I confess I didn't read the article but I wholeheartedly agree with the Headline. Even Matt still can't avoid having everything ultimately be about Trump, eh? Too bad Walter didn't succeed in breaking him of that.
What is unjust about denying a radical Islamic theocratic terrorist regime from ever having access to nuclear weapons with which to further prosecute terrorizing the world? I'm waiting.
To me it's all pretty simple in more of a Christian/Jew/Muslim framing. This is enough to keep the globe fighting for another few decades at least. We're only a few thousand years into this feud. This is the foundation to it all. But American Presidents have a vote in that too.
Muslims have been working on obeying God’s command to conquer the world for 14 centuries now, so the fighting may go on longer than a few decades.
This comment by Matt is a little embarrassing: “The whole point of being the strongest nation, though, is that we shouldn’t need 4d chess moves or madness in methods. We can just stay home and make waffles …”
Neglecting the world is a good way to make sure you don’t stay the strongest nation.
Glad to see you taking this element on. This Substack became a haven for boomer team-Trumpers with a binary thinking problem.
They do not seem to realize that what made this place great during the Biden term was that it was one of the few places where you could get honest, informative, and well deserved critiques of that shit show.
Now that Trump is in power and earning a great share of fair criticism himself, these people can’t stand that the same approach they loved when Biden was the target is being applied to Trump.
That is what I’m here for, no matter which tribe is in power and making things worse for us, and I’m glad to see Racket get aggressive with it.
I take issue with your broad stroke of us boomers as "boomer team-Trumpers". I believe many just came to understand that Trump was the least worst choice. And "binary thinking"? Really? Isn't that an American problem not tied to any generation? Americans have been flopping from one extreme to the other through my entire life.
I still understand that what made this place great during Biden was honest, informative journalism, and I still look to it for the same thing today. My support of Trump is a choice of hope over hopelessness.
I support mature adults who do things not child adults who bitch about things. I understand that mistakes will be made, and if there ever was a guy to make big ones, it's Donald Trump. However, I think Trump is doing something this country has needed for decades - he's grabbed it by the shirt collar, slapping it's face left and right, while screaming, "wake up, you dumbasses!!"
On the lighter side, my attitude about Trump started changing with one spectacular event: his "I only said that about Rosey O'Donnell!" retort to Megan Kelly at a debate, I believe. I belly laughed so freaking hard! I think it was the spark for me.
Not so sure about that "boomer team-Trumpers" remark, but agree with the rest of your comment.
As a boomer who voted for Trump 3 times, but who has never hesitated to blast him when he screws up (which happens frequently), I'd just like to say that Trump was the least objectionable choice. We aren't all cultists.
It’s LONG overdue. Kirn’s constant Trump apologia was crack for the ATW Trumpers. With Kirn’s disappearing act, many Taibbi subscribers are suffering from withdrawal and are turning on him.
The criticism that ‘team Trumpers’ can’t stand the heat is spot on. The idea that they would have found anything to ruffle their feathers until Matt’s Walden Pond moment is patently false. They found a comfortable home here as Matt not only turned a blind eye to the most corrupt administration in US history but cheered them on, often in giddy fashion, along with
Its not. Its about ridding the world of the most destabilizing actor in our times. Trump sees the big picture -- he set the ground-work with the Abraham Accords, providing the US with Arab allies in the Middle East. The second step was getting rid of Maduro and allowing the US to control Venezuela's oil. He's now taking out the Middle Eastern trash, meaning Iranian weapons and weapons systems, and the military leadership. This is a very big-picture plan that was carefully crafted and skillfully executed. That's why you see all military experts just marveling at the process and results.
Saying “all military experts marvel at the process and results” is not only objectively and easily proven false, it’s so absurd and jingoistic that only a sub 80 IQ retard or a literal psychotic person could believe it.
These things were also true of the war in Iraq. It caused civil war, massive instability and, coupled with the diplomacy of the Obama administration, a huge Shiite resurgence and an empowered Iran. The West has been playing Islamist wack-a-mole since the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This has had predictably bad results. I really hope you’re right. I hope Iran’s liberal secularists rise from under the boot of the Ayatollahs and that Trump doesn’t forget them once he screws the PRC out of a ready supply of oil. We allegedly intervened to save protestors. There are all sorts of ways this could become a disaster. For what it’s worth, Al Jazeera agrees with you on the military execution. The article didn’t include their prediction for the final outcome. Do you agree that Panglossian benefit of the doubt is unwarranted? The line between Trump acting batshit crazy and being batshit crazy is getting pretty faint.
I see the Iraq war very differently from this one for many reasons, including the international coalition building, the clear decision to occupy from the beginning, and the whole regime change doctrine. But your points about Islamist wack-a-mole are absolutely valid. Still I think that the population in Iran is very different from Iraq and they are ready to take control. The Iranians are more educated and sophisticated than the Iraqis and have a transitional leader in Pavlavi who seems to be a choice agreeable to the Iranian people. Also the US and Israel have done far-more to deplete the leadership of Iran, making a transition easier. Certainly none of this will be easy or a given and many, many things can go wrong, but its as good an opportunity to radically change a terroristic nation into a good world citizen as we've ever seen.
I was only comparing the efficiency of the military in the initial stages. Figured you were aware of the cultural / historical differences, Iraq being created by Great Britain via League of Nations mandate etc. Don’t want to type a treatise in a reader comment. But secularization, even with backing by Muslim governments, is risky. Witness the failure of Kamal Ataturk in Turkey and the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Even with allies of this magnitude the Islamists remained in power. Like I said, I hope you’re right. Even if you are, Matt’s point about Trump’s No More Wars campaign guff is valid. If your 4D chess angle is even a little bit correct, we can assume regime change in Iran was conceived and planned well in advance.
Trump’s in bad company. The Neocons are owned by AIPAC and the oil, gas and defense industries. They’re salivating for death, blood, chaos, destruction and profits! $$$$$
Gee, well, for starters, it's not a crazy war, and only a very crazy person could say it is—let alone do so just to smuggle in a tawdry, circular, loaded defense of the truly crazy claim that this war is "about Trump."
The war so far has been extremely competently and surgically conducted, with a scope and commitment that have been extremely measured, against an enemy that, contrary to your tawdry claim that it's "about Trump," has provided a long list of war justifications over 47 years, including:
• funding, planning and otherwise aiding various unjust wars, untold terrorist acts and pernicious propaganda campaigns around the world;
• using its oil exports and infrastructure to prop up and empower China and other authoritarian, anti-American regimes;
• repeatedly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, which would have grown its capacity for treachery and misery by a near-infinite amount simply in the ability to threaten the weapons' deployment, let alone in actually deploying them; and, oh yeah,
• slaughtering, raping, silencing and in virtually every way possible subjugating Iranians, especially women and girls.
But hey, you'd know all of that if you were even remotely worthy of the title "journalist," so the expectation that you will suddenly acknowledge any of these obvious realities is extremely low.
China is not anti-American. Their prosperity depends on our consumers. Their willingness to host manufacturing facilities our billionaire class outsourced in return for cheap labor, thus screwing our own workers, speaks for itself. We created the China "monster." It has made OUR rich even richer. And as for China's alleged authoritarianism, I believe nations have a right to choose the form of government that works for them. The new CCP has worked very well for the Chinese people.
Russia is less authoritarian than China. This is as much because of cultural differences as anything else. Putin enjoys a ridiculously high approval rating and keeps getting re-elected because he, like the CCP, has raised Russians' standard of living and provided the stability that had been shattered by the 1989 collapse and, in particular, by the invasion of Western capitalists whose plundering of formerly state-owned assets Putin abruptly halted. He even managed to claw back much of it. He did not line his pockets in doing so, but created state-owned entities like Gasprom whose profits go to the people.
Even if he were lining his pockets, the man has no time to enjoy his wealth. He is driven by duty and lives at his office in the Kremlin, which is why Trump's attempt to kill him at his country home failed.
I noticed you listed "selling oil" to China (a nation we do massive trade with) as a justification for a full scale war against another nation, and you seemed to do this in all seriousness without any sense of shame or irony.
Of course this war is about Trump. Just like the Ukraine war is also now about Trump. Trump is prosecuting the Ukraine war simply as a negotiating position in order to end the war.
None of this was ever pacifism. Or was ever about pacifism.
As you said on one of the podcasts here. If you didn't know Trump was going after Iran, you weren't paying attention. And Trump has been on this long before his Soleimani love tap. Not to excuse Trump's 'no new wars' BS and those that believed it--but you had a damn good point.
One of Trump's powers is to get everyone to confess--and one big confession is that the number of pacifists may be even smaller than their influence.
As an introvert (although a very loud and obnoxious one) the primal idea of "Live and Leave Alone" makes more than sense--and yet ultimately it is just hiding. The idea that no action is always the moral course is the hopeful prayer of the napping.
I don't know the right answers about good and evil even between my own four walls--much less the world, but there is an appropriate quote:
Just turn down the volume on your microphone. You can't win a debate by talking louder then Matt, whose speaking ability does not match his writing ability.
You supported Trump. This war is YOUR fault. Every death is on YOUR head and the head of every Trump voter. Anyone could have seen what a violent incompetent evil monster Donald Trump was but you preferred a rapist to a woman, and you have the gall to act surprised! You just want to escape responsibility for your own actions like every other male on this planet.
Kamala was selected by the establishment, not elected by the people. That’s not democracy. Also the democrats support male rapists in female prisons. Women are being raped and impregnated. Trump was the only option.
You think the Vice President isn’t elected? Had Biden died in office she would have become President. You’re just a Trumper looking for an excuse for hating women.
Biden didn’t die. He dropped out and there should have been an open vote for Kamala to be elected by the people or a least chosen by the party. You support male rapists in female prisons, taking rights away from women, forcing girls to change in locker rooms with grown men; you hate women. You can’t even define what a woman is.
When your comment on an article starts with "I confess I didn't read the article..." the comment should also end there. Right there, not another word. Because who cares?Why would anyone continue to be interested in your thoughts when you didn't even have the commitment to read a short article?
This is an interesting point. It also wasn’t consequence free. Even if you were to argue it wasn’t as globally apocalyptic as this war, it certainly had dire consequences for the region and Americans.
Exactly, Neo. That fact alone should be very telling. While I understand Matt’s concerns and feelings on this, I wonder what his responses would be to others in his space such as Jeff Childers of the Coffee and Covid newsletter? A podcast style debate would be very interesting.
A debate with Childers would be great, especially as he is a lawyer and Matt frequently cites having spoken with tons of lawyers.
However, on this particular topic, a debate with Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Maral Salmassi would be good. Either is positioned to put his ‘consequence free’ assertion for Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as the current Iranian conflict, in a substantive context, vis a vis the consequences for women and society in general.
China and Russia are both sending weapons, and Russia's help with intelligence has been invaluable. I think we'll see more and more countries taking Iran's side as their constituents—the ones who feel the pain—figure out that the U.S. invasion gave Iran no other option than to close the Strait of Hormuz. People don't really care how other nations govern themselves. They DO care about their own financial well-being. Politicians care to the extent their corporate sponsors tell them to care and the oil cartel, too, will eventually sour on this war once they realize Iran's oil isn't going to belong to them any time soon.
Right?! I started reading thinking I was going to read a calming piece. Who could enjoy peace after that?! I was ready to break something, hit someone or scream.
And yet, it's not just a rant about Trump. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the idea of there being serious issues with both Trump AND his opposition, both of which Matt talks about in this very short piece. I have to say, I agree with the headline and would say many here should take it to heart. For myself, I can easily see the problems Trump has created as well as those the Dems and far left have created (and keep trying to bring back). I'd say it's not a competition, but it clearly is, at least in this comment section. I'm going outside now.
I can’t shake the perception that years of progressives tweeting and writing hit pieces based on some version of “What Happened to Matt Taibbi?” got to him enough that he felt compelled to completely change like everything. It’s a huge bummer.
Trump IS destroying civilization through his antivaxx policies, destruction of public health, coal and fossil fuel endorsements, and of course the fact that he’s started World War III. If you don’t see this, you are either a liar or an idiot. Or both.
