She got nowhere near the grief she should have got for such a horrid disrespect of the office.
And then there's the Democrat prankster Al Green, who, wielding his crazy cane, disrupts the Chamber every time. Who's disrupting things? Who's being divisive? Look in the mirror, Al, look in the mirror Nancy, look in the mirror Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib (the Jihad duo, who spent their time yelling at Trump; and calling the Hockey team the "KKK". Really!). You lot, you out of control Dems, are bringing the disgrace to the House of Representatives and have done so again the other night.
