The biggest threat to Israel: terrorists in the “West Bank” | The Israel Guys

 

These days, Atheist Zionist that I am, I prefer to call the “West Bank” by its historical, aka its Biblical, name, Judea and Samaria. 

Where, we see the Israel Guys, on the ground, describe the real and present danger of terrorism from some 2 million Arabs living there. 

To the international Left, these are not terrorists, but “freedom fighters”. They can only be so of you believe Israel has no right to exist on its own, never-abandoned, indigenous land. 

But I do accept Israel’s historical, legal and occupational right to exist. So, to me, as to the Israel Guys, they remain terrorists. Whose simple aim is explicitly genocidal: to kill the Jews, to drive them out of the Middle East and to make it “Judenrein”, Jew-free. 

Note the high level of support for Hamas in Judea and Samaria: up to 80%, according to polls in 2025. 

Gippsland Lakes Victoria

Jimmy Carr Islamic Jokes

Can't do his Islamic jokes and here's why @jimmycarr 🥳

ExtraSpiceAni (@ShrivastavAni) 10K likes · 99 replies x.com

This is pretty funny! Knowing, but funny!

"What are the Christians going to do? Forgive me??

This House belives that... Thoughts on Iraq, Iran, and the justification for war

This House believes that... 

... we believed that the 2003 Iraq war was wrong. We all believed that, in this house, unanimously, at the time. Ditto the war in Afghanistan. 

We remember Colin Powell making the case for attacking Iraq in the United Nations. We were unconvinced. Powell later admitted that he'd oversold the "evidence" and apologised. Gee, thanks Col.... 

I remember a simple case counter-terror czar Richard Clarke made against the the 2003 Iraq war: 

"Attacking Iraq after 911 is like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbour". 

We, in this House, agreed with Clarke, and we were right. It did turn out to be a mistake. (Though the attack and military operations were successful, the Occupation was not so). 

Now we have the war in Iran, Operation Epic Fury. 

On this one, this House is divided. I support it. Others don't. 

I support it because I believe the dangers Iran poses. I believe Iran poses serious, clear and present existential dangers to us all in the west. 

Iran, its Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its Supreme Leader, all repeat the same thing. They chant it before every parliamentary meeting: "Death to Israel, Death to America, Death to the West". 

They mean it!

They have been working to achieve that. They fund powerful proxies in the region, as a "Circle of Fire" around the "Little Satan" of Israel: Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. 

They spend more on digging vast tunnels than they spend on health care. They spend more on drones that on schools. They spend more on Hamas than on Hospitals. 

The attack America and the West, over and over. Here's a list. 

Their aim is for a world of one religion only: Islam. Their Shia version. 

They have been working hard to get an arsenal of nuclear bombs. 

This was clear even during the time of Obama's "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". After the signing of the JCPOA, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that Iran had repeatedly breached the deal. 

Meantime the JCPOA did not even cover the program of building Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Iran were free to build as many of those as they wished. Some deal!

These are missiles they will aim at Europe first. The Supreme Leader and the IRGC have said the "Black Flag of Islam" will fly over the St Peter's. How much of resistance would Rome offer if an ICBM were to land in the middle of the Vatican? Please let's not test this. 

The IGRC say their aim is to have an ICBM reach the United States. Building ICBMs was nowhere covered in the JCPOA. Go figure that one. Gee thanks, Barack....

I followed this issue over the years. Debates by experts, at the likes of Intelligence Squared, ended with wins for the side doubting the value of the JCPOA. 

No wonder. And good riddance to a bad deal. 

If Iran achieve the building of a nuclear weapon, their leadership repeatedly said they would use it on Israel. And then on Europe. And then on the United States.

Iran's madman theocrats are determined to vanquish the world in the name of their millenarian Shia Islam. That's a fact.  

I would have supported any military action against Iran by any president since 1979. I didn't care if it was Jimmy Carter, or George H.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush, or Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. Just so long as the threat was attacked and neutralised. 

None of them did. Until Trump. I salute his brave decision. Others hate him for it. 

Whether he succeeds or fails, at least the has the guts to take on Iran, the largest, the most serious, the most clear and present existential threat to the West. 

