Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 91
April 7, 2025
Looming Electricity Crunch Facing US
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/daily_generation_mix/US48/US48By Paul Homewood
Major US grid operators are raising the alarm about the looming capacity crunch.
Power has the story:
“Six major U.S. grid operators have raised a unified alarm about an impending capacity crunch, warning that the pace and scale of explosive demand—including from data centers, manufacturing, and electrification—poses a precarious misalignment with accelerating generator retirements and transmission constraints.
At a March 25 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, the nation’s top grid officials testified that the U.S. power system is under mounting strain—and that without urgent structural reforms, the ability to maintain reliable electric service could falter. Their message was unusually direct: demand is accelerating, supply is lagging, and current tools may not be enough to bridge the gap.
Read the full story here.
All of the ten regional grids seem to be facing the same problems of increasing demand and closure of dispatchable capacity. ERCOT, for instance, who run the grid in Texas, forecast that peak demand will increase from 86 GW to 106 GW by 2030.
PJM in the Mid-Atlantic and Mid West anticipate a rise in peak demand of 47% in the next 15 years, and California’s CAISO are looking at an increase of 33% in the next ten years.
The US still relies on gas and coal for half of its power:
And just as in this country, the US is wholly reliant on gas to fill the gap when demand surges or wind and solar output falls:
Note that in this seven day period alone, wind output ranged from 32 GW to 90 GW. This gives the lie to the claim that the wind is always blowing somewhere. In 2023 the US had wind capacity of 148 GW, running at an average of 33%, so that 32 GW suggests utilisation of about 20%. No doubt there will be weeks when it is much less still.
Solar power meanwhile is little more than an irrelevance.
Taking a closer look at Texas, we find that coal power capacity has dropped by 7.5 GW in the last decade, partly offset by an increase of 4.3 GW of gas. However consumption per capita has grown by 12% in the same period:
Texas needed most of that gas power during February’s cold snap, when wind and solar power dropped away:
[image error]
[image error]
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64764
The same situation is being played out across the country. Even in sunny California they need gas to fire up to meet demand when the sun goes down both in summer and in winter. (Note the barely measurable contribution from battery storage.)
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/regional/REG-CAL
The US grid has been neglected for many years now, all in the naive belief that reliable coal and gas generation can be replaced with wind and solar. This has been exacerbated by anti fossil fuel regulations, which have prematurely shut down coal plants and discouraged investment in new gas plants.
[…]
Collapsing Empire: Yemen shatters the illusion of US air power, yet again
By Kit Klarenberg
Since March 15, Washington has repeatedly barraged Yemen from the sky, killing and injuring countless innocent civilians while destroying vital infrastructure.
For example, on April 2, US jets targeted a reservoir in western Yemen, cutting off access to water for over 50,000 people.
Only three days later, US President Donald Trump gloatingly posted a horrific video on social media of a tribal gathering being incinerated in a US airstrike. He falsely claimed the individuals were “Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack.”
In a chilling coincidence, the bloodcurdling clip was published on the 15th anniversary of the release of “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks, a notorious video filmed three years earlier of US Apache helicopter pilots firing indiscriminately at a group of Iraqi civilians and journalists while sickly cackling at the carnage they were inflicting.
While that disclosure contemporaneously caused international outcry and scandal and made WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an internationally wanted man, openly advertising unconscionable war crimes is now apparently a formal US government policy.
US officials have pledged that renewed hostilities against Yemen will continue “indefinitely”, while Trump has bragged how “relentless strikes” have “decimated” the Ansarullah resistance movement.
Yet, on April 4, the New York Times reported Pentagon officials are “privately” briefing that while the current bombing campaign on Yemen “is consistently heavier than strikes conducted by the Biden administration”, the effort has achieved “only limited success in destroying the Houthis’ vast, largely underground arsenal of missiles, drones and launchers.”
Yemen’s anti-genocide Red Sea blockade thus endures untrammelled.