With all due respect, Karen (and I have precious little for your comment), if you actually imagine that an "uber-woke-junior-high-school-debate-team-level" comment such as this one, showing, yes, a LITERALLY breathtaking absence of critical thinking and grasp of empirical facts, is going to win many hearts and minds here, I want some of what you're smoking.
It's crystal-clear where you get your news. When are you going to wake up to the fact that the CNNs, MSNOWs, NYTS, WaPos and NPRs of the world are playing you, badly? Do I love everything our President does? Hell, no. Do I think he's light-years better than what we've had in the recent past? Hell, yes.
If you think the decaying bigot soiling the Oval Office is better than any President at all, you are a damned fool and you bear responsibility for every death, every bit of destruction, and every catastrophe he causes.
So does that mean you, I mean, YOU, are totally responsible for every death in Afghanistan, for every woman locked at home, forbidden to speak, every death in Ukraine as Biden invited Ruasian into try a "small incursion".
Every person killed by illegal immigrants invited in by Biden, who now, leftist pols blame Trump for when they won't hold or inform the feds criminal immigrants.
LOL -- there you are again ... you have NO idea as to my thinking on this matter. I have only responded to your behavior. You have so exposed yourself to everyone so as to be laughable in your lashing out. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest always comes to mind!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL Repeating yourself -- your SOP, lashing out w words again, without any iota of who I am!!! I leave you w this -- Patanjali says: "... watch your words, for your words become your deeds; watch your deeds, for your deeds become your character; watch your character, for your character becomes your destiny." ✌🏻
No doubt you would scream and holler with indignant rage if the other team spent $200 billion (and more) on environmental issues instead of the bombs that Trump would hurl at Israel’s targets.
Iran has been America's target ever since they declared us their sworn enemy, took our embassy, took our people, planned and funded terrorist attacks and wars against us and our allies (most notoriously the Middle East's only seat of democratic civil society, Israel), backed authoritarian anti-American regimes around the world, and repeatedly tried to develop nuclear weapons in order to be able to hold the entire world hostage to its fundamentalist Islamist agenda.
And if you'd said "$200 billion (and more) on political largesse paid for by robbing the taxpayer while masquerading as environmental benefit," you'd at least have more credibility, albeit still zero sense.
No, the JCPOA would have expired, and was in no way comprehensive. It was as someone else said, Obama telling Iran "You can have nukes, but after I'm no longer president"
Iran was still working on nukes the whole time. They also cheated.
Renewing the deal that allowed Iran to continue funding terrorism in the Middle East and continue their ballistic missile and nuke programs sounds like a huge win. If you're braindead.
There is no such thing as an illegal war of aggression. There is war. Most agree it was a long time coming and that it had to happen eventually. Only a small group actually believe this chatter would prevent them from ever producing bombs.
As a canadian i voted for no one in your elections.
So there is that.
But if i was an american and my choice was between "fuckhead" and the democrat party represented by the twit Harris (4 more years of ottopen), i'm marking fuckhead all day long.
Exactly, Vet nor. Should we behave like the EU instead, and only begin to offer assistance when missiles were fired at Diego Garcia, thereby demonstrating that Iran can hit a lot of European countries? Problem is that the EU countries have decimated their militaries and sent a lot of their supplies to Ukraine, in addition to not maintaining their ships, etc. If the US didn’t help them, what would they do or maybe it’s because the US has helped them so much over so many years that their military situation has become the way that it is? France has not been an example of military leadership since Napoleon’s early days, but at least they were the first to offer assistance, and GB apparently has something like 13-15 frigates and destroyers left in its navy and some are not in the best shape. This is the lowest level since the 1600s. Only a few ships are operational at any given time.
Coming from they guy who says the number of protestors murdered by the regime is made up. I believe you less than we should believe the ayatollahs. Please, by all means, continue simping for the terrorist regime.
The 30,000 number is made up, the agency which investigated confirmed 5,500 roughly. Maybe they missed the actual total by 100% that would still be 11,000 which is two thirds less than the number you people constantly regurgitate, although I’ve seen more brazen propagandists claim the number is as high as 50,000 to 60,000.
Are you denying the Islamist terrorist regime killed 60,000 innocent Iranians?
This is the left, everyone. They hate war and love murderous dictators, even when they gun down unarmed protesters. The reason can be found on the last page of the Communist Manifesto.
Why were you not calling for the downfall of the Israeli regime when they slaughtered hundreds and maimed thousands of peaceful Palestinians during the “Right to Return” March where their only crime was approaching the Israeli militarized prison border and trying to leave Gaza?
Is it because you support the Jews slaughtering innocent Muslim goys?
You are losing the debate so you're changing the subject. +20 social credit points from IRGC. Extra +5 points for expressing strong bigotry tendencies.
For any nation choosing to declare war on another.
Forgive me, I'm all stuck in old fashioned notions of the Constitution and the Westphalian system.
Right or wrong, a nation can declare war, like the Russian Empire against the Ottoman Empire in 1877 for its massacre of Christians in the Balkans. The casus belli was protecting fellow Orthodox Christians from massacre in Bulgaria, the consensus is that the true goal was Constantinople and the Bosporus. Sometimes hypocrisy is the glue that holds things together.
This ad hoc aggression is different. Even Alexander II, Tsar and Autocrat of All the Russias, felt the need to declare war.
Trump is only following the path laid down by Obama in Libya, but each time we expand this presidential discretion the easier it becomes to involve us in a military tar baby. Matt is quite correct in being scared shitless. I am too.
You forgot Biden. He was such a kindly old gentleman! Sure he fired citizens en masse for not being willing to be forcibly injected with a novel, liability free medical product that didn’t even prevent transmission. Sure his administration pressured tech companies to wipe millions of dissenters off the internet. But he was basically just a kindly guy who liked ice cream.
That’s not a legitimate comment. Iran started breaking the agreement the day they signed it. I suppose you believed Araghchi last week when he said that Iran purposefully did not develop a missile that could go farther than 2000 kilometers. Only problem is that within a few days of that statement they fired two missiles at Diego Garcia that went almost 4000 miles
The fact that you believe the U.S. government completely uncritically and without so much as a single shred of evidence that Iran launched long range missiles at Diego Garcia is legitimate though?
Where’s your evidence other than claims by the U.S. government?
This administration made no cogent argument that Iran was anywhere near making a nuclear weapon. As a matter of fact intelligence assessments made the opposite argument. This was a war of choice by an impulsive man child who was dragged into this quagmire by Israel. If anything the argument for Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon has been strengthened.
So we are to believe everything Iran tells us when they say we are not refining uranium but not believe them when they say they have enough refined uranium to make 10 to 11 bombs.
I was actually believing our Dear Leader and Israel who had triumphantly declared victory a few months back and assured us they had crippled Iran’s nuclear capability for many years to come. The question, as they say, is: were they lying then, or are they lying now?
It's not up to you to "let" anyone build a nuclear weapon now is it Jethro? If you were going to take that responsibility you probably shouldn't have "let" Israel have them. Or Pakistan. Or North Korea. Or least of all the USA.
But you have no problem with Israel, an ethno-religious state with a long history of ethnic cleansing and seizing land from neighboring countries, possessing a massive nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver those weapons? Without ever signing the non-proliferation treaty, or permitting inspections? Iran did those two things, does not possess nuclear weapons, and hasn't attacked another country in over two hundred years. Beyond Israel, Iran is surrounded by US nuclear weapons, Pakistani, Indian, and Russian nuclear weapons. Yet somehow this many-thousand year civilization, which, again, has not attacked another country in centuries, is supposed to be crushed simply for defending its sovereignty? Take your US/Israeli exceptionalism, and stick it.
We HAD a solution in 2015 but Trump torched it. You and all MAGAts are ignorant bigots, which is why we’re in this mess. This is YOUR fault. No one else. No Democrat did this. We are at the edge of annihilation because bigots like you couldn’t stand to see anyone but an ugly white male in power. The only satisfaction left for me is to watch MAGAts suffer, and I hope you all end up in agony. You destroyed the world and you’re still too bigoted to admit if.
Dude, where is your awareness of the nuclear tipped missiles pointed at all of Europe by a lunatic, suicidal theocracy? Where is your notice of the tens of thousands of Iranians killed by the ayatollah because they voiced opposition or were suspected of opposing their oppression? Come on. Recognize the need to eliminate the crazy people who expect to be given 72 virgins if they kill you, the infidel.
Where are these missiles? The entire US intelligence community, all 17 or however many agencies, says they didn’t exist except in Netanyahu and Mark Levin’s fever dreams. What are you talking about?
Please take your heads out of the sand. Iran just admitted to having 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. They have missiles that can reach London, and just launched one toward Diego Garcia. This is 2+2=4. And these wannabe martyrs hate YOU.
It’s about 6000 km from Iran (a big country so mileages would vary) to London. But notice that the Iranians did not fire any missiles at Diego Garcia until after they had been under attack for more than two weeks. If you are going to go to war against every country that has mid-range missiles, then you have your work cut out for you. Also, they had low grade uranium which was not bomb grade. Nobody with any credibility has said they have “highly enriched” uranium. Did you not listen to Tulsi?
Hegseth and Trump and the rest of this administration said that this capability (what little it was) was annihilated (their words) last summer. So either Hegseth and Trump are liars or Mark Levin is a liar. Take your pick.
Another thing: I am not defending the Iranian regime, just pointing out some inconvenient facts for you. Nobody in any intelligence service in the world has presented any kind of evidence that the Iranians had a bomb. Trump and Netanyahu apparently did this because they can. They thought that the regime would collapse when they kicked the door in, ironically exactly what Hitler said about the USSR in 1941.
Last thing: morality shmorality, who cares that we launched a surprise attack on a country WHILE we were negotiating with them. So what? We took the Dec 7, 1941 Day of Infamy and went a step further.
Well … Aside from the fact that no country will trust us or our motives, and we’ve made it clear that countries without nukes will be attacked at our whim and pleasure (which will lead to more serious proliferation and more headaches for us) … aside from those little issues … we’ve pissed off our Gulf allies, lost three THAAD radars, depleted our missile interceptor stock to dangerously low levels AND we’ve endangered the energy supply of the entire world and further destabilized the Middle East, an amazing achievement.
And Israel won’t be any more secure than it was before we started this thing.
Their uranium was enriched to a level to make a dirty bomb. There is no other use for uranium enrichment at that level. Power generation requires only 3-5% enrichment and they had way more than that. I think all need to concede that there is a lot we civilians without high level intelligence clearance do not know about this situation. The bombs sent to Diego Garcia didn’t contain nuclear materials but were still bombs that could reach many EU countries and do significant damage. This seems to have awakened many European countries to the reality of this threat.
"Also, they had low grade uranium which was not bomb grade."
100% false. They had over 400kg of highly enriched 60% U235 uranium. Enough to make a few gun-type 10kt nukes. Gun-type nukes are too heavy to be carried on ballistic missiles, but they could be carried on trucks, boats, and relatively small commercial airplanes.
Just pointing out some inconvenient facts for you.
Are you saying it wasn’t destroyed and that Trump is lying? And if that material was still available to Iran, why hasn’t anyone in the administration brought this up since Feb 28?
Let’s say you’re right (and Trump lied about the 12-day war) and everything is bullshit … like Trump saying Iran had Tomahawks and they were the ones who blew ip the girls’ school … 🙃 … why do you think they would have used it if nobody attacked them? It’s like their missiles: they have only used them AFTER being attacked by Israel and the US.
I’m not claiming that the Iranian regime isn’t bad and oppressive. But how is the war changing that? They’ll stay in power and be looking for revenge: first of all against domestic opponents. All our actions, our sacrifice of life and treasure will only make things worse.
It's tiresome to deal with people who pivot to another subject, move the goalposts, etc, when their mistakes are pointed out.
You claimed Iran had only low-grade uranium. That could not have been more wrong. Now you provide a link that actually proves your claim was wrong, but to save face, you now say Iran has no uranium at all because Trump said so after the June 2025 strikes. As if I care about what Trump said.
