Thoughts do not occur to trump, which is just as well, because he has no means to process them. They do, however, occur to his handlers, who then tell him what to announce to the world.
Something my wife pointed out today. Trump did not consult any military planners. Trump himself said he consulted with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio,
Under normal circumstances, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, Intelligence community leadership, and various cabinet level officials should have been consulted as well as contact with the major allies.
None of them were consulted.
Is this taking the list of people that have been named and assuming that it is an exclusive list and that they were the only ones consulted? Numerous news sources I’ve seen have said that Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John Ratcliffe, Director of the C.I.A., were consulted—quite possibly ignored, but consulted.
Something my wife pointed out today. Trump did not consult any military planners. Trump himself said he consulted with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio,
Under normal circumstances, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, Intelligence community leadership, and various cabinet level officials should have been consulted as well as contact with the major allies.
None of them were consulted.
Is this taking the list of people that have been named and assuming that it is an exclusive list and that they were the only ones consulted? Numerous news sources I’ve seen have said that Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John Ratcliffe, Director of the C.I.A., were consulted—quite possibly ignored, but consulted.
NBC News; Reuters; AP; Political, and Foreign Affairs indicate trump did not consult Cain or Ratcliff in the leadup to the attack on Iran.
In the case of Dan Caine, while he is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and thus a four star general, he had never been a commander of any major command. Thus he had no experience in military planning. Fact is Caine was retired before being named the chairman. Trump named Caine as the Chair precisely because Trump had disliked the then Joint Chiefs. Caine is basically a yes man to Trump. He would not have been able to tell Trump not to go in.
Contrast this to General Milley who had arranged for all military orders from President Trump had to go through him before being executed. Milley feared that the President might issue impulsive or dangerous orders. This was reported through the Washington Post, CNN, The New Yorker, and Bob Woodward's book, Peril
Now, if you have any sources that say Trump did consult Caine or Ratcliffe, I would be glad to see them.
In the case of Dan Caine, while he is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and thus a four star general, he had never been a commander of any major command. Thus he had no experience in military planning. Fact is Caine was retired before being named the chairman. Trump named Caine as the Chair precisely because Trump had disliked the then Joint Chiefs. Caine is basically a yes man to Trump. He would not have been able to tell Trump not to go in.
Contrast this to General Milley who had arranged for all military orders from President Trump had to go through him before being executed. Milley feared that the President might issue impulsive or dangerous orders. This was reported through the Washington Post, CNN, The New Yorker, and Bob Woodward's book, Peril
What does that have to do with the claim that Gen. Caine wasn’t consulted?
Now, if you have any sources that say Trump did consult Caine or Ratcliffe, I would be glad to see them.
Gabbard, Ratcliffe dodge questions about Trump’s Iran war planning. (The Hill, March 18, 2026) (“Ratcliffe said he was in ‘dozens’ of briefings with the president in the lead-up to the strikes and added that ‘I don’t know if there was a single meeting where there was a single time where a decision was made.’”)
Regards the Caine story: does not sound like he recommended Trump go ahead with the mission. Trumps claims he did, but later in the article it says
Instead, General Caine has said that the United States has amassed forces in the Middle East to carry out a small or medium strike, but that there would be a potentially high risk of American casualties and that such an operation would have a negative effect on U.S. weapon stockpiles. General Caine has also underscored that the operations under consideration in Iran would be much more difficult than the successful capture last month of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.
Nor does it sound either Ratcliff or Gabbard told Trump he should go for it. Yes they may have been in dozens of meetings leading up to the decision, but Ratcliff cannot recall a go for it decision ever being made.
There is no credible reporting that either:Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or John Ratcliffe, CIA Director recommended or urged Trump to attack Iran.
Instead: Trump claimed Caine thought victory would be easy — but that is Trump’s framing, not Caine’s recommendation. Ratcliffe refused to say he supported the strike and avoided questions about it.
Trump relied on a small circle of informal political advisers, not the national‑security chain of command.