Moreover, “in just three weeks, the Pentagon has used $200 million worth of munitions, in addition to the immense operational and personnel costs to deploy two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 bombers and fighter jets, as well as Patriot and THAAD air defenses” to West Asia.
The total cost of the military adventure to date could exceed “well over $1 billion by next week.” This not only means “supplemental funds” for the operation need to be sought from US Congress, but there are grave anxieties about ammunition availability:
“So many precision munitions are being used, especially advanced long-range ones, that some Pentagon contingency planners are growing concerned about overall Navy stocks and implications for any situation in which the United States would have to ward off an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China.”
The New York Times also observed that the White House hasn’t indicated “why it thinks its campaign against the group will succeed”, after the Biden administration’s long-running Operation Prosperity Guardian embarrassingly failed to break the Red Sea’s blockade.
The answer is simple – for three decades, the Empire has been consumed by a dangerously self-deluded belief in the primacy of air power over all other forms of warfare. Ergo, the Trump administration believes that if only they intensify Yemen’s bombardment, Ansarullah will crumble.
‘Significantly damaged’
In April 1996, then USAF Chief of Staff Ronald R Fogleman boldly declared that a “new American way of war” was emerging.
While traditionally the Empire had “relied on large forces employing mass, concentration, and firepower to attrit enemy forces and defeat them,” now technological advances and “unique military advantages” – specifically in the field of air power – could be used “to compel an adversary to do our will at the least cost to the US in lives and resources.”
At the time, the Empire was riding high on the perceived success of NATO’s Operation Deliberate Force, an 11-day saturation bombing of Bosnia conducted the previous August/September.
Multiple US officials eagerly attributed the campaign to ending the three-year-long civil war in the former Yugoslav republic by precipitating negotiations. They omitted to mention that the airstrikes’ predominant military utility was allowing US-armed, trained, and directed Bosniak and Croat proxy forces to overrun Bosnian Serb positions without significant opposition, or their brazen sabotage of prior peace settlements.
Nonetheless, the narrative that wars could be won via airpower alone, and the US and its allies should invest in and structure their military machines accordingly, palpably percolated thereafter. The illegal March – June 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia provided the Empire with an opportunity to put this theory to the test. For 78 straight days, NATO relentlessly blitzed civilian, government, and industrial infrastructure throughout the country, killing untold numbers of innocent people – including children – and disrupting daily life for millions.
The purported purpose of this onslaught was to prevent a planned genocide of Kosovo’s Albanian population by Yugoslav forces. As a May 2000 British parliamentary committee concluded, however, it was only after the bombing began that Belgrade began assaulting the province.
Moreover, this effort was explicitly concerned with neutralising the CIA and MI6-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, an Al Qaeda-linked extremist group, not attacking Albanian citizens. Meanwhile, in September 2001, a UN court determined that Yugoslavia’s actions in Kosovo were not genocidal in nature or intent.
On June 3, 1999, Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic folded under Russian pressure, agreeing to withdraw Belgrade’s forces from Kosovo. While Western officials celebrated a resounding victory for NATO and airpower more generally, the mainstream media – at least initially – told a very different story.
The LA Times observed that the Yugoslav army “still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes.” Meanwhile, its key barracks and ammunition depots weren’t damaged at all.
The New York Times reported that post-war Kosovo was bereft “of the scorched carcasses of tanks or other military equipment NATO officials had expected to find.”
While NATO and Pentagon apparatchiks stood “by their claims to have significantly damaged” Yugoslav forces, the outlet admitted Belgrade’s units withdrawing from Kosovo “seemed spirited and defiant rather than beaten.”
They took with them hundreds of tanks, personnel carriers, artillery batteries, vehicles, and “military equipment loaded on trucks” completely unscathed by the bombing campaign.
‘Campaign analysis’
Contemporary declassified British Ministry of Defence files amply underline the catastrophic failure of NATO’s blitzkrieg of Yugoslavia. Once Milosevic finally capitulated and NATO and UN ‘peacekeepers’ were granted unimpeded access to Kosovo, they struggled to find a single “burnt out tank” or other indications of vehicle or equipment losses on the ground.