The June 2025 strikes did not destroy uranium, they collapsed the entrances leading to the facility where the enriched uranium was kept. If they actually had obliterated the 400+ kg of 60% U235, that would have been a radiological disaster, so I doubt that was ever their goal.
What was collapsed can be reopened. There was apparently evidence of movement of materials to an even more impenetrable facility in so-called Pickaxe Mountain.
I'm not here to defend the war, or Trump, or criticize the war. I'm just pointing out inconvenient facts.
Where are the missiles? WTF have the been launching at other countries over the last few weeks, wooden arrows? What did they launch at Deigo Garcia? Oh, a medium range missile they claimed they didn't have!
Sorry, by “missiles” I meant ICBMs, in response to the claims of that raving psychopath Mark Levin. Obviously, Iran has lots of ballistic missiles. But they have only fired them in retaliation for being attacked. There were better ways to deal with them than this. War is only a good idea when it actually achieves your political goals, and even then you can lose any moral high ground you might have had.
Tell us more about the better ways to deal with them. Obama gave them billions if they promised to stop enriching uranium. Didn't work. What's the solution in dealing with the world's #1 sponser of state terrorism? Pretty please with sugar on top?
Man that's the thing that gets me. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, three times, four times, shame on me. I was so opposed to the Iraq war, oh yeah, and there was that Afghanistan thing too. They were a waste of money and time. Why did we go to Iraq? "He tried to kill my daddy". Were there any weapons of mass destruction, which we were told time and again were in Sadam's possession? No there were not. And now, there is "enriched weapons grade" uranium hiding in Iran someplace and maybe the marines will have to go and get it. Seems like a horrible shit hole to go down. All while a decent percentage of the world's needed oil supply is held ransom. Now that we're a little bit pregnant, I would really really like to know, as usual, what the exit strategy might be? I've wondered what that exit strategy might be for many years and for many different wars without actually seeing a good exit strategy emerge in any of these conflicts. How could we go in there and not have a plan to keep the straight of hormuz open? While I believe that Iran is no friend of the western world or even their own people, there should have been a better plan. I believe Trump got suckered into this deal thinking he could make a quick end to the Iranian regime not understanding how much support and control that regime actually has. I hope I'm wrong and he is actually playing 4d chess and there's some great move coming which no one else has seen. I voted for trump (this time) hoping he would stop sending money to Ukraine. He did that, sort of, but now? Let's ask for 200Billion for the pentagon. I guess that's peanuts compared to the 39Trillion we owe.
There is something between Obama’s stupid policy and Trump’s even stupider policy. How about continue containing them at minimum cost and NOT taking such a huge risk with the global economy? This was a massive role of the iron dice and it’s not going very well.
So far, the country benefitting most from us creating another new quagmire is China. Is that a good development?
What’s up with pretty please and sugar? Are you seven years old?
It's stunning to me that 53 people and counting agreed with this. Does that mean all 53 are as ignorant as you about what kind of missiles Iran has? Trump says they'll have nukes imminently, so we have to attack.
But you're saying they already exist?? This is very interesting. It's also very untrue. Not just inaccurate, but straight out false.
You seem to be hung up on exact timing. They have the missiles. They are very close to having lots of uranium capable of detonation. The trigger mechanism is simple. They are very close. Better to get rid of this threat before the nukes are in the sky.
Nice to hear this voice from you, Matt. Yes, bears, frogs, trees, clouds, stars all continue to be - *literally* - truly awesome. Nature is a game-changer, a serenity saver. One of the solutions to all of our problems. Perhaps this is what you are pointing to in your line here: "start thinking in terms of different types of answers, i.e. ones politics don’t provide..." Getting outside and away from the screen, away from the soundbytes and brainwashing flooding in 24/7 from any and all positions - there's the ticket.
Really resonated with the bear-to-human wisdom gap. There's a certain clarity that only comes from stepping away from the 24-hour news cycle and remembering that the natural world isn't participating in our madness. Thanks for the reminder to look at the trees instead of the screen for a bit!
You lost me on this one Matt. Iran has been occupied by monsters for 47 years and they finance monsters around the world whose singular aim is to destroy the west, religious freedom, women’s rights etc. etc. You’re right that most of us didn’t want war with anyone and that Trump broke his promise in that regard, but the world is a very different place than it used to be. Islamafication of western countries is happening. Look at the UK. So no, I don’t agree with you on this one.
Their is very little evidence that Iran wants to "destroy the West".
We started the war in 1953 when we engineered a coup, and never even apologized for it. Been tit for tat that since then.
I'll bet we could negotiate away their "Death to America" chants if we did so, and stopped propping up regional governments.
Everything I've ever seen Iran do is react. We are locked in that cycle, but keep perpetuating it.
As for as Islamification of the West -- that wasn't coming from Iran, but will if the country falls into civil war like Iraq, Syria and Libya did with the games we've been playing in other people's yards.
Is there anything in particular you disagree with, in terms of the fact pattern?
To clarify, I first started watching the news during Nightline, very young, as Koppel ticked up the days of the hostage crisis. Formative memory. Been tracking international affairs closely ever since.
As part of that is understanding the interests of others, and their worldviews. After evaluating Iran’s, they’ve struck me as rational actors, cautious about escalation and expressing power within the region through satellites that are aligned with their interests, much as we have done.
Was tricky, as I was trained by the media to see them as a great evil that desires our destruction, but once I dug in, the dynamic seems to be much more complex.
Ditto. I remember the events of 1979 quite well and was once caught up in all the anti-Iran fever along with everyone else. The hostage crisis was deeply humiliating and we all wanted revenge. Still, based on the activities of the Iran regime since then, I don't see them as much of a "threat" to the US at all. It sucks that we have to insist that they are for whatever reason.
And, in 1979 we often treated the "coup talk" that made up the Iranian perspective as exaggerated in the few times where the media actually covered it. We didn't fully understand the extent until later, when some of the documents from Ajax finally came out and confirmed how grounded their anger at foreign interference was.
1953 indeed happened. What also happened was Jimmy Carter and Mitterand flying Khomeini back to Iran from exile. That was repaid by the takeover of our embassy and the holding of hostages. A year later they blew up 241 marines in Beirut. We had done nothing to provoke that whatsoever. Since then it’s been death to America.
That background likely contributed to animosities, but there is more to the story.
We were perceived as combatants in the civil war in Lebanon because we were not a neutral party at that point.
To look at it from the Hezbollah perspective, we were supporting their enemies (including Israel) and had shelled anti-government militias with our navy.
From their perspective, it was not unprovoked, as they perceived us as intervening against them.
Also, important to note that Hezbollah may be aligned with and supported by Iran, but it isn't Iran. Much as many of the forces we've supported over the years aren't 100% operating under our control.
You sound like an apologist for terrorism. Ask the Lebanese people if they preferred the Beirut that was the Paris of the Mediterranean to the bombed out shell of itself it is today.
In your mind we were perceived as supporting their enemies. The part you left out is what made them enemies. Their religion for one and their very existence for two. Sounds like a good justification for bombing civilians from afar. Conflict always has two sides to it. The US chose to support a sovereign state and our only democratic ally in the Middle East. And Iran found this objectionable why?
Without Iran Hezbollah does not exist. Funding. Training and even weapons and advisors.
How would you justify the events of October 7. Be heading rape and murder of completely unarmed civilians. Would that also be just tit for tat.
In the moral lens, war crimes like the Beirut bombing (perfidy) or October 7th (attack on civilians) are wrong. Absolute immorality. I'm not defending them.
But the analytical lens is where conflicts actually get resolved, as a prerequisite for that is understanding and accommodating interests and motivations.
If we purely use the moral lens, it is very difficult to resolve conflicts. They tend to tit-for-tat escalate when concerns are ignored.
Terrorism, as immoral as it is, often emerges in asymmetrical conflicts where one side lacks conventional military power. To say so isn't a justification, but an understanding that it is a recurring pattern in human conflict, rather than one side being "evil".
If China were to occupy Hawaii, and there was no hope to dislodge them via conventional means, I'd expect that some Americans would resort to similar tactics.
That, of course, doesn't make it morally right for them to do so. It would be more moral to, say, put their trust in Gandhiesque civil disobedience.
To get back to Lebanon, the point I'm making is that by 1983 we were no longer a neutral force. We had entered the fight, backing the Lebanese government, and were aligned with Israel.
Your original point was that it was "unprovoked". I'm simply explaining that, from their perspective, it was provoked.
You may not be defending those acts but as I said you are justifying them. Not only that but we were not there to occupy Iran; on the contrary, Iran wanted to export their radical Islamic doctrine outside their borders, so they set up a proxy with IGRC officers, Iranian funding and weapons to expand their influence. Now who's the occupier.
On another note, for you to assume American or any other rational moral people would resort of beheading, rape and worse as a tool to fight is absurd. When it happens let me know
Matt, maybe this won't make a difference to you. No reason it should, I guess, coming from just another subscriber in Online World.
I have this friend - - a really good, longtime friend, great dad, great guy, gentle guy. His long career has put him in places where he sees what very few people see from a military intelligence point of view.
I understand you not liking war, conflagration, unrest, violence. I don't like it, either. And now it appears that Trump is breaking some sacred oath to voters.
That said, I hope you'll reflect deeply on how you might feel hearing on TV, the Internet, or radio that a ballistic missile finally made it to the North American continent well ahead of any schedule the citizenry thought possible. It wouldn't have to be a nuke. Just something that makes a point clearly. I hope you'll think about that. This person, my source, is not a Trump fan at all. He tells me the right calls have been made, without any question. In his opinion. That's as real to me as it is scary.
There is another dozen countries on Earth already in possession of missiles that can reach the North American continent. Yet the US is not at war with them. Consider that.
They may be, they may be not. But your argument, as you presented it above, logically contradicts these facts. Maybe you should qualify it. But it doesn't have the same ring if you do, does it?
Yes, let's not trust them. Not in the least. Sure, they probably have something to do with the relatively comfortable and secure lives we take for granted in the US, but even a stopped clock is right on the button twice a day.
Who do you like for your primary source closest to the action?
Here I am wondering exactly who on this entire planet might have the slightest idea of the possibility of such an event and coming up empty. I'm sure your friend is the guy though.
If Iran were to develop a ballistic missile that could reach the US, would it be less likely to happen now that Iran has been murderously attacked by US and Israel, or now that Iran knows it can not trust negotiations with either party be more likely?
Let's just go straight to logic here: big missiles require big launch sites. Satellite resolutions today are less than 4 inches. GPS accuracy is sub-meter. You tell me.
I long for the stability of bombing Libya and unleashing ISIS throughout the Middle East, installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and paying Iran to make nuclear-bomb fuel as long as they promise not to make nuclear bombs. Good times.
The quality is slipping. I want to get as "close to the farm" when consuming news or well thought out news analysis and Matt historically did a great job with that. The new hires are not off to a good start - they may find their footing - but M. Tracey's addition has been a subtraction.
What I signed up for was investigative journalism and reporting. Not a opinion delivered in a rant. Sorry Matt you made the playground and now don’t like the environment.
I bring massive entertainment value to Racket News, this cannot be denied. (I’m in my back yard kicking my border collie’s herding ball around as I type)
"the U.S. based Human Rights Activists News Agency said it had confirmed 5,549 deaths (killed on Jan 8th and 9th) and is investigating 17,031 more,"- Time magazine 1-25-2026
"As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the country's Ministry of Health told Time"
"...3,117 announced on Jan. 21 by regime hardliners who report directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei"
Sounds like Iran killed a lot of their own people.
1 Now the same people who said every human rights organization on planet earth which reported Israeli crimes against Palestinians are all illegitimate and controlled by nefarious Jew-haters want us to believe those organizations when they report on Iran
2 the 30,000 number is unsubstantiated, the agency only confirmed around 5,500.
There is no mention of how many of these people were armed and shooting at police and military.
How many Americans would Trump thugs have killed if foreign operatives (Mossad bragged about doing this in the Iranian economic protests in January) infiltrated massive crowds of protesters and started both inciting violence as well as actually engaging in violence themselves by shooting at police, ICE, and national guard?