My point about Caine's background is that he has had little to no experience in military planning. If anything, he is nothing but a yes man. I would think if you would have him on the witness stand, his lack of appropriate background impeaches him.
There is no credible reporting that either:Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or John Ratcliffe, CIA Director recommended or urged Trump to attack Iran.
But the claim you made was not that Trump didn’t listen to Caine or Ratcliffe but that Caine and Ratcliffe “were not consulted.” You then said “if you have any sources that say Trump did consult Caine or Ratcliffe, I would be glad to see them.” I provided sources that said Trump did consult Caine and Ratcliffe.
And I’m not contesting at all that Caine lacks experience. It’s just that, again, the claim you made was that he wasn’t consulted, and that’s specifically what I was responding to. His lack of experience, which seems to be a prerequisite for being part of the Trump administration, has nothing to do with whether he wasn’t consulted consulted.
My claim is that Trump relied on a small circle of informal political advisers, not the national‑security chain of command to make the final decision. He may have asked Caine if the military could do it. Caine apparently said not a good idea. Rattcliff says he went through dozens of meetings about Iran, but refuses to acknowledge any decision was made with his involvement.
I guess they’ve all seen what happens to GOP members who stand up and say outright that their President is wrong.
In Jim Wallis’s words, what the GOP desperately needs is for a prominent and respected member to have the courage to become a wind-changer.
How many GOP members could stand up and denounce Trump then remain prominent and respected in the GOP? Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney - none of them exactly lightweights but none of them could stop the Trump train. At this point it would take Zombie Robert Lee and I'm not even sure that would work.
I guess they’ve all seen what happens to GOP members who stand up and say outright that their President is wrong.
In Jim Wallis’s words, what the GOP desperately needs is for a prominent and respected member to have the courage to become a wind-changer.
How many GOP members could stand up and denounce Trump then remain prominent and respected in the GOP? Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney - none of them exactly lightweights but none of them could stop the Trump train. At this point it would take Zombie Robert Lee and I'm not even sure that would work.
I agree the precedents hardly encourage bravery. There may come a time. But perhaps after disastrous mid terms?
That would hardly be wind-changing, more a recognition that it might be a good time to jump ship.
Meanwhile, on TACO strikes again, I’ve just listened to Trump on CNN answering reporters’ questions. Highly confusing statements! It looks as though Trump’s advisers are talking to someone, but it doesn’t appear that they are able to speak authoritatively for the Iran government, which has categorically denied that it is in negotiations with the USA.
So the postponement, based on what Trump claims to be promising noises about a possible agreement, seems more realistically to be a climb down under a smokescreen.
So the postponement, based on what Trump claims to be promising noises about a possible agreement, seems more realistically to be a climb down under a smokescreen.
Meanwhile, on TACO strikes again, I’ve just listened to Trump on CNN answering reporters’ questions. Highly confusing statements! It looks as though Trump’s advisers are talking to someone, but it doesn’t appear that they are able to speak authoritatively for the Iran government, which has categorically denied that it is in negotiations with the USA.
So the postponement, based on what Trump claims to be promising noises about a possible agreement, seems more realistically to be a climb down under a smokescreen.
TBH that's what I assumed. It was far too convenient an excuse to be legitimate. The only surprise was that it was 5 days rather than the usual "2 weeks" for something he's hoping to push back until people forget about it.
I confess to trying to make sense of what he said. These days, I reckon I was probably on a fool’s errand.
(En passant, he was priceless in his comments about Joe Kent. He must have said the same thing three or four times. It amounted to “he failed to get into Congress twice, I felt sorry for him after his wife died, actually got my aides to give him a job, and look what’s he done in return”.)
I saw a report, that I can’t now find, where the IAEA Said they were talking to people in the US and Iran - I wonder if that is what he has now jumped on.
I do not think there is any verified evidence of indirect talks since the outbreak of the war. Trump may be interpreting third party messages or backchannel feelers or de-escalation signals as "talks." But Iran, for domestic and strategic reasons, is maintaining a public posture of refusal.