A June 7 “campaign analysis” noted, “NATO took a lot longer, required a lot more effort and damaged less than perhaps we believed we could achieve at the start of the air campaign.”
It added that the Yugoslav “war-fighting doctrine” placed “great emphasis on dispersal, the use of camouflage, dummy targets, concealment and bunkers” to avoid detection, and “early assessments indicate that they appear to have applied this doctrine very successfully.”
Adverse weather conditions were also routinely exploited as cover for anti-KLA operations. The memo further recorded “there was no evidence…of disintegration of Serb forces in Kosovo,” with Yugoslav military operations continuing apace until Milosevic agreed to withdraw from the province, “and beyond”.
Yet, these damning observations remained secret. At a June 11, 1999 press conference, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Henry Shelton proudly displayed a variety of colourful charts, boasting how hundreds of Yugoslav tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery pieces had been decimated by NATO, without the alliance suffering a single casualty.
His crooked accounting of the bombing remained universal mainstream gospel until a May 2000 Newsweek investigation exposed the wide-ranging “coverup” via which the Pentagon had spun the “ineffective” assault as a resounding success.
When NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who oversaw the bombing, learned of the pronounced lack of damage to the Yugoslav military on the ground in Kosovo, he dispatched a dedicated team of USAF investigators to the province.
They “spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot” and turned up evidence of just 14 destroyed tanks. Meanwhile, of the 744 strikes on Yugoslav military equipment and installations claimed by Pentagon officials, just 58 were confirmed.
By contrast, USAF identified ample evidence of the Yugoslav military’s skill at deception. They found a key bridge had been protected from NATO bombers “by constructing, 300 yards upstream, a fake bridge made of polyethylene sheeting stretched over the river” – the military alliance “destroyed” the “phony bridge” many times.
Additionally, “artillery pieces were faked out of long black logs stuck on old truck wheels, and an anti-aircraft missile launcher was fabricated from the metal-lined paper used to make European milk cartons.”
Flummoxed, “Clark insisted that the Serbs had hidden their damaged equipment and that the team hadn’t looked hard enough.” So a new report was fabricated wholecloth, validating the fiction that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslav forces had been extensive. Newsweek noted its findings were “so devoid of hard data that Pentagon officials jokingly called it ‘fiber-free’.”
An official Department of Defense “After-Action Report to Congress” on the bombing campaign cited the report’s figures, although stressed no supporting evidence was forthcoming. With eerie prescience, Newsweek concluded:
“[This] distortion could badly mislead future policymakers…After the November 2000 presidential election, the Pentagon will go through one of its quadrennial reviews, assigning spending priorities. The Air Force will claim the lion’s share…The risk is policymakers and politicians will become even more wedded to myths like ‘surgical strikes’.”
“The lesson of Kosovo is civilian bombing works, though it raises moral qualms…Against military targets, high-altitude bombing is overrated. Any commander in chief who does not face up to those hard realities will be fooling himself.”
‘Incredibly different’
The “distortion” that NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia was a military triumph has endured ever since. Not only has it served as justification for multiple subsequent calamitous Western “interventions”, such as the 2011 destruction of Libya, but USAF continues to claim “the lion’s share” of US defence spending.
According to 2024 figures, over a quarter of Washington’s total defence budget – $216.1 billion – is earmarked for the Air Force. Additionally, $202.6 billion is spent on the Navy, which typically operates in close tandem with USAF.
However large these figures may appear on paper, they do not translate into serious war-fighting capability, as Operation Prosperity Guardian in Yemen amply underscored.
A little-noticed July 2024 Associated Press report on the return home of US fighter pilots after nine months of failing to thwart Yemen’s Red Sea blockade noted that battling an enemy capable of fighting back “in the most intense running sea battle the Navy has faced since World War II” had been deeply psychologically ravaging for all concerned.
As a result, Pentagon officials were investigating how to tend to thousands of pilots and sailors adversely affected by their involvement in the bruising effort, “including counseling and treatment for possible post-traumatic stress.”