Matt, Iran could not be ignored. Waiting until they dropped the egg on Israel was not really an option. Granted that the endgame is obscure, but then again... if he disclosed the endgame early, he would suffer the same humiliations that the half-wit Obama did. His style is far removed from mine, but I think it's wise to be patient and see where this leads.
It appears to be leading to 2,000 Marines and 3-4,000 82nd Airborne on the ground. Who the fuck wants that? I don't much care if the Israelis and IRGC or whoever may be in charge in Iran want to kill each other but I sure don't want US blood on the ground
Did you consider that we may be taking Kharg Island? I don’t claim to know the plans but neither do most of the commenters here, nor should we. I’m not thrilled with the 82nd airborne going over there unless it’s for that purpose or something similar.
Few focus on the lethality of missiles & drones, especially ... not having paid attention to the Ukrainians effective use of them! Less expensive asymmetrical warfare.
So true. Today I'm seeing a wide array of the number of troops, as many as 50,000 which may include many that are already at the various US bases in the region. In any case, whatever the actual number they are sitting ducks should they be on Kharg Island or other islands nearby..A sad scary time.
Anti-Iransters always want to ignore the fact that we already had a functioning nuclear deal with Iran that had more or less resolved the issue, which Trump shredded in favor of war (preceded by two sneak attacks undertaken during diplomatic negotiations, cowards that Trump and Bibi are).
The "egg" you should be worried about is the one Israel is probably insane enough to lay.
If you think that the Obama deal had any real teeth or had suppressed their pursuit of a nuclear weapon in any fashion, I don't think we are living in the same universe.
Salusa S. Snape - Do you honestly think the “functioning nuclear deal with Iran" will "more or less resolve the issue” any better than the deal Chamberlain made with Hitler at Munich to ensure peace in our time?
Just like Hitler, the mullahs and IRGC believe that treaties are made to be broken. Even more so than just political expediency, a tenet of Islam (Taqiyya) is that lying to nonbelievers is an approved and accepted way to further the cause.
Re" "treaties are made to be broken." Promises too. You could be describing our treatment of Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. How many times did the West agree to stop expanding NATO to the east?
Bonnie B. - Regardless of who did what, when, and to whom , I reiterate: Just like Hitler, the mullahs and IRGC believe that treaties are made to be broken.
That is a misinterpretation of Taqiyya. It's actually a preservation/survival strategy of outwardly hiding/denying one's religious faith solely in times of serious threat (e.g. of violence or death).
TeeJae - If lying about one’s religious faith is no biggie, then lying about anything else should be even less of a problem. Especially by those who mete out, as a tenet of their faith, violence or death to unbelievers.
Well said. 4 weeks in and not much in the way of losses. The world is a better place with someone finally confronting Iran. I didn’t see any alternative myself. As for his campaign promises. So far I don’t see any forever war or a war like loss of life. Intelligence also changes over time. Let’s wait and see before calling someone crazy. Especially our president
They were not going to be dropping any "egg" on Israel unless they were attacked. And why was letting that happen not an option? Very much an option as far as I'm concerned. Probably a lot of other American citizens agree. How about we vote?
Hey Matt, what’s the full story of you and Walter?
I don’t like this new direction. I just don’t get what you are doing now? Before, your reporting had a coherence, from when I started following you in the Twitter files. Now, with this Go Outside business. A Trump rant is not the news I signed up for. I signed up for more thoughtful takes, more research and investigation, from a serious reporter. You did all of that so well. But now you’re losing me.
If you’re not sure, DaveL, then you may want to fact check, do your own research, until you feel better about the information. I’ve done that with Jeff Childers over the years and while he’s not perfect ( who is?), he has an excellent track record, IMHO. I’m going to go with Jeff’s take on things, as a general rule.
I think that the source speaks for itself. Highly reactionary, not "thoughtful" at all, made for people who want their predilections confirmed. It's entertaining to be sure, but not reality based at all.
You're the one whining like a crybaby (see above) and responding with ad hominems. I'm going outside now. Enjoy your pity party.
Exactly! The source is bad and "reactionary"!! And therefore, wrong and not "reality based at all" according to simple logic!!! People who disagree are "responding with ad hominems" lol. Another golden, 100% irony-free comment.
Ok, "Go outside" was not a headline that I expected to front a big anti-Trump rant.
I would have expected it to be an editorial about not getting too worked up about Trump or anti-Trump or whatever.
Go outside, Matt!
I confess I didn't read the article but I wholeheartedly agree with the Headline. Even Matt still can't avoid having everything ultimately be about Trump, eh? Too bad Walter didn't succeed in breaking him of that.
Yes the war Trump launched in Iran has nothing to do with Trump.
Trump cultists and Israel-firsters have no ability to recognize their own faults.
Literally every accusation you level at others applies to you.
I accuse others of supporting an unjustified war.
This applies to me?
Interesting.
“Trump cultists and Israel-firsters have no ability to recognize their own faults,” you said, in your millionth fit of mislabeling and projection.
“Literally every accusation”
Do you have a dollar for Matt’s word-jar?
What is unjust about denying a radical Islamic theocratic terrorist regime from ever having access to nuclear weapons with which to further prosecute terrorizing the world? I'm waiting.
He's a douchie troll.
Oh, I know, though that isn’t the half of it. And with Matt’s new recklessness, Dolgin is a pig in shit.
Yes, Matt is to blame. BAD MATT! Force Walter Kirn back onto the show at gunpoint and tell me you want to rape the Ayatollah!
That selfie you took.... golden.
Only people of culture can identify who my PFP is and what it is superimposed on.
It's a picture of his douche bag ....
To me it's all pretty simple in more of a Christian/Jew/Muslim framing. This is enough to keep the globe fighting for another few decades at least. We're only a few thousand years into this feud. This is the foundation to it all. But American Presidents have a vote in that too.
Muslims have been working on obeying God’s command to conquer the world for 14 centuries now, so the fighting may go on longer than a few decades.
This comment by Matt is a little embarrassing: “The whole point of being the strongest nation, though, is that we shouldn’t need 4d chess moves or madness in methods. We can just stay home and make waffles …”
Neglecting the world is a good way to make sure you don’t stay the strongest nation.
Who's the Christian?
As though the opposition does. Make me laugh.
The crazy war Trump just launched isn’t “about Trump”? Explain. Enlighten us.
Glad to see you taking this element on. This Substack became a haven for boomer team-Trumpers with a binary thinking problem.
They do not seem to realize that what made this place great during the Biden term was that it was one of the few places where you could get honest, informative, and well deserved critiques of that shit show.
Now that Trump is in power and earning a great share of fair criticism himself, these people can’t stand that the same approach they loved when Biden was the target is being applied to Trump.
That is what I’m here for, no matter which tribe is in power and making things worse for us, and I’m glad to see Racket get aggressive with it.
What you are saying applies to all political partisans; one's generation has nothing to do with it.
I take issue with your broad stroke of us boomers as "boomer team-Trumpers". I believe many just came to understand that Trump was the least worst choice. And "binary thinking"? Really? Isn't that an American problem not tied to any generation? Americans have been flopping from one extreme to the other through my entire life.
I still understand that what made this place great during Biden was honest, informative journalism, and I still look to it for the same thing today. My support of Trump is a choice of hope over hopelessness.
I support mature adults who do things not child adults who bitch about things. I understand that mistakes will be made, and if there ever was a guy to make big ones, it's Donald Trump. However, I think Trump is doing something this country has needed for decades - he's grabbed it by the shirt collar, slapping it's face left and right, while screaming, "wake up, you dumbasses!!"
On the lighter side, my attitude about Trump started changing with one spectacular event: his "I only said that about Rosey O'Donnell!" retort to Megan Kelly at a debate, I believe. I belly laughed so freaking hard! I think it was the spark for me.
Trump is hilarious.
Not so sure about that "boomer team-Trumpers" remark, but agree with the rest of your comment.
As a boomer who voted for Trump 3 times, but who has never hesitated to blast him when he screws up (which happens frequently), I'd just like to say that Trump was the least objectionable choice. We aren't all cultists.
You're one of the "good ones" BookWench ;)
It’s LONG overdue. Kirn’s constant Trump apologia was crack for the ATW Trumpers. With Kirn’s disappearing act, many Taibbi subscribers are suffering from withdrawal and are turning on him.
Kirn snapped at me on X yesterday over a comment on Trump pushing his “good luck.” I lost all respect for him.
Chad? Your parents named you after those little paper dots that cost someone an election?
Hell to the yes, Chad. Exactly.
The criticism that ‘team Trumpers’ can’t stand the heat is spot on. The idea that they would have found anything to ruffle their feathers until Matt’s Walden Pond moment is patently false. They found a comfortable home here as Matt not only turned a blind eye to the most corrupt administration in US history but cheered them on, often in giddy fashion, along with
MAGA pal Walter Kirn.
Top comment material
"This Substack became a haven for boomer team-Trumpers with a binary thinking problem."
Exactly. Unlike my chosen in-group, my chosen out-group can only see things in the binary.
All group identity is intellectual and moral suicide--but for god's sake, political partisans take that suicide as a social media challenge.
It's like conjoined twins who can't decide whether they want to beat each other senseless or fuck each other to death.
Me too. He’s worthy of skepticism now. He earned it.
Its not. Its about ridding the world of the most destabilizing actor in our times. Trump sees the big picture -- he set the ground-work with the Abraham Accords, providing the US with Arab allies in the Middle East. The second step was getting rid of Maduro and allowing the US to control Venezuela's oil. He's now taking out the Middle Eastern trash, meaning Iranian weapons and weapons systems, and the military leadership. This is a very big-picture plan that was carefully crafted and skillfully executed. That's why you see all military experts just marveling at the process and results.
You are delusional.
I disagree = you are delusional
Alrighty then.
Saying “all military experts marvel at the process and results” is not only objectively and easily proven false, it’s so absurd and jingoistic that only a sub 80 IQ retard or a literal psychotic person could believe it.
Then, to say it in public? Delusional on crack.
Truly. Unfortunately these maniacs are driving the bus.
At least that's what we hope. Hope springs eternal.
These things were also true of the war in Iraq. It caused civil war, massive instability and, coupled with the diplomacy of the Obama administration, a huge Shiite resurgence and an empowered Iran. The West has been playing Islamist wack-a-mole since the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This has had predictably bad results. I really hope you’re right. I hope Iran’s liberal secularists rise from under the boot of the Ayatollahs and that Trump doesn’t forget them once he screws the PRC out of a ready supply of oil. We allegedly intervened to save protestors. There are all sorts of ways this could become a disaster. For what it’s worth, Al Jazeera agrees with you on the military execution. The article didn’t include their prediction for the final outcome. Do you agree that Panglossian benefit of the doubt is unwarranted? The line between Trump acting batshit crazy and being batshit crazy is getting pretty faint.
I see the Iraq war very differently from this one for many reasons, including the international coalition building, the clear decision to occupy from the beginning, and the whole regime change doctrine. But your points about Islamist wack-a-mole are absolutely valid. Still I think that the population in Iran is very different from Iraq and they are ready to take control. The Iranians are more educated and sophisticated than the Iraqis and have a transitional leader in Pavlavi who seems to be a choice agreeable to the Iranian people. Also the US and Israel have done far-more to deplete the leadership of Iran, making a transition easier. Certainly none of this will be easy or a given and many, many things can go wrong, but its as good an opportunity to radically change a terroristic nation into a good world citizen as we've ever seen.
I was only comparing the efficiency of the military in the initial stages. Figured you were aware of the cultural / historical differences, Iraq being created by Great Britain via League of Nations mandate etc. Don’t want to type a treatise in a reader comment. But secularization, even with backing by Muslim governments, is risky. Witness the failure of Kamal Ataturk in Turkey and the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Even with allies of this magnitude the Islamists remained in power. Like I said, I hope you’re right. Even if you are, Matt’s point about Trump’s No More Wars campaign guff is valid. If your 4D chess angle is even a little bit correct, we can assume regime change in Iran was conceived and planned well in advance.
Trump’s in bad company. The Neocons are owned by AIPAC and the oil, gas and defense industries. They’re salivating for death, blood, chaos, destruction and profits! $$$$$
When are you enlisting in the military?