On the other side, we have those against this war. 

I grant that they may have genuine concerns about it. 

But what I'm seeing is that their opposition is more because they don't like Trump. 

Some have said it outright: "If the war ends and Trump and Bibi survive, we've lost the war". These people -- which is all the Mainstream Media and pretty much all the Democratic Party, apart from John Fetterman -- hate the war because they hate Trump. That's not a reason!

They are cheering for an American loss in the war, so that Trump loses. 

That, to me, is disgusting. You're free to oppose the war. But not just because you hate Trump. You're hoping for America to fail, because you loathe Trump??!

Make a better case. 

This House believes that whether your support or oppose Operation Epic Fury, you should have reasons. I mean decent, based, reasons. Not because you hate the Orange Man. 

I've set out my reasons, above. If you oppose the war, what are your reasons? 

ADDED: Then Florida Senator Marco Rubio (now Secretary of State) set out the reasons we have to be worried about Iran, back in 2015. Eleven years ago. It's worn well. 

Perfect, Marco! Link here. 

What’s going on in the Hormuz Strait? | Navy Decoded

 

This channel, Navy Decoded, is unabashedly patriotic, pro-America, pro-Navy, describing the positive side of Operation Epic Fury.

It’s a counter to the unashamedly unpatriotic, anti-war mainstream media. The CNNs, MSNBCs, ABCs. 

The MSM and Party Democrats may have good reasons to oppose this Iran war. But even if they think war against the Iran regime is a good idea, they’re against it. Because … it’s Trump's war. And anything Trump, they want the opposite. Including for America to lose a war. 

Early in the video above talks a of the difference between tanks in World War Two. The German Tiger Tank was superior to the American Bradley. But the Bradley was made on production lines. Result: many more Bradleys than Tigers. Bigger result: the Bradleys won. 

That’s the same issue we’re hearing so much about now in Iran. Cheap Iranian drones downed by multi million dollar American missiles. How long can that go on? Well, America solves this quandary by destroying the drone and fast-boat production facilities. As described in the vid above. And by reverse engineering the Iranian Shahed drone as the American made LUCAS drone.

In sum: this vid is a counterbalance to the anti-war mainstream media. A counter to the media’s clear-deep hope that America should lose. America should lose, because… well… because Trump.

It’s also a pretty interesting video! 

"Where's the Truth?": a case study from New York

 

It keeps coming up at our gatherings. "What's the truth?", and "where can you find it?".

My answer is always: you have to read around a subject. Read Left, Right and Middle. Imagine the Venn diagram of those three, and the middle bit is going to be the Truth or thereabouts. 

A simple way of saying this: In America, read the New York Times and the New York Post. Watch CNN and Fox. In the U.K. read the Guardian and the Telegraph. Watch BBC and GB News. In Australia read the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian. Watch the ABC and Sky News Australia. 

If you're really obsessed, get Ground News, a news aggregation site, for a collection of news from all perspectives. 

The latest "What's the Truth?"  brouhaha is about the recent bombing attacks at the NYC Mayor's Residence, Gracie Mansion. 

This is "The Truth", as far as an reasonable person would agree: 

1. There was a demonstration outside the mansion, to "Stop the Islamic takeover of New York". This demonstration was perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment free speech clauses of the United States. 

The reason for the anti-islamification theme is that the current mayor, Zohran Mamdani is a Muslim. And a pretty radical one at that. 

2. There was a counter protest against those protesting against Mayor Mamdani. This too was perfectly legal. 

3. Suddenly two teenagers threw Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs, at the first group. The IEDs didn't go off. But if they had people on all sides would have been killed or wounded. 

The two teenagers have been arrested. They have admitted they are ISIS members. Which is why they bombed the anti-Islam protesters. 

That's the truth of what happened. The Important Truth. Not yet the Full Truth, but enough to know, that's the Important Truth. 

Now, here's the thing.

The reporting on CNN and also in the New York Times, made it seem like the bombing was from the anti-Islam protesters, in Group 1, and that they were targeting Mamdani. This is the opposite of the truth.