One pilot told Associated Press, “most of [us]…weren’t used to being fired on given the nation’s previous military engagements in recent decades.” He described the experience of Ansarullah’s retaliation as “incredibly different” and “traumatizing”, as getting shot at is “something that we don’t think about a lot.”
A new experience it may be – but it’s one that Washington needs to adapt to urgently. As a July 2024 RAND Corporation report found the US military was woefully ill-equipped sustain a major conflict with “peer-level competitors” such as China for any length of time, and faced significant threats from “relatively unsophisticated actors” such as Ansarullah, who have been “able to obtain and use modern technology (e.g., drones) to strategic effect.”
As Axios has reported, Pentagon weapons procurer Bill LaPlante – a journeyman engineer and physicist – has been awed by Yemen’s use of “increasingly sophisticated weapons,” including missiles that “can do things that are just amazing.”
He claims that Yemeni capabilities are “getting scary”. Once the US has exhausted itself yet again , failing to crush the Yemeni resistance, we could see yet more of its arsenal in play – and in turn, another historic defeat of the Empire, as inflicted over the course of Operation Prosperity Guardian.
[…]
UK lawyers to charge 10 Brits for Gaza war crimes
(Photo credit: AFP)
Dual-national Israelis who served in the military are being increasingly pursued worldwide for their role in atrocities committed against Palestinians
A leading UK human rights lawyer is set to submit a war crimes complaint to the Metropolitan police against 10 British citizens who served with the Israeli army in Gaza.
Michael Mansfield KC will hand the 240-page complaint to the police department’s war crimes unit on 7 April. It cites Israel’s targeted killing of civilians and humanitarian aid workers, as well as airstrikes on hospitals and densely populated civilian neighborhoods. It also includes the targeting of religious sites and historic monuments.
The documents were prepared by British lawyers and researchers from The Hague. The names of the 10 Britons in question have not been made public.
“If one of our nationals is committing an offence, we ought to be doing something about it. Even if we can’t stop the government of foreign countries behaving badly, we can at least stop our nationals from behaving badly,” Mansfield said.
“British nationals are under a legal obligation not to collude with crimes committed in Palestine. No one is above the law,” he added.
The dossier is based on open-source evidence and testimonies from eyewitnesses. The crimes include an Israeli army bulldozer trampling a dead body in the courtyard of one of the several hospitals attacked by Israeli ground forces in Gaza.
“The public will be shocked, I would have thought, to hear that there’s credible evidence that Brits have been directly involved in committing some of those atrocities,” said Sean Summerfield, British barrister at Doughty Street Chambers – who helped put together the evidence which is to be submitted.
The complaint comes as Israeli soldiers are being increasingly pursued in international courts for their roles in the crimes committed against Palestinians in Gaza.
Pro-Palestine organizations have filed dozens of criminal complaints in courts around the world since the start of the year, targeting Israeli soldiers for their role in Tel Aviv’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.
Among these organizations is the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), named after the six-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by the Israeli army along with her family in Gaza City last year.
“When genocide or crimes against humanity occur, there is a global need for justice and accountability, not only from victims but also from those in solidarity with them. Like many others, I was deeply impacted by witnessing the level of impunity displayed by the Israelis, who were not only committing these crimes but also recording and posting them on social media, acting as if they were above any legal framework,” HRF Chairman Dyab Abou Janjah told The Cradle’s Esteban Carillo in an exclusive interview in February.
HRF focuses its efforts on pursuing both dual-national Israeli soldiers and those who leave Israel for vacation.
In January, a Brazilian court ordered an investigation into a vacationing Israeli soldier who had been identified in a video of his participation in the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
The soldier fled Brazil with help from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Israel has warned active-duty soldiers not to travel over the risk of legal action, and has issued certain restrictions on media interviews with military personnel.