Gee, well, for starters, it's not a crazy war, and only a very crazy person could say it is—let alone do so just to smuggle in a tawdry, circular, loaded defense of the truly crazy claim that this war is "about Trump."
The war so far has been extremely competently and surgically conducted, with a scope and commitment that have been extremely measured, against an enemy that, contrary to your tawdry claim that it's "about Trump," has provided a long list of war justifications over 47 years, including:
• funding, planning and otherwise aiding various unjust wars, untold terrorist acts and pernicious propaganda campaigns around the world;
• using its oil exports and infrastructure to prop up and empower China and other authoritarian, anti-American regimes;
• repeatedly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, which would have grown its capacity for treachery and misery by a near-infinite amount simply in the ability to threaten the weapons' deployment, let alone in actually deploying them; and, oh yeah,
• slaughtering, raping, silencing and in virtually every way possible subjugating Iranians, especially women and girls.
But hey, you'd know all of that if you were even remotely worthy of the title "journalist," so the expectation that you will suddenly acknowledge any of these obvious realities is extremely low.
Is the main signal that this war has been “extremely competently conducted” our 10+ blown up irreplaceable radar systems in the region?
China is not anti-American. Their prosperity depends on our consumers. Their willingness to host manufacturing facilities our billionaire class outsourced in return for cheap labor, thus screwing our own workers, speaks for itself. We created the China "monster." It has made OUR rich even richer. And as for China's alleged authoritarianism, I believe nations have a right to choose the form of government that works for them. The new CCP has worked very well for the Chinese people.
Russia is less authoritarian than China. This is as much because of cultural differences as anything else. Putin enjoys a ridiculously high approval rating and keeps getting re-elected because he, like the CCP, has raised Russians' standard of living and provided the stability that had been shattered by the 1989 collapse and, in particular, by the invasion of Western capitalists whose plundering of formerly state-owned assets Putin abruptly halted. He even managed to claw back much of it. He did not line his pockets in doing so, but created state-owned entities like Gasprom whose profits go to the people.
Even if he were lining his pockets, the man has no time to enjoy his wealth. He is driven by duty and lives at his office in the Kremlin, which is why Trump's attempt to kill him at his country home failed.
I noticed you listed "selling oil" to China (a nation we do massive trade with) as a justification for a full scale war against another nation, and you seemed to do this in all seriousness without any sense of shame or irony.
What about the 175 school girls murdered by a Tomahawk missle? Not very surgical.
MICHAEL TRACEY FROM THE TOP ROPE!!!
With the infamous Ram Jam!
Of course this war is about Trump. Just like the Ukraine war is also now about Trump. Trump is prosecuting the Ukraine war simply as a negotiating position in order to end the war.
None of this was ever pacifism. Or was ever about pacifism.
As you said on one of the podcasts here. If you didn't know Trump was going after Iran, you weren't paying attention. And Trump has been on this long before his Soleimani love tap. Not to excuse Trump's 'no new wars' BS and those that believed it--but you had a damn good point.
One of Trump's powers is to get everyone to confess--and one big confession is that the number of pacifists may be even smaller than their influence.
As an introvert (although a very loud and obnoxious one) the primal idea of "Live and Leave Alone" makes more than sense--and yet ultimately it is just hiding. The idea that no action is always the moral course is the hopeful prayer of the napping.
I don't know the right answers about good and evil even between my own four walls--much less the world, but there is an appropriate quote:
Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun.
edit: god>good
Just turn down the volume on your microphone. You can't win a debate by talking louder then Matt, whose speaking ability does not match his writing ability.
You supported Trump. This war is YOUR fault. Every death is on YOUR head and the head of every Trump voter. Anyone could have seen what a violent incompetent evil monster Donald Trump was but you preferred a rapist to a woman, and you have the gall to act surprised! You just want to escape responsibility for your own actions like every other male on this planet.
Start with following Matt's advice. After that, get back on your meds.
--Everyone
Thanks, Scott!
"She" keeps getting loose!
Kamala was selected by the establishment, not elected by the people. That’s not democracy. Also the democrats support male rapists in female prisons. Women are being raped and impregnated. Trump was the only option.
You think the Vice President isn’t elected? Had Biden died in office she would have become President. You’re just a Trumper looking for an excuse for hating women.
Biden didn’t die. He dropped out and there should have been an open vote for Kamala to be elected by the people or a least chosen by the party. You support male rapists in female prisons, taking rights away from women, forcing girls to change in locker rooms with grown men; you hate women. You can’t even define what a woman is.
When your comment on an article starts with "I confess I didn't read the article..." the comment should also end there. Right there, not another word. Because who cares?Why would anyone continue to be interested in your thoughts when you didn't even have the commitment to read a short article?
Trump is currently the president, and he and his people have gotten us into yet another Middle East war, so yeah, this IS about Trump.
Trump’s a pretty important person these days.
“and not the unlosable, consequence-free type preferred by preening faux-toughs like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush”
Are you off your damn rocker, Matt? The 20 plus year Iraq/Afghanistan debacle was unlosable?
This is an interesting point. It also wasn’t consequence free. Even if you were to argue it wasn’t as globally apocalyptic as this war, it certainly had dire consequences for the region and Americans.
Globally apocalyptic? Who is joining the battle on Iran’s side?
Exactly, Neo. That fact alone should be very telling. While I understand Matt’s concerns and feelings on this, I wonder what his responses would be to others in his space such as Jeff Childers of the Coffee and Covid newsletter? A podcast style debate would be very interesting.
A debate with Childers would be great, especially as he is a lawyer and Matt frequently cites having spoken with tons of lawyers.
However, on this particular topic, a debate with Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Maral Salmassi would be good. Either is positioned to put his ‘consequence free’ assertion for Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as the current Iranian conflict, in a substantive context, vis a vis the consequences for women and society in general.
China and Russia are both sending weapons, and Russia's help with intelligence has been invaluable. I think we'll see more and more countries taking Iran's side as their constituents—the ones who feel the pain—figure out that the U.S. invasion gave Iran no other option than to close the Strait of Hormuz. People don't really care how other nations govern themselves. They DO care about their own financial well-being. Politicians care to the extent their corporate sponsors tell them to care and the oil cartel, too, will eventually sour on this war once they realize Iran's oil isn't going to belong to them any time soon.
Right?! I started reading thinking I was going to read a calming piece. Who could enjoy peace after that?! I was ready to break something, hit someone or scream.
Don’t get upset about launching a war. Trust the plan. Obey your masters.
You're out of hay. No more strawmen.
This is "no takes" Taibbi
Not only Matt but many of the commentators too
And yet, it's not just a rant about Trump. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the idea of there being serious issues with both Trump AND his opposition, both of which Matt talks about in this very short piece. I have to say, I agree with the headline and would say many here should take it to heart. For myself, I can easily see the problems Trump has created as well as those the Dems and far left have created (and keep trying to bring back). I'd say it's not a competition, but it clearly is, at least in this comment section. I'm going outside now.
I think those of us who disobey the mandate to take a side are a distinct minority.
I can’t shake the perception that years of progressives tweeting and writing hit pieces based on some version of “What Happened to Matt Taibbi?” got to him enough that he felt compelled to completely change like everything. It’s a huge bummer.
Trump is destroying human civilization. That is DEFINITELY something to get worked up over, asshole.
"Trump is destroying human civilization." My god, the stupidity, but then you're who Matt's courting now. 🤦
The aptly named Karen hates Matt too. I'm not sure who his target subscriber is now.
Oh, not at all.
Karen the Perpetually Pissed off Feminist has been haunting Matt's comment section for years.
I wouldn't exactly say that Matt is "courting" her.
Trump IS destroying civilization through his antivaxx policies, destruction of public health, coal and fossil fuel endorsements, and of course the fact that he’s started World War III. If you don’t see this, you are either a liar or an idiot. Or both.
With all due respect, Karen (and I have precious little for your comment), if you actually imagine that an "uber-woke-junior-high-school-debate-team-level" comment such as this one, showing, yes, a LITERALLY breathtaking absence of critical thinking and grasp of empirical facts, is going to win many hearts and minds here, I want some of what you're smoking.
It's crystal-clear where you get your news. When are you going to wake up to the fact that the CNNs, MSNOWs, NYTS, WaPos and NPRs of the world are playing you, badly? Do I love everything our President does? Hell, no. Do I think he's light-years better than what we've had in the recent past? Hell, yes.
If you think the decaying bigot soiling the Oval Office is better than any President at all, you are a damned fool and you bear responsibility for every death, every bit of destruction, and every catastrophe he causes.
So does that mean you, I mean, YOU, are totally responsible for every death in Afghanistan, for every woman locked at home, forbidden to speak, every death in Ukraine as Biden invited Ruasian into try a "small incursion".
Every person killed by illegal immigrants invited in by Biden, who now, leftist pols blame Trump for when they won't hold or inform the feds criminal immigrants.
The chaos is all on you.
You are aptly named.
Look out!! Trump's right behind you!
"Dfdibd^skjbd@! Kd jdjdjk^jdndj! Wfb*dd+ fkdkjddfj!!!"—Karen, March 24, 2026
You are like all MAGAts, both stupid and evil. The ONLY reason anyone ever supported Trump was because that person is an ignorant bigot.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Excellent work!
How many cats do you have? Be honest.
You should ask for the manager.
Now you are just name calling like any good feminist...
The Shit God you worship is starting WWIII and committing war crimes. You deserve so much worse than just insults.
LOL -- there you are again ... you have NO idea as to my thinking on this matter. I have only responded to your behavior. You have so exposed yourself to everyone so as to be laughable in your lashing out. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest always comes to mind!
You’re still a Trumper, which means you’re a bigoted idiot.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL Repeating yourself -- your SOP, lashing out w words again, without any iota of who I am!!! I leave you w this -- Patanjali says: "... watch your words, for your words become your deeds; watch your deeds, for your deeds become your character; watch your character, for your character becomes your destiny." ✌🏻
Well named
Wahhh!!
No doubt you would scream and holler with indignant rage if the other team spent $200 billion (and more) on environmental issues instead of the bombs that Trump would hurl at Israel’s targets.
Iran has been America's target ever since they declared us their sworn enemy, took our embassy, took our people, planned and funded terrorist attacks and wars against us and our allies (most notoriously the Middle East's only seat of democratic civil society, Israel), backed authoritarian anti-American regimes around the world, and repeatedly tried to develop nuclear weapons in order to be able to hold the entire world hostage to its fundamentalist Islamist agenda.
And if you'd said "$200 billion (and more) on political largesse paid for by robbing the taxpayer while masquerading as environmental benefit," you'd at least have more credibility, albeit still zero sense.
So your answer is Yes!
Here’s to those who think letting Iran build a nuclear weapon and missiles to deliver them is an idea somehow opposed to war.
We had that stopped with the JCPOA Trump threw out because it was associated with Obama.
No, the JCPOA would have expired, and was in no way comprehensive. It was as someone else said, Obama telling Iran "You can have nukes, but after I'm no longer president"
Iran was still working on nukes the whole time. They also cheated.
Trump had the option to renew the deal and eliminate the sunset provision but instead he pulled out and launched an illegal war of aggression.
Renewing the deal that allowed Iran to continue funding terrorism in the Middle East and continue their ballistic missile and nuke programs sounds like a huge win. If you're braindead.
There is no such thing as an illegal war of aggression. There is war. Most agree it was a long time coming and that it had to happen eventually. Only a small group actually believe this chatter would prevent them from ever producing bombs.
No, Pat. Most are OPPOSED to this UNNECESSARY war of choice.
That’s, like, your opinion man.
I guess you're the Dude now?
War is war
You win or you lose.
Whining about "illegal" is for losers.
As a canadian i voted for no one in your elections.
So there is that.
But if i was an american and my choice was between "fuckhead" and the democrat party represented by the twit Harris (4 more years of ottopen), i'm marking fuckhead all day long.
What would be the point of renewing a deal we knew the Iranians were ignoring?
Putting your head in the sand won't protect your *ss when they start pointing missiles at you.
