Puppet MastersS


Israel getting punished with 'Operation Truthful Promise'

© unknown
Israeli reports say Iran has already fired three waves of drones at Israeli positions, as well as a number of cruise missiles. Footage captured by citizens in Iraq, suggests Iran's famous Shahed-136 drones are among the UAVs launched at the occupied territories.

The initial announcement regarding the launch of the Iranian attacks came from the Israeli military. Daniel Hagari, the army's spokesperson, stated that the drones would take some hours to reach their destination while emphasizing Israel's readiness for the situation.

During a briefing with the press, Hagari highlighted that Israel has defensive and offensive measures in place and maintains close cooperation with the U.S. and regional partners.

Iran also confirmed it has begun its retaliation against Israel through a TV announcement. A news anchor, reading a statement by the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), said:
"In response to various crimes of the Zionist regime, including the attack on the Iranian consulate section in Damascus and the martyrdom of some of our country's military commanders and advisors in Syria, the IRGC's Air Force targeted specific objectives inside the occupied territories by hitting them with dozens of missiles and drones."
ABC News has quoted American officials claiming that 400 to 500 drones are currently making their way towards Israel after being launched from Iran's territory.

Comment: See also: Hezbollah fires dozens of missiles towards Northern Israel

Star of David

'Islamic world will celebrate the destruction of Israel': Is war inevitable between Tehran and West Jerusalem?

What will the Islamic Republic's response be to the attack on its embassy in Syria?

The Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1 left political experts and millions of people around the world wondering whether the attack will lead to a direct war between the two nations. Iran has every reason to retaliate, since the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is still in force. Tehran could respond either by striking the Israeli diplomatic mission on the territory of another country, or by directly attacking Israel. However, this course of action would be too predictable and could lead to a full-scale war with unforeseen consequences. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that he is ready to take harsh action in such a case. According to Netanyahu, Iran has acted against Israel for years, and Israel will respond to any threat to its security. In other words, if Iran strikes Israel, war is inevitable.

Comment: Whether they apply, defy or ignore, the way forward is offered.


China tells US it won't be bullied on Russia

© Pedro Pardo/AFPChina's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning
Washington has repeatedly threatened unspecified "consequences" over the Ukraine conflict...

Relations between Beijing and Moscow are their business alone, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning has said, responding to veiled threats by a senior American diplomat.

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said on Tuesday that any further Russian advances in Ukraine will "have an impact" on the US-China relationship.

When asked about Campbell's comments at Wednesday's press briefing, Mao said:
"China and Russia have the right to carry out normal cooperation. Such cooperation should not come under external interference or constraint. China will not accept the accusations and pressuring."
Speaking to the nonprofit National Committee on US-China Relations, Campbell - who recently took over from Victoria Nuland - said that recent Russian gains could "alter the balance of power in Europe in ways that are, frankly, unacceptable" to Washington, and that the State Department has told Beijing as much.

Arrow Down

The longer it takes the West to accept that Ukraine is losing, the worse things will get for Ukraine

© unknownUkrainian Soldiers
Well, we do seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle in Ukraine. How we get out of it is not immediately obvious.

Like many wars, this one seems to have started due to catastrophic blunders by the ruling elites on both sides. To simplify a rather complex situation, I believe that there were two massive blunders.

The West's blunder: For several years Putin has warned NATO "not one inch further" - that he would not accept further NATO expansion eastwards and would not allow countries like Ukraine and Georgia, both with long borders with Russia, to join NATO. In 2008, Putin even attended a NATO summit during which he gave a speech warning NATO that Russia would not accept Ukraine's and Georgia's admission to NATO. To me that seems reasonable. After all, the U.S. would hardly accept Russia doing a deal with, say, Mexico which would allow Russia to establish bases close to the U.S.-Mexico border (although it's also understandable that Ukraine and Georgia wanted to join NATO, given Putin's sabre-rattling). And, of course, there was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the USA was not too pleased about Russian missiles being situated close to the American mainland. Probably due to stupidity, hubris or a belief that Putin was bluffing, NATO delivered a diplomatic note to the Kremlin reiterating NATO's view that countries like Ukraine and Georgia could join the Alliance if they wished. The result - Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Comment: Risk, backed by hubris and stupidity, defines the West. There will be no 'wake-up call'.


How Trump could beat Deep State

DS begone
© Dr Hero/shutterstockErasure
Let's say that Trump wins the November election. What would a second Trump presidency actually look like?