[…]
Via https://thecradle.co/articles/uk-lawyers-to-charge-10-britons-for-gaza-war-crimes
Video Shows Apple Stock Crashing Real Time As Donald Trump Announces Tariffs
Apple shares fell more than 6% as President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imported goods, hitting major tech firms
Apple led a sharp decline in tech stocks after President Donald Trump announced new tariffs ranging from 10% to 49% on imported goods. The White House revealed that Chinese imports would face a 34% tariff, while Vietnam and India—both key Apple manufacturing hubs—would be hit with 46% and 26% tariffs, respectively.
The announcement rattled investors, with concerns that the tariffs could eat into Apple’s profit margins and disrupt its supply chain. While the company has been diversifying its production away from China, the tariffs now extend to the very regions it had turned to for stability.
A video was shared on X by a user which reads that the moment Trump was announcing tariffs same moment the stock went down.
https://x.com/i/status/1907549193650188469
Apple’s Dependence on Asian Manufacturing
Apple relies heavily on manufacturing in China, Vietnam, and India. Despite efforts to reduce dependency on China since 2017, a significant portion of its products, including iPhones, AirPods, iPads, and MacBooks, are still assembled across these regions. Vietnam accounted for over 10% of Apple’s top 200 suppliers in 2023, while India has become increasingly important for iPhone assembly.
The company began assembling iPhones in India in 2017, but scaling up production has taken years. Currently, Apple aims for 25% of its 200 million annual iPhone sales to come from India-made devices. However, the new tariffs threaten to increase costs even in these alternative markets.
Foxconn’s Expanding Role in Apple’s India Strategy
Apple’s key manufacturing partner, Foxconn, is ramping up its Indian operations. According to media reports, Foxconn plans to more than double iPhone production in India this year, targeting 25-30 million units—up from 12 million in 2024.
Apple is also expanding beyond iPhones in India.
Media reports indicate that production of AirPods for export will begin at the Foxconn plant in Hyderabad this April, making AirPods the second major Apple product to be manufactured in the country.
Foxconn’s Growing Footprint in India
Foxconn’s expansion in India includes:
Bengaluru: A 300-acre facility, set to be Foxconn’s second-largest site after China.
Hyderabad: A new unit dedicated to producing Apple AirPods.
Sriperumbudur (near Chennai): A long-established hub for iPhone assembly.
[…]
April 6, 2025
We Can End the Autism Epidemic – By Telling the Truth
by Mary Holland, J.D.Today, on World Autism Day, let’s honor autistic children and adults everywhere by demanding our federal agencies unlock the four decades of data that hold the secrets to why autism rates are soaring — so we can end the autism epidemic once and for all.
Today is World Autism Awareness Day, established in 2007 by the United Nations (U.N.) to kick off a month devoted to raising public awareness of autism. Incomprehensibly, the U.N. has chosen as its 2025 theme: “Advancing Neurodiversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”I suggest an alternative theme: ending the autism epidemic by unlocking the data that are key to unraveling the truth about vaccines and autism.
As the mother of an adult son who was injured by a “routine” MMR vaccine, I fully support advocating for the inclusion and rights of children and adults with autism.
But I am also fiercely devoted to ending the autism epidemic, especially among children who were senselessly injured thanks to a burgeoning childhood vaccine schedule.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) latest estimates, 1 in 36 children have an autism diagnosis. A recent JAMA Open Network study suggested that number is closer to 1 in 33. We’re not talking about adults diagnosed later in life — these are children, between the ages of 5 and 8.
Public health officials and media routinely ascribe rising rates of autism to improvements in doctors’ ability to diagnose autism. But any parent of a healthy, normally developing child who regressed into severe autism after a vaccine knows better.
For those who question what parents witnessed with their own eyes, there’s no shortage of studies suggesting vaccines can cause autism — including this recent peer-reviewed study that found vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children.
No, the link between vaccines and autism hasn’t been ‘debunked’
Public health officials and mainstream media can assert that the link between vaccines and autism has been “debunked” by “many studies” as often and as unequivocally as they want — but that won’t make those assertions true.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and others have repeatedly asked the CDC to see these “many studies.” Each time, the CDC has failed to produce them.