However, what I am thinking is Trump made the threats to take out the power infrastructure, Iran said if that happens, they will take out the desalination plants of the desert nations. The desert nations plead with Trump don't go that far. Trump backs down.
Presumably, Trump is getting bored/tired of this. Is he looking for a way out?
Probably. How the Iranian regime play it will be interesting to watch, they'll have to balance his ego against his desperate desire to extricate himself. Presumably the ideal is something that Trump sees as victory/ the best deal ever but everyone else sees as humiliation (and learns the lesson: do not fuck with Iran).
I saw a report, that I can’t now find, where the IAEA Said they were talking to people in the US and Iran - I wonder if that is what he has now jumped on.
Or Witkoff / Kushner are just fabricating talks and reporting them to Trump.
Presumably, Trump is getting bored/tired of this. Is he looking for a way out?
Probably. How the Iranian regime play it will be interesting to watch, they'll have to balance his ego against his desperate desire to extricate himself. Presumably the ideal is something that Trump sees as victory/ the best deal ever but everyone else sees as humiliation (and learns the lesson: do not fuck with Iran).
Yes, I don't know if Iran has the subtlety to do that. Stroke Trump's ego, and yet growl at everyone else. I guess if Trump is really fed up, it could work.
If it stops the war, then the people of Iran would care because the bombs stop falling and the regime is still in place, the people of other nations in the region would care because Iranian drones and missiles will stop killing them, the rest of the world will care because Hormuz will be open and we won't need to go cold turkey from our oil addiction.
I saw a report, that I can’t now find, where the IAEA Said they were talking to people in the US and Iran - I wonder if that is what he has now jumped on.
Or Witkoff / Kushner are just fabricating talks and reporting them to Trump.
There’s always been tension in the government of Iran between the political/secular elements and the dominant religious element. It’s not unlikely that Witkoff/Kushner have been able to talk to some of the former. Whether they have any real power is another matter. It might even be dangerous for them personally to talk about such talks. Retribution by the dominant religious element could hardly be ruled out. They’d see it as subversion at best.
If it stops the war, then the people of Iran would care because the bombs stop falling and the regime is still in place, the people of other nations in the region would care because Iranian drones and missiles will stop killing them, the rest of the world will care because Hormuz will be open and we won't need to go cold turkey from our oil addiction.
I think you're misconstruing me. I mean that nobody cares if Trump and Iran do an insincere deal, as long as it holds.
Trump has no intention of stopping. If he did he wouldn't be building up troops in the area and asking Congress for $200Bn to prosecute this war. He's buying time and pacifying the markets because they aren't totally ready for a ground invasion.
My money is on an amphibious assault on Konarak and Chabahar naval bases, which were seriously degraded in the opening days of the US Israel assault. They are close to the Baluchis there whom they hope to arm and recruit to their cause, and is closer to the open water of the Gulf of Oman where they can resupply and establish a marine logistics chain.
That may, or may have been, his intention. There may be a detailed military plan available along those lines. And indeed he may be setting up a negotiating disappointment in advance of just such a military attack.
But I’m not sure he’ll go through with it in the end. It seems unlikely that he wants a protracted conflict without a clear exit strategy. Confused as he is, there are probably voices he trusts arguing against going too far down that road. It looks like a real vote loser in the Autumn as well as a substantial financial cost.
That may, or may have been, his intention. There may be a detailed military plan available along those lines. And indeed he may be setting up a negotiating disappointment in advance of just such a military attack.
But I’m not sure he’ll go through with it in the end. It seems unlikely that he wants a protracted conflict without a clear exit strategy. Confused as he is, there are probably voices he trusts arguing against going too far down that road. It looks like a real vote loser in the Autumn as well as a substantial financial cost.
He already listened to the five voices he trusts. Kushner, Witkoff, Hegseth Netanyahu, and Rubio. They are the ones who got him into this pickle. They will not be the ones to get him out of it.