The reporting on this issue from the Right, from the likes of Fox and Sky News Australia, plus a myriad YouTube sites was far more on point, far more truthful, far more correct and far more honest than any of the reporting on the Left. 

That's the TRUTH, right there. 

If you only follow the likes of CNN, you don't know the correct story. If you only follow the likes of Fox, you know the story. At the very least: You're much closer to The Truth by watching the horrid, "far-right" Fox, than you are  from watching the supposed purveyor of truth, CNN. 

I've thought that I might look at the media over the period of Trump 45, from 2016 to 2020. I would guess that, objectively, if you were after getting at what the Truth is, you'd have been better off with Fox than CNN during that time. Not that I'm saying that right now, I'm just thinking that. And also thinking that, of course, it's always better to go for both. Watch both. Read on both sides. 

But the concept that -- if you had to choose one cable channel -- it might be Fox that is the better source of *FACTS*, would be total anathema to those on the Left. 

But it might be true nonetheless. 

The recent NYC terrorist bombing incident is just the most egregious of recent failures of the media on the Left to report the news. The TRUTH. 

ADDED: CNN’s Abby Phillip’s on-air apology.

Why the US Military Copied Its Enemy's Deadliest Drone

 Study China's Sun Zi: 

"The Soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe he's facing."

There's also a whole "Know your Enemy" vibe throughout Sun Zi.

And, from the Pentagon: "The other side actually had a good idea". In this case: the cheap, expendable Shahed drone. Which America turned into the even better LUCAS drone. 

By the way, this vid above came out two days before the beginning of Operation Epic Fury. 

There's now many vids on how the U.S. is kicking up its production of the cheap, dispensable "suicide" drones. Copying, then doing better than, the Iranian ones (the Shahed drone): the LUCAS!

Dog dominates Human

Byron (Canis lupus) vs Arlene (Homo sapiens)

Don't tell me "it's a dogs life" like it's a bad thing…. 

Byron occupying 97% of the rear seat. Dog dominates human. 

Byron, our Labradoodle, is luxuriating in four of his favourite things: 1. Being in the golf cart. 2. Being with Arlene. 3. Having his ear scritched. 4. Sun-bathing.

Why the Third Carrier Group is the one Iran fears most

We're all experts in everything now. 

So here's the one to learn to become an expert in Naval Strategy. 

UK Labour Party is hiding Islamic crimes

 

Rafe Haydel-Mankoo tells the story. It's a shameful one. 

There are now Islamic Blasphemy laws. In the home of democracy and free speech. 

The U. K. is gone. Sadly... 

"Do not say you were not warned". 

Muslims claim to be indigenous Australians

	Liza Rosen ⁦‪@LizaRosen0000‬⁩ Muslim influencer explains that just like Israel, Australia is about to be returned to its original native indigenous Muslim people who existed before humanity came to existence. pic.x.com/TBa7mhNOmn   12/3/2026, 5:10 am

My thought: 

Siena Park to Central Hong Kong

Hotel Auberge, North Plaza, Discovery Bay, at left
Central Hong Kong, in the middle far distance

And... what's with the Battle of Tours?

Following on from my pervious post about The Gates of Vienna, aka The Siege of Vienna.... and in addition to my 2009 post "Why the Battle of Tours"...  below, an update from Grokipedia. 

Which adds to my point: that there were two seminal moments in European history where the invasions of Islam were beaten back. First the Battle of Tours (7th C) and second the Siege of Vienna (17th C). 

Historians have seen the Battle of Tours as a "historical turning point".  As was the Siege of Vienna 1,000 years later. Which also shows just how persistent this ideology is. It's resilient and it's determined. And we face it today, in all its manifestations -- influencers, mosques, push for Sharia law, mass emigration to the west, in politics, in demographics and also in war: bullets, babies and ballots. 

Anyway, here's a bit from Grokipedia:

The Battle of Tours is viewed by many historians as a turning point that halted Muslim expansion northward from Spain into Western Europe after the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, helping preserve a predominantly Christian Europe. 

In his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789), Edward Gibbon depicted the Battle of Tours as a decisive check on Umayyad expansion, arguing that it rescued Western Europe from the "civil and religious yoke of the Koran," averting a scenario where Islamic doctrine might have supplanted Christianity across the continent, including in institutions like Oxford. 