Exactly, Vet nor. Should we behave like the EU instead, and only begin to offer assistance when missiles were fired at Diego Garcia, thereby demonstrating that Iran can hit a lot of European countries? Problem is that the EU countries have decimated their militaries and sent a lot of their supplies to Ukraine, in addition to not maintaining their ships, etc. If the US didn’t help them, what would they do or maybe it’s because the US has helped them so much over so many years that their military situation has become the way that it is? France has not been an example of military leadership since Napoleon’s early days, but at least they were the first to offer assistance, and GB apparently has something like 13-15 frigates and destroyers left in its navy and some are not in the best shape. This is the lowest level since the 1600s. Only a few ships are operational at any given time.
That's why you choose to commit to a treaty. It's not Iran's fault that America is run by the likes of Lindsey Graham.
America is run by Lindsey graham. As does aoc. Ffs dude, is this all you have?
Coming from they guy who says the number of protestors murdered by the regime is made up. I believe you less than we should believe the ayatollahs. Please, by all means, continue simping for the terrorist regime.
You mean... the regime that opened this war by blowing up a couple hundred children? THAT regime?
The 30,000 number is made up, the agency which investigated confirmed 5,500 roughly. Maybe they missed the actual total by 100% that would still be 11,000 which is two thirds less than the number you people constantly regurgitate, although I’ve seen more brazen propagandists claim the number is as high as 50,000 to 60,000.
Are you denying the Islamist terrorist regime killed 60,000 innocent Iranians?
This is the left, everyone. They hate war and love murderous dictators, even when they gun down unarmed protesters. The reason can be found on the last page of the Communist Manifesto.
Why were you not calling for the downfall of the Israeli regime when they slaughtered hundreds and maimed thousands of peaceful Palestinians during the “Right to Return” March where their only crime was approaching the Israeli militarized prison border and trying to leave Gaza?
Is it because you support the Jews slaughtering innocent Muslim goys?
You are losing the debate so you're changing the subject. +20 social credit points from IRGC. Extra +5 points for expressing strong bigotry tendencies.
The hard left loves the dictators. The other leftists are okay with that as they protest together.
Yes they love the dictators but surprisingly , not, hate the "Kings"
Why do I suspect that Caterwaul softpeddaled the number of dead in Gaza when THAT was still in the news?
Lack of evidence isn't evidence. Can't believe this has to keep being said. Please do better.
This is the right, everyone. They avoid your arguments if they don't have an effective counter.
Pedantic warning: Do you mean Republicans, Conservatives or anyone/everyone right of center?
He can't help it. It's his cult demanding fealty and obedience.
I like your math. 30K is exagerrated propaganda, but 5.5K is a rounding error?
Regardless of the "true" figure, it is an atrocity. It would be a legitimate casus belli if pursued legitimately.
Well, burning riot police alive as the protesters (excuse me, the Israeli fifth column) did is also an abomination.
"Riot police" is rather self explanatory, is it not?
(Something is telling me that you may not be quite as solicitous of the welfare of ICE agents.)
A “legitimate cause belli” for who exactly?
For any nation choosing to declare war on another.
Forgive me, I'm all stuck in old fashioned notions of the Constitution and the Westphalian system.
Right or wrong, a nation can declare war, like the Russian Empire against the Ottoman Empire in 1877 for its massacre of Christians in the Balkans. The casus belli was protecting fellow Orthodox Christians from massacre in Bulgaria, the consensus is that the true goal was Constantinople and the Bosporus. Sometimes hypocrisy is the glue that holds things together.
This ad hoc aggression is different. Even Alexander II, Tsar and Autocrat of All the Russias, felt the need to declare war.
Trump is only following the path laid down by Obama in Libya, but each time we expand this presidential discretion the easier it becomes to involve us in a military tar baby. Matt is quite correct in being scared shitless. I am too.
"the agency which investigated..." -- which is??
Just wondering: are you keeping count of the children being murdered by the IDF?
Yes we are now at 6 x 100^400x. All under the age of fourteenth. Official numbers from the Gaza health ministry so you know is true.
Yeah, right. And if you want a new bicycle, Santa will bring one down the chimney.
You'd think people would have learned how pointless it is to try to appease psychopaths, once it blew up on them with Hitler. But, nooooooo....
People like psychopaths for leaders, Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander, Mao, Stalin, Peron; the list goes on and on…
You forgot Biden. He was such a kindly old gentleman! Sure he fired citizens en masse for not being willing to be forcibly injected with a novel, liability free medical product that didn’t even prevent transmission. Sure his administration pressured tech companies to wipe millions of dissenters off the internet. But he was basically just a kindly guy who liked ice cream.
You need to make a distinction. Not ALL people like psychopaths for leaders, but some certainly do.
Good God.
I think this war is a mess. But if you think Obozo had Iran's nuclear program under control, you're foolishly partisan and naive. 🤦🏼♂️
Excellent point, Dims Stink.
utter nonsense. You can dislike this war without spreading nonsense.
That’s not a legitimate comment. Iran started breaking the agreement the day they signed it. I suppose you believed Araghchi last week when he said that Iran purposefully did not develop a missile that could go farther than 2000 kilometers. Only problem is that within a few days of that statement they fired two missiles at Diego Garcia that went almost 4000 miles
The fact that you believe the U.S. government completely uncritically and without so much as a single shred of evidence that Iran launched long range missiles at Diego Garcia is legitimate though?
Where’s your evidence other than claims by the U.S. government?
How about the AP. Reuters. The Wall Street Journal and other sources.
Or we could believe Iran. Your choice
You think any of those people are doing anything other than simply quoting the same government claims?
You think they have any actual evidence?
all those outlets do is quote officials who are the source of the info. That’s not proof, it’s just repeating a claim.
They are not people, they are news outlets and the AP and Reuters you can be sure don’t spout the party line.
Like I said it’s a choice. Just like subscribing here.
Other than saying there’s no evidence. What source are you relying on.
Not even close, you clown.
Why do you suppose Iran, with its commitment to developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs to put them on, agreed to the JCPOA?
This administration made no cogent argument that Iran was anywhere near making a nuclear weapon. As a matter of fact intelligence assessments made the opposite argument. This was a war of choice by an impulsive man child who was dragged into this quagmire by Israel. If anything the argument for Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon has been strengthened.
So we are to believe everything Iran tells us when they say we are not refining uranium but not believe them when they say they have enough refined uranium to make 10 to 11 bombs.
Got it
I was actually believing our Dear Leader and Israel who had triumphantly declared victory a few months back and assured us they had crippled Iran’s nuclear capability for many years to come. The question, as they say, is: were they lying then, or are they lying now?
It's not up to you to "let" anyone build a nuclear weapon now is it Jethro? If you were going to take that responsibility you probably shouldn't have "let" Israel have them. Or Pakistan. Or North Korea. Or least of all the USA.
But you have no problem with Israel, an ethno-religious state with a long history of ethnic cleansing and seizing land from neighboring countries, possessing a massive nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver those weapons? Without ever signing the non-proliferation treaty, or permitting inspections? Iran did those two things, does not possess nuclear weapons, and hasn't attacked another country in over two hundred years. Beyond Israel, Iran is surrounded by US nuclear weapons, Pakistani, Indian, and Russian nuclear weapons. Yet somehow this many-thousand year civilization, which, again, has not attacked another country in centuries, is supposed to be crushed simply for defending its sovereignty? Take your US/Israeli exceptionalism, and stick it.
We HAD a solution in 2015 but Trump torched it. You and all MAGAts are ignorant bigots, which is why we’re in this mess. This is YOUR fault. No one else. No Democrat did this. We are at the edge of annihilation because bigots like you couldn’t stand to see anyone but an ugly white male in power. The only satisfaction left for me is to watch MAGAts suffer, and I hope you all end up in agony. You destroyed the world and you’re still too bigoted to admit if.
You need help Karen.
CareBear, how are we doing today. The doctor will be right in. Can you tell us what pills you swallowed?
Hahaha good one
"Obliterated". Remember?
Who are u?
What makes u believe this narrative BS?
This all sounds like a bunch of dithering as Rome burns
Here’s to a coherent war strategy. Or a coherent plan for the Straight. Or a coherent leader.
Dude, where is your awareness of the nuclear tipped missiles pointed at all of Europe by a lunatic, suicidal theocracy? Where is your notice of the tens of thousands of Iranians killed by the ayatollah because they voiced opposition or were suspected of opposing their oppression? Come on. Recognize the need to eliminate the crazy people who expect to be given 72 virgins if they kill you, the infidel.
Where are these missiles? The entire US intelligence community, all 17 or however many agencies, says they didn’t exist except in Netanyahu and Mark Levin’s fever dreams. What are you talking about?
Last time I checked, 2 of them were headed to Diego Garcia…
Exactly, Mariano. It took those misses to wake Europe up and all of a sudden support poured in from many countries.
I guess some people don’t stay up on current events lol
Imagine openly lying about Iran currently having nuclear tipped missiles. Only a really deluded maniac or a brazen propagandist could.
Not just the missiles, but where are the nukes? That’s the critical question. This is the same story they told in 2002-2003.
Please take your heads out of the sand. Iran just admitted to having 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. They have missiles that can reach London, and just launched one toward Diego Garcia. This is 2+2=4. And these wannabe martyrs hate YOU.
It’s about 6000 km from Iran (a big country so mileages would vary) to London. But notice that the Iranians did not fire any missiles at Diego Garcia until after they had been under attack for more than two weeks. If you are going to go to war against every country that has mid-range missiles, then you have your work cut out for you. Also, they had low grade uranium which was not bomb grade. Nobody with any credibility has said they have “highly enriched” uranium. Did you not listen to Tulsi?
Hegseth and Trump and the rest of this administration said that this capability (what little it was) was annihilated (their words) last summer. So either Hegseth and Trump are liars or Mark Levin is a liar. Take your pick.
Another thing: I am not defending the Iranian regime, just pointing out some inconvenient facts for you. Nobody in any intelligence service in the world has presented any kind of evidence that the Iranians had a bomb. Trump and Netanyahu apparently did this because they can. They thought that the regime would collapse when they kicked the door in, ironically exactly what Hitler said about the USSR in 1941.
Last thing: morality shmorality, who cares that we launched a surprise attack on a country WHILE we were negotiating with them. So what? We took the Dec 7, 1941 Day of Infamy and went a step further.
Well … Aside from the fact that no country will trust us or our motives, and we’ve made it clear that countries without nukes will be attacked at our whim and pleasure (which will lead to more serious proliferation and more headaches for us) … aside from those little issues … we’ve pissed off our Gulf allies, lost three THAAD radars, depleted our missile interceptor stock to dangerously low levels AND we’ve endangered the energy supply of the entire world and further destabilized the Middle East, an amazing achievement.
And Israel won’t be any more secure than it was before we started this thing.
lol, finally an expert with reliable intel on Iran AND someone who knows what the mullahs really want.
Their uranium was enriched to a level to make a dirty bomb. There is no other use for uranium enrichment at that level. Power generation requires only 3-5% enrichment and they had way more than that. I think all need to concede that there is a lot we civilians without high level intelligence clearance do not know about this situation. The bombs sent to Diego Garcia didn’t contain nuclear materials but were still bombs that could reach many EU countries and do significant damage. This seems to have awakened many European countries to the reality of this threat.
You are a Democrat with TDS. No doubt about it.
Ha ha, I’m a conservative who has voted THREE times for Trump.
Don’t believe you. You are a troll.
"Also, they had low grade uranium which was not bomb grade."
100% false. They had over 400kg of highly enriched 60% U235 uranium. Enough to make a few gun-type 10kt nukes. Gun-type nukes are too heavy to be carried on ballistic missiles, but they could be carried on trucks, boats, and relatively small commercial airplanes.
Just pointing out some inconvenient facts for you.
That was before June 2025. Trump and Hegseth said it was destroyed.
Here’s a reference: https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/
Are you saying it wasn’t destroyed and that Trump is lying? And if that material was still available to Iran, why hasn’t anyone in the administration brought this up since Feb 28?