I have a hundred euros that says Americans will die on Iranian soil before the end of March.
That may, or may have been, his intention. There may be a detailed military plan available along those lines. And indeed he may be setting up a negotiating disappointment in advance of just such a military attack.
I think ascribing "intention" or a "plan" to what Trump is doing in Iran is making a category error. If there were a plan involving an amphibious assault the troops would have been in place from the beginning, not summoned after the fact for an arrival about a month after the start of war. This goes back to my earlier point about operational excellence coupled with strategic incompetence.
But I’m not sure he’ll go through with it in the end. It seems unlikely that he wants a protracted conflict without a clear exit strategy. Confused as he is, there are probably voices he trusts arguing against going too far down that road. It looks like a real vote loser in the Autumn as well as a substantial financial cost.
Again, this is ascribing a rational decision-making process to Trump's prosecution of this war. I'm not sure the existing evidence supports that viewpoint. Nothing we've seen so far convinces me that Donald Trump is making decisions after carefully listening to wise advisors.
There’s always been tension in the government of Iran between the political/secular elements and the dominant religious element. It’s not unlikely that Witkoff/Kushner have been able to talk to some of the former. Whether they have any real power is another matter. It might even be dangerous for them personally to talk about such talks. Retribution by the dominant religious element could hardly be ruled out. They’d see it as subversion at best.
I don't think you can necessarily categorise the secular vs religious split this way, the previous Ayatollah was large reason they hadn't gone further in developing nuclear weapons. The IRGC would have gone much further.
And I'd disagree, I think given the stress the Iranian state is under, it's highly unlikely that two figures without any background in politics of intelligence could successfully utilise such back channels even if they existed.
AFF I know it's rhetorical but I don't think joking about placing bets on people getting killed is in good taste.
Not that I'm always tasteful with my jests.
I think you are right that Trump is playing for time and playing the oil markets and possibly setting up an excuse for more action once the alleged talks fail.
I don't think the Iranian regime is out of the woods yet.
I don't think Israel would prosecute the war to any great extent further if the US did pull out, but they will almost certainly keep up their current level of attacks, particularly now that more Israeli civilians are being killed and injured.
I also think Trump would lose face if he pulls out now. If he does then he'd be back again soon.
He'll want something to show got this before the mid-term elections and for all his rhetoric I don't think he can claim much yet other than the killing of key figures in the regime, and 1200 civilians including 100 school girls.
'Bombing our little hearts out.'
And breaking the hearts of parents, relatives and friends.
I’m not saying you’re wrong in suggesting that Witkoff/Kushner are telling Trump a fabrication. Given the above political complexity in Iran (sure I oversimplified it) I find it hard to rule out completely the possibility of some back channel operation.
Trump is saying there have been discussions with someone other than the Supreme Leader and there are major points of agreement. I suppose that could just be an outright lie. Personally at this stage I can’t rule out the possibility that there might be something in it.
Almost every day I hear of an example of how poorly this military action has been. Today on NPR they were discussing how the US replaced four mine swiping ships that have been successfully used for over 80 years. They are replaced with lateral combat ships with unproven technologies--certainly not battle tested.
Just a note that the WSJ was suggesting that the talks were courtesy of Egyptian intelligence and implies Witkoff and Kushner weren't involved (although given doubts about their Diego Garcia claim their reporting might have to be taken with a large pinch of salt)
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiation going on and an individual has been named in that regard - although Tehran denies that talks are taking place.
Even if it's the case that talks are happening in some form, given the complexity of Iran's internal politics there's no guarantee that those talks would be with anyone who is in a position to influence things.
On the military aspects, nobody's doubting the capacity of the US war-machine and @Gramps49 knows more about that than te rest of us, it seems to me.
It always strikes me though that US military action veers between extremes of ultra-efficiency and cack-handedness. The UK lost more men to US 'friendly-fire' during the First Gulf War than it did to enemy action.