Gibbon emphasized the battle's role in preserving classical heritage and Christian institutions amid the rapid Arab conquests, which had already overrun North Africa and Iberia by 732, viewing the Frankish victory under Charles Martel as the high-water mark of Islamic incursions into Gaul.[30]

Sir Edward Creasy, in Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World (1851), similarly ranked Tours among history's turning points, asserting that Martel's triumph inflicted irrecoverable losses on the Umayyad forces—estimated at tens of thousands—and marked the northernmost extent of Muslim military reach in Europe, thereby safeguarding the region's Christian identity against further conquest.[47] 

Creasy drew on contemporary Islamic chronicles to highlight the invaders' intent to extend the caliphate's domain, contending that without this defeat, the Saracens' momentum from prior victories, such as the fall of Narbonne in 720, could have led to the subjugation of Francia and beyond.[48]

Nineteenth-century Western historiography, building on Gibbon and Creasy, framed Tours as pivotal for civilizational continuity, correlating the battle's outcome with Europe's subsequent feudal-Christian development rather than the dhimmi subordination observed in Umayyad-held territories like al-Andalus, where non-Muslims faced jizya taxation and restricted rights.[49] 

This perspective underscored the empirical halt in expansion—Umayyad raids persisted but never regained pre-732 scale—as causal to preserving indigenous governance and religious liberty, contrasting with patterns of conquest and conversion in eastern Mediterranean precedents. 

Conservative interpreters within this tradition highlighted Tours as a bulwark against systemic Islamization, attributing Europe's trajectory of relative autonomy and cultural preservation to Martel's defense rather than mere logistical contingencies.[1]

What’s with the “Gates of Vienna”?

Look up “Gates of Vienna” and you’ll find it’s the name of a longstanding blog (2004), which is anti the Islamisation of Europe. I’ve always thought of it as one of two most famous times that Europe fought back invasions of Ottoman (i.e.. Muslim) forces. The other most famous one being the original name of this blog, “The Battle of Tours”. 

/Snip: 

The site's name [Gates of Vienna] draws from the 1683 Siege of Vienna, where allied Christian forces repelled the Ottoman Empire's advance, symbolising for its contributors an analogous modern defense against jihadist expansionism and demographic shifts.[3]

An Occasional Reader claims there was no such battle since a Sichuanese peasant had assassinated one of the Mongol Khans, so no invasion of Mongol/Ottoman troops happened at the time. i.e. China saved Europe from Islamisation even if inadvertently. 

Two things: 

1. There actually was a *Siege of Vienna*. Which happened over three centuries after any of the Khans was killed in China:

The name "Gates of Vienna" derives from the Siege of Vienna, a major military engagement from July to September 1683 in which an Ottoman force of over 140,000 troops besieged the Habsburg capital, only to be repelled by a Holy League army of about 80,000, including a decisive Polish cavalry charge led by King John III Sobieski on September 12 that shattered the invaders and halted Ottoman advances into Central Europe.[12][13] This event, often regarded as a high-water mark of Ottoman power in Europe, symbolized the limits of Islamic expansion westward.[12]

2. There was no single documented Chinese assassin of a Khan. At least as far as the internet can find. There were indeed Khan deaths from fighting Chinese, but three centuries before the Siege of Vienna. 

Here is Google’s Gemini:

Based on historical records, 

there is no verified account of a single Chinese person assassinating a Mongol Khan, although several Khans died during campaigns in China or from illnesses contracted during them. 

However, historical records note several relevant, often mysterious, deaths:

• Möngke Khan (1259): He died during the Siege of Diaoyu Castle in Sichuan, China. While some accounts attribute his death to battle injuries or disease (dysentery/cholera), popular legends or alternate accounts sometimes cite assassination attempts during the fierce resistance by Song Chinese forces.
• Genghis Khan (1227): He died during a campaign against the Western Xia in China. While some legends suggest he was killed by a Tangut princess or by being shot with an arrow, most historians believe he died of illness or injuries from a fall during his final campaign.
• Assassination Attempt on Genghis Khan (Early career): Records indicate that during a battle, a warrior named Zurgadai (later given the name Jebe) shot an arrow that hit Genghis Khan's horse (or him, depending on the source) in the neck. Genghis Khan admired his honesty in admitting it and made him a high-ranking general. 