Today we're going to investigate that question. Let's first back up to the 2016 election.

Trump ran the most incompetent presidential transition process in my lifetime and perhaps the worst in history. The problems began with the fact that none of Trump, his family members and inner circle actually thought he would win the 2016 election with the exception of campaign manager Steve Bannon.

I predicted Trump would win but I was almost alone in that regard.

Trump picked Chris Christie as his transition manager, seemingly oblivious to the fact that as a prosecutor, Christie had put Jared Kushner's father in jail. Given Kushner's role as Trump's son-in-law and close adviser, this was a recipe for failure.

A well-run transition doesn't start the day after the election. It begins a year or more advance with a list of loyal appointees ready to go. Trump had no preparation and no team. Christie was fired as transition manager and Mike Pence took over, but the entire process was bungled.

Comment: Beyond strategic opposition, Washington has fomented a war within.


More ships attacked as Houthis claim danger area 'expanding'

The past week has seen an increase in attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, and a Houthi spokesperson has sparked fears of the 'danger area' expanding into the Arabian Sea.

Eight consecutive days of attack-free shipping in the Red Sea, between 23 March and 1 April, marked the longest quiet streak since December, when containerships began diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. However, in the past week, UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) has confirmed two attacks on vessels, the most recent yesterday, 111km south-west of Al Hudaydah, Yemen.

UKMTO said:
"The master of a vessel has reported two missiles in the vicinity. The first was intercepted by coalition forces, the second impacted the water a distance from the vessel. The vessel reports no damage, and the crew is reported safe. The vessel is proceeding to next port of call."
Meanwhile, Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree said on TV yesterday that during the past 72 hours, Houthis had targeted a British ship and several US frigates in the Red Sea. He also said they had attacked two Israeli vessels in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean that were heading to Israeli ports.


Hezbollah fires dozens of missiles towards Northern Israel

hezbollah israel tel aviv
This development comes amid Israel-Iran tensions in the aftermath of the Israeli strikes on the Iranian embassy in Syria, which drew a strong response from Tehran.

Lebanon-based Hezbollah which is resisting the Israeli attack on Gaza after Hamas' assault of October 7 last year has reportedly fired dozens of missiles on Northern Israel, reports said, adding that the motto is to deplete the Jewish nation's much-touted Iron Dome interceptors. Sirens blared during the incident, triggered by both the rocket launches and the falling debris from interception attempts.

The Lebanese militant group has claimed responsibility for the rocket barrage on the Galilee Panhandle, as per Times of Israel. Hezbollah, in a statement, said that Katyusha rockets targeted IDF artillery positions. However, no casualties or injuries have been reported as of now.

Comment: What with an Iranian response thought to be looming, many are looking to the skies - and they do seem to be busy - although not everyone believes that 'an attack is imminent':


I doubt Iran will strike Israel within the next 24-48 hours. The claims from NATO intelligence, Mossad, and the mainstream media lead me to believe it's unlikely. It seems they're attempting to coerce Iran into premature action or provoke a major escalation that would involve the US, UK, and other allies.

Israel has been eager to involve US and NATO in this conflict, as seen with their bombing in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.

If Iranian intelligence has been leaked, it could suggest a weakness in Iranian intelligence, which seems improbable.

The evacuation of embassies and the media reports, along with claims from intelligence agencies about an imminent attack, appear to be part of a psychological operation aimed at pushing Iran into a strategic misstep.

Let's spend coffee time playing a little wargame in which the US decides to take on Iran and commit to a full war against it

Look at this map. Where could the US stage an invasion of Iran?

To Iran's east, you'll find Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. A big triple no.
To Iran's south: the Persian Gulf which it completely dominates. No good.
To Iran's west: Iraq and Turkiye. The first a definite no, the second, a no so probable it must be considered a certain. Turkiye will not go to war with Iran for the US and Israel - a war not only sure to decimate it, but a war Turkich people will be fanatically against.
To Iran's north is the Caspian Sea. No use.

Azerbaijan and Armenia present an opening, but how will hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers get there (let alone undetected)? If they go by sea, they will need to traverse the Mediterranean and the Black Sea and virtually physically go through Istanbul. Not only politically complicated, but a long long journey that gives Iran tons of time to prepare.

Remember the months and months the US took to amass forces for the Iraq invasion? It took 6 months or so - with no interruptions.