My Australian uncle can get all misty-eyed about Australian toughness and resilience in Vietnam but he can cite instances of absurd levels of US incompetence on the ground there.
WW2 veterans I knew said the same, although they had nothing but the profoundest respect for individual GIs and their immediate command. It was the higher-ups they felt were at fault.
I've heard US veterans say the same in reverse.
At any rate, I can't see this ending any time soon, unless price rises begin to bite in the US.
If Trump pulls out now he'll lose face. If he continues he will destabilise the region for decades and potentially wreck the world economy.
I suspect even Trump would stop short of that but short of magically pulling a rabbit out of a hat I can't see how he can get us all out of this one as easily as he appears to imagine.
I disagree. Trump is renowned for spouting absurdities that MAGA followers lap up without any evidence to support them. My thinking is that, having finally had it made clear to him that this is a war that he cannot easily or quickly win, he will claim loudly that he has won and that the Iranians have been defeated and have capitulated and that all the troops can stand down. And MAGA will proclaim him a great leader.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiation going on and an individual has been named in that regard - although Tehran denies that talks are taking place.
The named individual has denied that he was talking to them.
Comments
Thoughts do not occur to trump, which is just as well, because he has no means to process them. They do, however, occur to his handlers, who then tell him what to announce to the world.
NBC News; Reuters; AP; Political, and Foreign Affairs indicate trump did not consult Cain or Ratcliff in the leadup to the attack on Iran.
It was the International Business Times UK that reported Trump only consulted Hegseth, Rubio, Kushner and Witkoff.
In the case of Dan Caine, while he is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and thus a four star general, he had never been a commander of any major command. Thus he had no experience in military planning. Fact is Caine was retired before being named the chairman. Trump named Caine as the Chair precisely because Trump had disliked the then Joint Chiefs. Caine is basically a yes man to Trump. He would not have been able to tell Trump not to go in.
Contrast this to General Milley who had arranged for all military orders from President Trump had to go through him before being executed. Milley feared that the President might issue impulsive or dangerous orders. This was reported through the Washington Post, CNN, The New Yorker, and Bob Woodward's book, Peril
Now, if you have any sources that say Trump did consult Caine or Ratcliffe, I would be glad to see them.
Trump Says Top General Predicts Easy Victory Over Iran; He Says Otherwise in Private: The remarks differ from what Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is said to have told the president in high-level White House meetings. (The New York Times, Feb. 23, 2026) (“In fact, during the recent meetings, including one last Wednesday [prior to the first strikes] in the White House Situation Room, General Caine discussed what the military could do from an operational standpoint but declined, as he regularly does, to advocate a certain policy position.”)
Gabbard, Ratcliffe dodge questions about Trump’s Iran war planning. (The Hill, March 18, 2026) (“Ratcliffe said he was in ‘dozens’ of briefings with the president in the lead-up to the strikes and added that ‘I don’t know if there was a single meeting where there was a single time where a decision was made.’”)
Nor does it sound either Ratcliff or Gabbard told Trump he should go for it. Yes they may have been in dozens of meetings leading up to the decision, but Ratcliff cannot recall a go for it decision ever being made.
There is no credible reporting that either:Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or John Ratcliffe, CIA Director recommended or urged Trump to attack Iran.
Instead: Trump claimed Caine thought victory would be easy — but that is Trump’s framing, not Caine’s recommendation. Ratcliffe refused to say he supported the strike and avoided questions about it.
Trump relied on a small circle of informal political advisers, not the national‑security chain of command.
My point about Caine's background is that he has had little to no experience in military planning. If anything, he is nothing but a yes man. I would think if you would have him on the witness stand, his lack of appropriate background impeaches him.
And I’m not contesting at all that Caine lacks experience. It’s just that, again, the claim you made was that he wasn’t consulted, and that’s specifically what I was responding to. His lack of experience, which seems to be a prerequisite for being part of the Trump administration, has nothing to do with whether he wasn’t consulted consulted.