Context on the "Assassins":
While not Chinese, the Hashashin (Order of Assassins) from the Middle East interacted with the Mongols. Hulagu Khan, brother of Möngke, was tasked with destroying them, and later, the Mongols actually executed the Assassins' leader after he traveled to meet Möngke Khan. 

Conclusion:
While Chinese resistance was highly effective in killing or fatally injuring Mongke Khan in 1259 through siege warfare, a singular, documented "assassin" story is not supported by mainstream history. 

"Your enemies make you stronger; your allies make you weaker" | Frank Herbert

Frank Herbert, author of "Dune", was the guy who wrote that: 

"Your enemies make you stronger; your allies make you weaker".

Similar: Sun Tzu:"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

What they mean is that conflict and opposition force growth, while the comfort of alliances can lead to complacency and dependency. 

The difference today is not that alliances lead to "complacency and dependency", because none of America's allies, none in Europe at least, can be counted on for any support that might make one "complacent" or "dependent". 

Today it's worse than that. 

They are Allies In Name Only. AINO's. Allies, but not in fact. They are "allies" in scare quotes. They make no attempt at the sort of support that might make make one complacent or dependent. 

Not that this is a Trump thing. It's been a thing for a long time. As Victor Davis Hanson describes in the vid above. 

Spain, for example, has been refusing to help America going back way past Trump. The rest of Europe has been leeching off America for its defence since the second world war. And being pusillanimous allies when called on. 

Meantime, America's enemies have been making America stronger. Better at what it does. Better at its defence. Better at its offense. Better at being a lethal fighting force. 

Better at being a counter to the depredations of China in the South China Sea. 

Can China have failed to notice the brutal, pinpoint lethality of America's fighting machine? Can they fail to have noticed how much more of a practiced military it is? Can they fail to have noticed the stark contrast between America's lethality and their own failure in the last war they fought, against tiny Vietnam, in 1979, which China lost? We, in turn, have not failed to notice that the Chinese PLA Air force has paused its provocative flights over Taiwanese air space. 

Is there any worse "ally" of the United States than the United Kingdom, the UK of today?? Surely not. What a shame. What an embarrassment. Say I as one with British background. To watch Starmer bend the knee to Islam and to refuse help to its oldest ally. In it's allegedly "Special Relationship". 

Oh, dear, oh dear. What a shamozzle. 

Our place. Looking to Central Hong Kong

“The 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.” | Gad Saad

	Gad Saad ⁦‪@GadSaad‬⁩ There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not. There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonization of endless cultures. Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by   11/3/2026, 10:01 am

There are nearly 2 billion Muslims, many are peaceful, many are not.  There is a 1,400-year history of Islamic conquests and colonisation of endless cultures.  

Hundreds of millions of people (conservative estimate) have been forcibly converted, subjugated, enslaved, or killed by the Noble Faith of Peaceful Genocides.  

If you study the foundational Islamic tenets, (the Trinity of Islam) they could not be any more antithetical to American freedoms & liberties.  Literally.  

So, now I ask you:  

Given that we all know an Ahmad who is very nice and peaceful, what is the evidence that you would need to see, as Americans, to say: "I don't wish to tolerate Islam in my society?"  

Or is it that no amount of evidence can convince you because "freedom of religion"?

Lionel Shriver discusses this very issue with Dad Saves America. 

“Iran is not what it seems” | Michael Doran and Gadi Taub

 

Journalists, academics and commenters Michael Doran and Gadi Taub, from the centre right perspective, give informed views of where the war is at and where it might end. Including pessimistic predictions. And including disagreements amongst themselves. 

At the end Gadi says that in Israel the Left  mainly looks at views from the left, but the Right tends to look at both left and right.  Michael says it’s the same in America. I agree. I’ve posted a number of times studies (e.g. “What the Left and Right read”, “Bubbles and Vortexes”) that show conservatives read and watch more widely across the political spectrum than does the Left.  Part of the reason being that the left is surrounded by the default media, which is the Mainstream media and which leans left: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post. 