Let’s say you’re right (and Trump lied about the 12-day war) and everything is bullshit … like Trump saying Iran had Tomahawks and they were the ones who blew ip the girls’ school … 🙃 … why do you think they would have used it if nobody attacked them? It’s like their missiles: they have only used them AFTER being attacked by Israel and the US.
I’m not claiming that the Iranian regime isn’t bad and oppressive. But how is the war changing that? They’ll stay in power and be looking for revenge: first of all against domestic opponents. All our actions, our sacrifice of life and treasure will only make things worse.
It's tiresome to deal with people who pivot to another subject, move the goalposts, etc, when their mistakes are pointed out.
You claimed Iran had only low-grade uranium. That could not have been more wrong. Now you provide a link that actually proves your claim was wrong, but to save face, you now say Iran has no uranium at all because Trump said so after the June 2025 strikes. As if I care about what Trump said.
The June 2025 strikes did not destroy uranium, they collapsed the entrances leading to the facility where the enriched uranium was kept. If they actually had obliterated the 400+ kg of 60% U235, that would have been a radiological disaster, so I doubt that was ever their goal.
What was collapsed can be reopened. There was apparently evidence of movement of materials to an even more impenetrable facility in so-called Pickaxe Mountain.
I'm not here to defend the war, or Trump, or criticize the war. I'm just pointing out inconvenient facts.
So you’re just making shit up like Trump.
Or as you do. How many voices are in your head at night?
Where are the missiles? WTF have the been launching at other countries over the last few weeks, wooden arrows? What did they launch at Deigo Garcia? Oh, a medium range missile they claimed they didn't have!
Sorry, by “missiles” I meant ICBMs, in response to the claims of that raving psychopath Mark Levin. Obviously, Iran has lots of ballistic missiles. But they have only fired them in retaliation for being attacked. There were better ways to deal with them than this. War is only a good idea when it actually achieves your political goals, and even then you can lose any moral high ground you might have had.
Tell us more about the better ways to deal with them. Obama gave them billions if they promised to stop enriching uranium. Didn't work. What's the solution in dealing with the world's #1 sponser of state terrorism? Pretty please with sugar on top?
Yes, like all the attacks from Saudi and other Arab countries. Hard to keep your facts straight, eh?
Last I heard, CENTCOM still didn't have evidence that came from Iran.
Did you get this info from Tucker Carlson?
No
Man that's the thing that gets me. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, three times, four times, shame on me. I was so opposed to the Iraq war, oh yeah, and there was that Afghanistan thing too. They were a waste of money and time. Why did we go to Iraq? "He tried to kill my daddy". Were there any weapons of mass destruction, which we were told time and again were in Sadam's possession? No there were not. And now, there is "enriched weapons grade" uranium hiding in Iran someplace and maybe the marines will have to go and get it. Seems like a horrible shit hole to go down. All while a decent percentage of the world's needed oil supply is held ransom. Now that we're a little bit pregnant, I would really really like to know, as usual, what the exit strategy might be? I've wondered what that exit strategy might be for many years and for many different wars without actually seeing a good exit strategy emerge in any of these conflicts. How could we go in there and not have a plan to keep the straight of hormuz open? While I believe that Iran is no friend of the western world or even their own people, there should have been a better plan. I believe Trump got suckered into this deal thinking he could make a quick end to the Iranian regime not understanding how much support and control that regime actually has. I hope I'm wrong and he is actually playing 4d chess and there's some great move coming which no one else has seen. I voted for trump (this time) hoping he would stop sending money to Ukraine. He did that, sort of, but now? Let's ask for 200Billion for the pentagon. I guess that's peanuts compared to the 39Trillion we owe.
Naah, forget that, just go outside. No problems in the world that have been left to ferment need to be addressed.
Ladies & Gents, we have another one drunk on the hasbara koolaid.
There is something between Obama’s stupid policy and Trump’s even stupider policy. How about continue containing them at minimum cost and NOT taking such a huge risk with the global economy? This was a massive role of the iron dice and it’s not going very well.
So far, the country benefitting most from us creating another new quagmire is China. Is that a good development?
What’s up with pretty please and sugar? Are you seven years old?
It's stunning to me that 53 people and counting agreed with this. Does that mean all 53 are as ignorant as you about what kind of missiles Iran has? Trump says they'll have nukes imminently, so we have to attack.
But you're saying they already exist?? This is very interesting. It's also very untrue. Not just inaccurate, but straight out false.
You seem to be hung up on exact timing. They have the missiles. They are very close to having lots of uranium capable of detonation. The trigger mechanism is simple. They are very close. Better to get rid of this threat before the nukes are in the sky.
If that’s what you mean, you should say that. Don’t lead with “nuclear tipped missiles pointed at all of Europe.”
And if it’s Europe under this not-really-true threat, why aren’t they attacking Iran? We are not in any danger.
Nice to hear this voice from you, Matt. Yes, bears, frogs, trees, clouds, stars all continue to be - *literally* - truly awesome. Nature is a game-changer, a serenity saver. One of the solutions to all of our problems. Perhaps this is what you are pointing to in your line here: "start thinking in terms of different types of answers, i.e. ones politics don’t provide..." Getting outside and away from the screen, away from the soundbytes and brainwashing flooding in 24/7 from any and all positions - there's the ticket.
All the best to you and your family, Matt.
"Get outside and away from the screen..." interesting advice from someone whose livelihood depends on subscribers...
Well, becoming a hermit is one answer for your own sanity! Or is it?🤔🤔
Depends on the hermit.
Really resonated with the bear-to-human wisdom gap. There's a certain clarity that only comes from stepping away from the 24-hour news cycle and remembering that the natural world isn't participating in our madness. Thanks for the reminder to look at the trees instead of the screen for a bit!
The bear is wise because it doesn’t think itself to know more than it actually does.
Yogi / Boo Boo 2028!
Are only humans (such as you and Matt) aware of this gap or are bears also?
A bear's wisdom comes only from it's nature.
You lost me on this one Matt. Iran has been occupied by monsters for 47 years and they finance monsters around the world whose singular aim is to destroy the west, religious freedom, women’s rights etc. etc. You’re right that most of us didn’t want war with anyone and that Trump broke his promise in that regard, but the world is a very different place than it used to be. Islamafication of western countries is happening. Look at the UK. So no, I don’t agree with you on this one.
Their is very little evidence that Iran wants to "destroy the West".
We started the war in 1953 when we engineered a coup, and never even apologized for it. Been tit for tat that since then.
I'll bet we could negotiate away their "Death to America" chants if we did so, and stopped propping up regional governments.
Everything I've ever seen Iran do is react. We are locked in that cycle, but keep perpetuating it.
As for as Islamification of the West -- that wasn't coming from Iran, but will if the country falls into civil war like Iraq, Syria and Libya did with the games we've been playing in other people's yards.
I wish I lived in your world....
Is there anything in particular you disagree with, in terms of the fact pattern?
To clarify, I first started watching the news during Nightline, very young, as Koppel ticked up the days of the hostage crisis. Formative memory. Been tracking international affairs closely ever since.
As part of that is understanding the interests of others, and their worldviews. After evaluating Iran’s, they’ve struck me as rational actors, cautious about escalation and expressing power within the region through satellites that are aligned with their interests, much as we have done.
Was tricky, as I was trained by the media to see them as a great evil that desires our destruction, but once I dug in, the dynamic seems to be much more complex.
Ditto. I remember the events of 1979 quite well and was once caught up in all the anti-Iran fever along with everyone else. The hostage crisis was deeply humiliating and we all wanted revenge. Still, based on the activities of the Iran regime since then, I don't see them as much of a "threat" to the US at all. It sucks that we have to insist that they are for whatever reason.
And, in 1979 we often treated the "coup talk" that made up the Iranian perspective as exaggerated in the few times where the media actually covered it. We didn't fully understand the extent until later, when some of the documents from Ajax finally came out and confirmed how grounded their anger at foreign interference was.
The reason is simple - zionism.
Thank you for bringing a voice of logic and reason to these otherwise 'misguided' (to put it nicely) folks.
Yeah, being lobotomized must have sucked… Enjoy getting completely demolished in November, sweetie
1953 indeed happened. What also happened was Jimmy Carter and Mitterand flying Khomeini back to Iran from exile. That was repaid by the takeover of our embassy and the holding of hostages. A year later they blew up 241 marines in Beirut. We had done nothing to provoke that whatsoever. Since then it’s been death to America.
In our long sequence of tit-for-tats that started in 1953, we also supported Iraq in their war against Iran, prior to the Marine bombing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
That background likely contributed to animosities, but there is more to the story.
We were perceived as combatants in the civil war in Lebanon because we were not a neutral party at that point.
To look at it from the Hezbollah perspective, we were supporting their enemies (including Israel) and had shelled anti-government militias with our navy.
From their perspective, it was not unprovoked, as they perceived us as intervening against them.
Also, important to note that Hezbollah may be aligned with and supported by Iran, but it isn't Iran. Much as many of the forces we've supported over the years aren't 100% operating under our control.
You sound like an apologist for terrorism. Ask the Lebanese people if they preferred the Beirut that was the Paris of the Mediterranean to the bombed out shell of itself it is today.
In your mind we were perceived as supporting their enemies. The part you left out is what made them enemies. Their religion for one and their very existence for two. Sounds like a good justification for bombing civilians from afar. Conflict always has two sides to it. The US chose to support a sovereign state and our only democratic ally in the Middle East. And Iran found this objectionable why?
Without Iran Hezbollah does not exist. Funding. Training and even weapons and advisors.
How would you justify the events of October 7. Be heading rape and murder of completely unarmed civilians. Would that also be just tit for tat.
I think we are talking past each other somewhat.
There are two different lenses.
In the moral lens, war crimes like the Beirut bombing (perfidy) or October 7th (attack on civilians) are wrong. Absolute immorality. I'm not defending them.
But the analytical lens is where conflicts actually get resolved, as a prerequisite for that is understanding and accommodating interests and motivations.
If we purely use the moral lens, it is very difficult to resolve conflicts. They tend to tit-for-tat escalate when concerns are ignored.
Terrorism, as immoral as it is, often emerges in asymmetrical conflicts where one side lacks conventional military power. To say so isn't a justification, but an understanding that it is a recurring pattern in human conflict, rather than one side being "evil".
If China were to occupy Hawaii, and there was no hope to dislodge them via conventional means, I'd expect that some Americans would resort to similar tactics.
That, of course, doesn't make it morally right for them to do so. It would be more moral to, say, put their trust in Gandhiesque civil disobedience.
To get back to Lebanon, the point I'm making is that by 1983 we were no longer a neutral force. We had entered the fight, backing the Lebanese government, and were aligned with Israel.
Your original point was that it was "unprovoked". I'm simply explaining that, from their perspective, it was provoked.
You may not be defending those acts but as I said you are justifying them. Not only that but we were not there to occupy Iran; on the contrary, Iran wanted to export their radical Islamic doctrine outside their borders, so they set up a proxy with IGRC officers, Iranian funding and weapons to expand their influence. Now who's the occupier.
On another note, for you to assume American or any other rational moral people would resort of beheading, rape and worse as a tool to fight is absurd. When it happens let me know
We had to kill those people because the government we put there was so bad. I'm not an idiot.
Matt, maybe this won't make a difference to you. No reason it should, I guess, coming from just another subscriber in Online World.
I have this friend - - a really good, longtime friend, great dad, great guy, gentle guy. His long career has put him in places where he sees what very few people see from a military intelligence point of view.
I understand you not liking war, conflagration, unrest, violence. I don't like it, either. And now it appears that Trump is breaking some sacred oath to voters.
That said, I hope you'll reflect deeply on how you might feel hearing on TV, the Internet, or radio that a ballistic missile finally made it to the North American continent well ahead of any schedule the citizenry thought possible. It wouldn't have to be a nuke. Just something that makes a point clearly. I hope you'll think about that. This person, my source, is not a Trump fan at all. He tells me the right calls have been made, without any question. In his opinion. That's as real to me as it is scary.
"A guy told me our new war is just and good actually"
"You can't handle the truth."
There is another dozen countries on Earth already in possession of missiles that can reach the North American continent. Yet the US is not at war with them. Consider that.