In Jim Wallis’s words, what the GOP desperately needs is for a prominent and respected member to have the courage to become a wind-changer.
How many GOP members could stand up and denounce Trump then remain prominent and respected in the GOP? Romney, McCain, Liz Cheney - none of them exactly lightweights but none of them could stop the Trump train. At this point it would take Zombie Robert Lee and I'm not even sure that would work.
I agree the precedents hardly encourage bravery. There may come a time. But perhaps after disastrous mid terms?
That would hardly be wind-changing, more a recognition that it might be a good time to jump ship.
So the postponement, based on what Trump claims to be promising noises about a possible agreement, seems more realistically to be a climb down under a smokescreen.
That has the ring of truth about it.
TBH that's what I assumed. It was far too convenient an excuse to be legitimate. The only surprise was that it was 5 days rather than the usual "2 weeks" for something he's hoping to push back until people forget about it.
(I feel there should be an apostrophe in there!)
I confess to trying to make sense of what he said. These days, I reckon I was probably on a fool’s errand.
(En passant, he was priceless in his comments about Joe Kent. He must have said the same thing three or four times. It amounted to “he failed to get into Congress twice, I felt sorry for him after his wife died, actually got my aides to give him a job, and look what’s he done in return”.)
However, what I am thinking is Trump made the threats to take out the power infrastructure, Iran said if that happens, they will take out the desalination plants of the desert nations. The desert nations plead with Trump don't go that far. Trump backs down.
Probably. How the Iranian regime play it will be interesting to watch, they'll have to balance his ego against his desperate desire to extricate himself. Presumably the ideal is something that Trump sees as victory/ the best deal ever but everyone else sees as humiliation (and learns the lesson: do not fuck with Iran).
Or Witkoff / Kushner are just fabricating talks and reporting them to Trump.
Yes, I don't know if Iran has the subtlety to do that. Stroke Trump's ego, and yet growl at everyone else. I guess if Trump is really fed up, it could work.
Who cares?
There’s always been tension in the government of Iran between the political/secular elements and the dominant religious element. It’s not unlikely that Witkoff/Kushner have been able to talk to some of the former. Whether they have any real power is another matter. It might even be dangerous for them personally to talk about such talks. Retribution by the dominant religious element could hardly be ruled out. They’d see it as subversion at best.
I think you're misconstruing me. I mean that nobody cares if Trump and Iran do an insincere deal, as long as it holds.
My money is on an amphibious assault on Konarak and Chabahar naval bases, which were seriously degraded in the opening days of the US Israel assault. They are close to the Baluchis there whom they hope to arm and recruit to their cause, and is closer to the open water of the Gulf of Oman where they can resupply and establish a marine logistics chain.
We shall see.
AFF
That may, or may have been, his intention. There may be a detailed military plan available along those lines. And indeed he may be setting up a negotiating disappointment in advance of just such a military attack.
But I’m not sure he’ll go through with it in the end. It seems unlikely that he wants a protracted conflict without a clear exit strategy. Confused as he is, there are probably voices he trusts arguing against going too far down that road. It looks like a real vote loser in the Autumn as well as a substantial financial cost.
He already listened to the five voices he trusts. Kushner, Witkoff, Hegseth Netanyahu, and Rubio. They are the ones who got him into this pickle. They will not be the ones to get him out of it.
I have a hundred euros that says Americans will die on Iranian soil before the end of March.
AFF
I think ascribing "intention" or a "plan" to what Trump is doing in Iran is making a category error. If there were a plan involving an amphibious assault the troops would have been in place from the beginning, not summoned after the fact for an arrival about a month after the start of war. This goes back to my earlier point about operational excellence coupled with strategic incompetence.
Again, this is ascribing a rational decision-making process to Trump's prosecution of this war. I'm not sure the existing evidence supports that viewpoint. Nothing we've seen so far convinces me that Donald Trump is making decisions after carefully listening to wise advisors.