“What’s the truth?”. Michael says “I don’t know”. Re: whether Arab states are urging Trump to continue to the end, or to stop. Polar opposites. The truth of that will come out eventually. Meantime “I don’t know” is a decent answer. 

Sometimes we know an Important Truth without necessarily knowing The Detailed Truth. Like: reports that 40,000 Iranians were murdered by the regime. Or is it “only” 7,000? The Important Truth is: “it’s a lot”. The Detailed Truth can come later. 

The best thing to get to the Truth or a good approximation of it is: read around the subject. Left, right and middle, including Social Media. A Venn Diagram with “the Truth” somewhere in the common area. 

Which for folks on the Left who follow the Iran war, means reading not just BBC and Bloomberg, but also people like Doran & Taub, above. 

There’s also media agglomeration sites, like Ground News. Which specifically gather all the views, far left to far right. 

There’s also one’s own Common Sense. The sniff test. Does it seem true. Not always the best test, biut surely a good first filter. 

“Fellow countrymen want you murdered” | Alana Mastrangelo

	Alana Mastrangelo ⁦‪@ARmastrangelo‬⁩ Beyond his assassination, which was already the worst thing I've ever seen in my life, the celebration from leftists sealed it. It was the realization that a certain percentage of your fellow countrymen don't just disagree with your views, they want you murdered. And that   9/3/2026, 10:20 pm

Alana Mastrangelo considers the issue of violence from the left, in the wake of bombs hurled by American born jihadis, shouting "Allahu Akhbar" at right-wing demonstrators in New York City. Which mayor Mamdani managed to conflate, giving the impression that the bombs were hurled by "White Nationalists". The closet Jihadi! 

It was surprising, shocking really, to see how many teachers gloried in the murder of Charlie Kirk. And now bomb peaceful protesters, whose only crime is to disagree with them. 

The “Islam” vs “Islamism” trap | Dan Burmawi

I’ve never been much of a one for the distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism”. 

Though I do recognise its usefulness as a tactical split to acknowledge the millions of Muslims who do not follow their faith down all its prescribed, violent, tenets. (Which I call the Trinity of Islam).

Still, it only takes a small percent of islamists to cause havoc and chaos. Just as it only took 5% of Russian Bolsheviks to make Revolution. Nazis were a small minority of Germans when they took power. 

/Snip

“… Islam is not a private faith but an inherently political ideology, with expansionist ambitions embedded in its foundational texts and history. From this perspective, vigilance requires scrutinizing anyone with ties, however historical or familial, to Islamist networks, lest the West repeat the mistakes that allowed groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to embed themselves within democratic institutions.

A neat phrase encapsulates this conundrum: 

“Islamists (or Jihadis) are snakes in the grass. Islam is the grass”. 

Dan Burmawi analyses the issue in “The Islam-Islamism Trap”. 

“Beijing’s message is clear: Hong Kong must shape up and speed up” | SCMP

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. 

It's the market, baby!

Abiding by the “Rules-based order”… except when you don’t

From today’s South China Morning Post 

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. Until 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. 

Repeat after me: "The war in Iran is NOT an 'illegal' war"! | Natasha Hausfdorff and Hillel Neuer

 

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. 

Keir Starmer's obsession with "international law" is outsourcing life and death decisions. Eylon Levy

"Three futures for Iran" | Bernard Haykel & Mishal Husain

 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. 

A start is my posts on this blog:

• ALL my posts on the latest war in Iran, Label: "Operation Epic Fury"

Some individual posts:

• SIX possible outcomes. Michael Doran and Gadi Taub
• Freedom and Fear in Iran. My own recollections of visit to Iran, 1974
• Western Women betray Iranian Women. Masih Alinejad
• Which also links to "Iranian activist women are so beautiful"
• "No the Iranian war is NOT illegal". Natasha Hausdorff
• Iranians support the war. Younes Sadaghiani
• "We're dealing with stone cold killers". Caroline Glick