The problem is, with Iran, there's no way they're going to simply build up forces near the designated target's borders.

Iran has an arsenal of hundreds of thousands of guided and precise ballistic missiles, satellites in space and eyes almost everywhere. If a war is declared or started, every American asset within 0-3000 kilometers of Iran's borders will be bombarded so viciously no missile defense system will be able to stop it.

And all those dozens and dozens of American bases scattered throughout the vast area surrounding Iran? How will the US defend them under an attack on a scale of 1000 October 7th's combined?

Additionally, Iran has the most sophisticated anti-ship missiles in the world (Russia's Yakhont), of which it probably has thousands by now. This means no surface ship is going to be able to come close enough to Iran to make it an effective striking weapon (is this going to be the first time we get to see an aircraft carrier drowning? I believe potentially yes).

Bearing in mind Yemen's Ansra Allah alone has done a good job of driving the West out of the Red Sea.

The US will have to rely on air superiority, but this is going to prove a very difficult, almost impossible task. US planes will have to fly a long way to get to Iran (and back), and it has invested massively in air defense systems, including some of the most sophisticated in Russia's arsenal. The US will lose many planes which will take years to replenish, and Iran will be able to target with ballistic missiles and drones all the bases from which they take off in Europe or the Middle East.

Another tool the US will use is cruise missiles fired from submarines: but this, too, does not win wars, and can be costly against a rival that prepared for this.

A full-scale invasion of Iran will require potentially millions of soldiers and will take years. The West is simply incapable of an effort of this kind: where will they find millions of young men willing to die at sea in order to occupy a country thousands of miles away? Today? Give me a break.

All this time the Iranians will be defending their home and their independence. The West will be trying to colonize and destroy them. They will have Gaza on their minds.
I didn't mention Israel because it is virtually irrelevant in this war. Hizbullah alone is enough to paralyze it and keep its military busy for months.
Bonus point: think about what happens to energy prices in an actual war with Iran. 500$ for an oil barrel? 1000$? 2000$? All is possible.

Guess what country will remain the biggest international producer and exporter of oil and gas, and rip all those extra many, many trillions. You guessed right. Russia. If the Persian Gulf is up in flames, Russia will become a global economic superpower (at a time when the US is dwindled militarily and economically and cannot even fake a military threat against it).
Another bonus point: you think Iran cannot, or will not attack on American soil? Think again. From cyber attacks to large-scale, professional, military-level sabotage and guerrilla warfare, in a war with Iran life in the US will definitely not be business as usual, and not only because inflation will be something 200%, and thousands of dead soldiers will return home in coffins every month for a long time.
The US cannot win a war against Iran. And I believe all parties involved know it. The only thing that remains unknown is how insane and self-destructive the US has become under Netanyahu's and AIPAC's, how shall we call it, influence

Some vital additional context:

This war, if it does break, will take place right at the doorstep of both Russia and China. And this is highly significant for a number of reasons:

1. Logistically, this proximity guarantees Iran will have easy access to virtually unlimited shipments of arms and munitions by land, sea, and air. The Western logistical mission will be 100 times more difficult.

2. Both Russia and China must hate very much the idea of an American takeover of Iran. Russia because it knows this new territory will be used for further hostilities against it, potentially complicating its Ukraine campaign. Russia has never had to seriously defend against strategic hostile activity from this area, and it knows it cannot allow this to happen. China knows that an American takeover of Iran will put its Belt and Road initiative in shambles, and will provide the American a huge new platform to mess with China and try to destabilize it.

3. This is not 2002. By now it is clear to everyone involved that US influence is poisonous and destructive on a massive scale. We all saw Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. By now it is exceedingly clear the US it literally destroying human society to remain the sole source of power, money, and stability. Opposition to US interventionism today is much more deeply rooted and widespread than 30 years ago. The Americans will be perceived as reckless destructive imperialists, and Russia and China will be the ones working for order and normalcy. In going to war against Iran the US will undertake not only an impossible military task, it will have to relinquish any remaining pretense it has as a civilizational power for good. This will have a major, major impact on American anti-war movements at home. No one can anticipate what this new political awareness (already crystalizing over Gaza) will do to America itself, as regards its relative political stability.
Whilst it might not make much of a difference to the points above, Israel may yet still be able to cause deadly mayhem - and not only for Iran; because it may think that, if it's going down, why not try and take the world with it?: Predatory Sparrow: The terrorist attacks of an Israel-linked hacker group

Interestingly, in the past 48 hours or so, there was a missile test in Russia, and another sighted over Iraq:

Also, notably, just a week or so ago:

To which it has been said:
Victor Clube: "We do not need the celestial threat to disguise Cold War intentions; rather we need the Cold War to disguise celestial intentions!"