Gosh, you are SO right! They're exactly the same after all.
They may be, they may be not. But your argument, as you presented it above, logically contradicts these facts. Maybe you should qualify it. But it doesn't have the same ring if you do, does it?
No, really, Michael - - don't let the intel community's outlook trouble you. Isn't it grocery day?
The intel community? Yes, let's trust those guys. They never lead us astray.
Yes, let's not trust them. Not in the least. Sure, they probably have something to do with the relatively comfortable and secure lives we take for granted in the US, but even a stopped clock is right on the button twice a day.
Who do you like for your primary source closest to the action?
I am not troubled at all by it - I look purely at your statement, and provide a counterfactual. Intel community has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. Who needs career intel officers? Suck eggs, spooks!
Here I am wondering exactly who on this entire planet might have the slightest idea of the possibility of such an event and coming up empty. I'm sure your friend is the guy though.
No. Just a guy with an opinion. Just another guy. Don't let it bother you.
Here's a tip for you Tim. Your bud has no clue what Iran can or will do.
What's his name, TR?
If Iran were to develop a ballistic missile that could reach the US, would it be less likely to happen now that Iran has been murderously attacked by US and Israel, or now that Iran knows it can not trust negotiations with either party be more likely?
Let's just go straight to logic here: big missiles require big launch sites. Satellite resolutions today are less than 4 inches. GPS accuracy is sub-meter. You tell me.
I long for the stability of bombing Libya and unleashing ISIS throughout the Middle East, installing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and paying Iran to make nuclear-bomb fuel as long as they promise not to make nuclear bombs. Good times.
Those were the good old days
And in these words, Matt sacrifices a large portion of his audience for the sake of writing the truth.
This is why I unsubscribed.
I didn't subscribe because I was always going to agree with Matt. I disagree that Biden was a corpse, I always maintained he was a legume.
And the current leader of Iran is a potatohead
That blank stare he had while his mouth was open..... definitely a top 10 moment for celery stick.
Sharp as a tack, as per the MSM.
"You answered all the questions, Joe!!!" ~ Jill Biden, after the debate.
DOCTOR Jill Biden.
Ohhhhhh, the EDUCATOR!
lol Patrick, that’s a good one. How about a tuber?
Sounds like a lot of work !
The quality is slipping. I want to get as "close to the farm" when consuming news or well thought out news analysis and Matt historically did a great job with that. The new hires are not off to a good start - they may find their footing - but M. Tracey's addition has been a subtraction.
Feel free at any time to stop clogging the comments with your whining.
poor you, upset with hearing an opinion you don't like. kick rocks, kid.
Project much?
poor you. still upset.
Great, now go away.
opposing opinions hurts your feelings. fuck your feelings.
Nope, just stupid opinions from loser trolls.
i hope your employer has an EAP you can use. Or maybe you have a cat.
Then perhaps they weren't really his audience...
Correction: HIS truth not THE truth.
May I introduce you to Plato's Cave?
Writing for the sake of the truth is what we signed up for... and maybe that portion sacrificed isn't as large as you think.
What I signed up for was investigative journalism and reporting. Not a opinion delivered in a rant. Sorry Matt you made the playground and now don’t like the environment.
Antisemites like you are rejoicing, I see.
Hey, thanks for chiming in with the magic word that settles all debate.
“Made possible by contributions to your Racket News station from anti-Semites like you.”
I would rather he write the truth than cater to a demanding audience.
What he thinks is the truth, incomplete as it is.
The truth? One version of the truth. So, yes, have the audience will leave. Which half is correct?
That number is made up and has no evidence whatsoever. However, Israelis could kill 30,000,000 Iranians and you’d support it.
This exchange is hilarious, given the topic
Really? Laughing at Dolgin is pretty much like picking on the kid in class who is on the spectrum.
I bring massive entertainment value to Racket News, this cannot be denied. (I’m in my back yard kicking my border collie’s herding ball around as I type)
Love Border Collies. Tell your dog I said Hi!
Going outside? Wait. What is the topic?
"the U.S. based Human Rights Activists News Agency said it had confirmed 5,549 deaths (killed on Jan 8th and 9th) and is investigating 17,031 more,"- Time magazine 1-25-2026
"As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the country's Ministry of Health told Time"
"...3,117 announced on Jan. 21 by regime hardliners who report directly to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei"
Sounds like Iran killed a lot of their own people.
1 Now the same people who said every human rights organization on planet earth which reported Israeli crimes against Palestinians are all illegitimate and controlled by nefarious Jew-haters want us to believe those organizations when they report on Iran
2 the 30,000 number is unsubstantiated, the agency only confirmed around 5,500.
There is no mention of how many of these people were armed and shooting at police and military.
How many Americans would Trump thugs have killed if foreign operatives (Mossad bragged about doing this in the Iranian economic protests in January) infiltrated massive crowds of protesters and started both inciting violence as well as actually engaging in violence themselves by shooting at police, ICE, and national guard?
Maybe ten?
IRGC sends +10 social credits to you.
Your derangement isn't getting worse.
Thank you doctor
Matt, Iran could not be ignored. Waiting until they dropped the egg on Israel was not really an option. Granted that the endgame is obscure, but then again... if he disclosed the endgame early, he would suffer the same humiliations that the half-wit Obama did. His style is far removed from mine, but I think it's wise to be patient and see where this leads.
It appears to be leading to 2,000 Marines and 3-4,000 82nd Airborne on the ground. Who the fuck wants that? I don't much care if the Israelis and IRGC or whoever may be in charge in Iran want to kill each other but I sure don't want US blood on the ground
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Did you consider that we may be taking Kharg Island? I don’t claim to know the plans but neither do most of the commenters here, nor should we. I’m not thrilled with the 82nd airborne going over there unless it’s for that purpose or something similar.
I can only hope that isn't in the plans. Iran missiles or drones could easily slaughter. Not to mention, how are they resupplied?!
Few focus on the lethality of missiles & drones, especially ... not having paid attention to the Ukrainians effective use of them! Less expensive asymmetrical warfare.
So true. Today I'm seeing a wide array of the number of troops, as many as 50,000 which may include many that are already at the various US bases in the region. In any case, whatever the actual number they are sitting ducks should they be on Kharg Island or other islands nearby..A sad scary time.
Yes, 40,000 in region from #s I've seen as ex military report we r about 10K above norm w the 50K. 🙏 abound!
Anti-Iransters always want to ignore the fact that we already had a functioning nuclear deal with Iran that had more or less resolved the issue, which Trump shredded in favor of war (preceded by two sneak attacks undertaken during diplomatic negotiations, cowards that Trump and Bibi are).
The "egg" you should be worried about is the one Israel is probably insane enough to lay.
If you think that the Obama deal had any real teeth or had suppressed their pursuit of a nuclear weapon in any fashion, I don't think we are living in the same universe.
Salusa lives in his own world. Lots of mullahs there to pleasure him.
So, you don't believe the IAEA when their inspections confirmed Iran was honoring the terms of the JCPOA?
Many here also seem to forget (if they ever knew) that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of Sharia law.
Do tell, Neville.
Salusa S. Snape - Do you honestly think the “functioning nuclear deal with Iran" will "more or less resolve the issue” any better than the deal Chamberlain made with Hitler at Munich to ensure peace in our time?
Just like Hitler, the mullahs and IRGC believe that treaties are made to be broken. Even more so than just political expediency, a tenet of Islam (Taqiyya) is that lying to nonbelievers is an approved and accepted way to further the cause.
Re" "treaties are made to be broken." Promises too. You could be describing our treatment of Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. How many times did the West agree to stop expanding NATO to the east?
Bonnie B. - Regardless of who did what, when, and to whom , I reiterate: Just like Hitler, the mullahs and IRGC believe that treaties are made to be broken.
That is a misinterpretation of Taqiyya. It's actually a preservation/survival strategy of outwardly hiding/denying one's religious faith solely in times of serious threat (e.g. of violence or death).
TeeJae - If lying about one’s religious faith is no biggie, then lying about anything else should be even less of a problem. Especially by those who mete out, as a tenet of their faith, violence or death to unbelievers.
Perhaps you need to reread my prior comment. 'Only in times of serious threat (e.g. of violence or death)' is very much a "biggie."
You may also want to educate yourself on the ACTUAL tenets of Islam, because your last sentence reveals you've been sorely misinformed.
Do you seriously believe that that deal was being lived up to? You are in a micro minority if you do
Well said. 4 weeks in and not much in the way of losses. The world is a better place with someone finally confronting Iran. I didn’t see any alternative myself. As for his campaign promises. So far I don’t see any forever war or a war like loss of life. Intelligence also changes over time. Let’s wait and see before calling someone crazy. Especially our president
Thanks, It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who advocates for patience.
They were not going to be dropping any "egg" on Israel unless they were attacked. And why was letting that happen not an option? Very much an option as far as I'm concerned. Probably a lot of other American citizens agree. How about we vote?
This is a frightening response. Thank God there aren't enough people like you to make this opinion meaningful.
Go fight, Bud. Go now. I'm willing to lose you in this war for Israel. Just you. Go on.
Wow. Just …wow. 😞
The game clock is ticking. When Congress blows the whistle as per the War Powers act Trump's endgame will be irrelevant.
lol, congress. They voted to keep sending billions to Ukraine but couldn't figure out how to vote for election integrity.
They also voted not to audit the billions of dollars being shipped to Ukraine.
Yeah, well, it is what it is.
Those are the rules of the road in our Representative Republic.
Until voters decide to act differently, you're right.
Well, those folks went home for spring break!!!
Someone wanna do a wellness check on Matt?
He just checked in and it sounds like he’s doing fine. Better than many of us.
Then you need a wellness check of your own.
I think he's hanging out with Heather Cox Richardson now...
Hey Matt, what’s the full story of you and Walter?
I don’t like this new direction. I just don’t get what you are doing now? Before, your reporting had a coherence, from when I started following you in the Twitter files. Now, with this Go Outside business. A Trump rant is not the news I signed up for. I signed up for more thoughtful takes, more research and investigation, from a serious reporter. You did all of that so well. But now you’re losing me.
Bye
👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Your enlightened commentary will be sorely missed. . .
No wonder Walter left.
Happy to see him go.
???
Trump is the man in the arena. Pundits are just spectators with opinions.
Correct. And before Trump was W. And before him, Johnson and Nixon. Everyone just needs to shut up with their stupid opinions.
Take that, democracy. Shut up and do what you're told.
George Bush's wars were consequence free? Seriously?
Read Coffee & Covid today & maybe you’ll understand what Trump is doing. Try & connect the dots Matt.
Yes! Highly recommend Coffee & COVID Substack. Absolutely brilliant.
At least it’s positive speculation about Trump, where the rest is negative. Whether any of it is true is a whole other question.
If you’re not sure, DaveL, then you may want to fact check, do your own research, until you feel better about the information. I’ve done that with Jeff Childers over the years and while he’s not perfect ( who is?), he has an excellent track record, IMHO. I’m going to go with Jeff’s take on things, as a general rule.
Coffee & Covid, LOL. The dots you see are holes that worms ate into your brain.
Rather than write a thoughtful response, all you have is toddler level insults. Go back to bluesky.
I think that the source speaks for itself. Highly reactionary, not "thoughtful" at all, made for people who want their predilections confirmed. It's entertaining to be sure, but not reality based at all.
You're the one whining like a crybaby (see above) and responding with ad hominems. I'm going outside now. Enjoy your pity party.
I think you have no argument. But keep spinning.
Exactly! The source is bad and "reactionary"!! And therefore, wrong and not "reality based at all" according to simple logic!!! People who disagree are "responding with ad hominems" lol. Another golden, 100% irony-free comment.
Coffee & Covid is the new drug is it?
Hey, it's worth a try.
Try living in reality instead of flailing about for the next grifter to reinforce your delusions
Childers needs to stay in his covid lane. On geopolitics, he's too one-sided.
So you can read both Matt and Jeff for this topic and get both sides. I think that is a good thing that we should practice more.
I get enough of the other side from zionist-owned legacy media.