I don't think you can necessarily categorise the secular vs religious split this way, the previous Ayatollah was large reason they hadn't gone further in developing nuclear weapons. The IRGC would have gone much further.
And I'd disagree, I think given the stress the Iranian state is under, it's highly unlikely that two figures without any background in politics of intelligence could successfully utilise such back channels even if they existed.
Not that I'm always tasteful with my jests.
I think you are right that Trump is playing for time and playing the oil markets and possibly setting up an excuse for more action once the alleged talks fail.
I don't think the Iranian regime is out of the woods yet.
I don't think Israel would prosecute the war to any great extent further if the US did pull out, but they will almost certainly keep up their current level of attacks, particularly now that more Israeli civilians are being killed and injured.
I also think Trump would lose face if he pulls out now. If he does then he'd be back again soon.
He'll want something to show got this before the mid-term elections and for all his rhetoric I don't think he can claim much yet other than the killing of key figures in the regime, and 1200 civilians including 100 school girls.
'Bombing our little hearts out.'
And breaking the hearts of parents, relatives and friends.
Politics of Iran
I’m not saying you’re wrong in suggesting that Witkoff/Kushner are telling Trump a fabrication. Given the above political complexity in Iran (sure I oversimplified it) I find it hard to rule out completely the possibility of some back channel operation.
Trump is saying there have been discussions with someone other than the Supreme Leader and there are major points of agreement. I suppose that could just be an outright lie. Personally at this stage I can’t rule out the possibility that there might be something in it.
I guess we’ll see soon enough.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/24/iran-war-live-tehran-says-trumps-claims-of-peace-talks-fake
Just a note that the WSJ was suggesting that the talks were courtesy of Egyptian intelligence and implies Witkoff and Kushner weren't involved (although given doubts about their Diego Garcia claim their reporting might have to be taken with a large pinch of salt)
Even if it's the case that talks are happening in some form, given the complexity of Iran's internal politics there's no guarantee that those talks would be with anyone who is in a position to influence things.
On the military aspects, nobody's doubting the capacity of the US war-machine and @Gramps49 knows more about that than te rest of us, it seems to me.
It always strikes me though that US military action veers between extremes of ultra-efficiency and cack-handedness. The UK lost more men to US 'friendly-fire' during the First Gulf War than it did to enemy action.
My Australian uncle can get all misty-eyed about Australian toughness and resilience in Vietnam but he can cite instances of absurd levels of US incompetence on the ground there.
WW2 veterans I knew said the same, although they had nothing but the profoundest respect for individual GIs and their immediate command. It was the higher-ups they felt were at fault.
I've heard US veterans say the same in reverse.
At any rate, I can't see this ending any time soon, unless price rises begin to bite in the US.
If Trump pulls out now he'll lose face. If he continues he will destabilise the region for decades and potentially wreck the world economy.
I suspect even Trump would stop short of that but short of magically pulling a rabbit out of a hat I can't see how he can get us all out of this one as easily as he appears to imagine.
I disagree. Trump is renowned for spouting absurdities that MAGA followers lap up without any evidence to support them. My thinking is that, having finally had it made clear to him that this is a war that he cannot easily or quickly win, he will claim loudly that he has won and that the Iranians have been defeated and have capitulated and that all the troops can stand down. And MAGA will proclaim him a great leader.
The named individual has denied that he was talking to them.
(Not suggesting that proves anything. The fog of war is very foggy at this point).
One side has a track record of contradictory statements, obfuscations and outright lying, and it isn't the Iranians.
Indeed. Everything Iran has promised, it has delivered.
Which is why, when they published the twelve retaliatory regional infrastructure targets, the west hit the pause button.
But it's only a pause.
AFF
Well, as above, they didn't, they hit power plants over night.
Report at 12.50
I'm having trouble finding reference in other sources as well. But anything is possible.
Fog being foggy.
AFF
Yet more fog!