Iran seizes Israel-linked ship MCS Aries in Gulf

iran ship israel
© AFPFILE: This picture taken on June 15, 2019 shows tanker ships in the waters of the Gulf of Oman off the coast of the eastern UAE emirate of Fujairah.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Saturday seized a container ship "related to the Zionist regime (Israel) in the Gulf," state media reported, as tensions soar in the region.

"A container ship named 'MCS Aries' was seized by the Sepah (IRGC) Navy Special Forces by carrying out a heliborne operation," IRNA state news agency reported.

It added that the operation took place "near the Strait of Hormuz," a waterway vital to world trade, and "this ship has now been directed towards the territorial waters" of Iran.

The Iranian report came after two maritime security agencies said "regional authorities" had seized a vessel off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

Comment: And so Iran may choose not to attack Israel, as a number of analysts have highlighted, despite what the Western media is wont to wail, instead it may just tighten security closer to home - as it might be doing in this incident - thus pushing the price of oil ever further:


West gets 'fantastic value' out of Ukraine - Boris Johnson

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in August 2022
© Alexey Furman / Getty ImagesBritish Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in August 2022.
Kiev is fighting "for our own interest" at a comparatively small cost, the former British prime minister has said.

The Ukrainians are fighting the West's fight with Russia and do not ask for much, so the money and resources put into the country generate "fantastic value," according to former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The politician, who reportedly personally derailed a nascent peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev in 2022, discussed his policy choices on Thursday with students of Georgetown University, one of the leading breeding grounds of American political elites.

The theme of the lecture was the superiority of democracy, a political system "by which we kick the bastards out," as the Conservative politician phrased it. Johnson himself was forced out in 2022, after a string of scandals and accusations that his government had deceived the British public.

Comment: See also:


Trump campaign demands Biden debate him 'much earlier' and more often

Donald Trump
© Robin Rayne for Fox News DigitalFormer President Donald Trump arrives at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Georgia on Wednesday, April 10, 2024. Trump is visiting the state to host a campaign fundraising event.
The Trump campaign is calling for additional 2024 presidential debates and for them to take place "much earlier" than initially proposed by the debate commission, with former President Trump telling Fox News Digital that he is "totally committed" to debating President Biden "anytime, anywhere, anyplace."

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter Trump co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita sent Thursday to The Commission on Presidential Debates co-chairs Frank Farenkopf Jr. and Antonia Hernandez.

Wiles and LaCivita told the commission they were writing "in agreement with the pending letter," reported by The New York Times, "from television networks advocating for presidential debates to occur in 2024."

"While the Commission on Presidential Debates has already announced three presidential debates and a vice-presidential debate to occur later this year, we are in favor of these debates beginning much earlier," they wrote.

First, Wiles and LaCivita said "voting is beginning earlier and earlier, and as we saw in 2020, tens of millions of Americans had already voted by the time of the first debate."

"Specific to the Commissions proposed 2024 calendar, it simply comes too late," they wrote, adding an estimate of how many Americans will have already voted by the date of each scheduled debate.

"By the date of the first proposed debate, September 16, 2024, over 1 million Americans will have likely voted," they wrote. "By the date of the second proposed debate, October 1, 2024, the number of Americans who will have likely cast a ballot will be over 3 million, an increase of 225%."

By the third proposed debate date on Oct. 9, 35 days from Election Day, Wiles and LaCivita estimated that "approximately 8.7 million Americans will have already voted."

Comment: A clever move by the Trump campaign that capitalizes on Biden's clearly diminishing ability to form coherent sentences. If Biden agrees to more and earlier debates, then Biden will further expose himself as cognitively incompetent. But if Biden doesn't agree to the debates, then at best Biden looks like he cares more about punishing Trump than ensuring the people are able to make an informed choice and at worst he looks like he's trying to hide his cognitive decline. Either way, Trump comes out ahead. Expect more Trump bashing in the media so that Biden can continue to sidestep the issue by saying that Trump isn't behaving well enough for more debates.