Here’s what we know about efforts to “debunk” the link between vaccines and autism:
Only one vaccine — MMR, a combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella — has ever been studied as a potential trigger for autism. The most frequently cited study is one published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine, which examined over 500,000 children in Denmark — a study riddled with simple arithmetic errors and inconsistencies that render it useless.There are 15 different vaccines on the CDC childhood schedule — a study of only one of those vaccines can’t be used as the basis for the claim that “vaccines don’t cause autism.”Only one vaccine ingredient — thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative still used in some flu vaccines — has ever been independently studied for its potential to trigger autism.There are no studies on the cumulative effect of injecting multiple vaccines containing more than 20 ingredients, none tested for a possible link to autism, into young children.No studies on pertussis vaccine and autism: When Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 — the bill that protects vaccine makers and healthcare workers from liability for injuries caused by their products — lawmakers ordered federal health authorities to investigate claims that the pertussis vaccine may cause autism.In 1991, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) — since renamed the National Academy of Medicine — conducted a review of studies on the pertussis vaccine and autism. The institute could not find a single study examining whether the pertussis vaccine causes autism. Why? Because the studies have never been done.No studies on DTaP, tetanus, or diphtheria vaccine and autism: In 2012, the CDC commissioned the IOM to conduct a review of studies potentially linking the DTaP, tetanus and diphtheria vaccines to autism. The IOM did not find a single study supporting the claim that these vaccines don’t cause autism.No studies on the cumulative impact of multiple vaccines: The CDC childhood immunization schedule recommends multiple doses of many of the 15 vaccines — 72+ doses by age 18. If a child today is vaccinated according to CDC recommendations, by age 2, that child will have received 34 doses of 14 different vaccines, including Hep B, Hib, DTaP, IPV, MMR, varicella, rotavirus, RSV, PCV, flu and COVID, each containing at least 10 unique ingredients and/or adjuvants.Running scared, pharma-owned Big Media ramps up fearmongering
Today, I am more hopeful than ever that we, as a movement, are about to expose the truth about vaccines and autism. Why?
Because Big Pharma, through its mainstream media megaphone, has unleashed an unprecedented torrent of attacks on medical freedom and fearmongering — attacks designed to scare parents into vaccinating their kids .
It’s a clear sign the vaccine industry is terrified its dark secrets will be exposed, and its global $69 billion gravy train will dry up.
In the past two months, media outlets have pumped out an endless stream of hysterical headlines over a non-life-threatening measles outbreak. Although they repeatedly refer to a recent “death from measles,” we at CHD exposed that the child’s death was caused by medical error, not measles.
In fact, during the past decade, there have been no deaths directly attributable to measles — while 42 deaths and 2,908 serious injuries were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, following the MMR vaccine. Where were the headlines for those deaths and injuries?
Major media have ramped up their attacks on the very mention of an investigation into the possible link between vaccines and autism.
For example, media attacks on Dr. David Weldon, an outspoken advocate for vaccine safety, tanked his nomination to lead the CDC.
The attacks on data analyst and researcher David Geier were even more vicious after The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tapped Geier to oversee a study on vaccines and autism.
Public health officials are terrified their reputations will go down with the ship — and with good reason.
Last week, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. forced out the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top vaccine cheerleader, Dr. Peter Marks. The news sent vaccine stocks plummeting — proof that the FDA has been serving pharma, not our children.
Americans deserve to see the 40 years’ worth of healthcare data we paid to collect
For almost 40 years, our public health agencies have been collecting healthcare data on more than 10 million Americans. We know those data hold the answers to the autism epidemic.
We, as taxpayers, paid to collect and house that data. But not only have our federal agencies refused to share the data with the public, including scientists, researchers and journalists — they’re now trying to keep Secretary Kennedy and his team from accessing it, too.
When Kennedy announced the restructuring of HHS, he revealed that agencies within HHS are hoarding and hiding healthcare patient data — even from him.
These are the actions of public health officials, beholden to Big Pharma, who live in fear.
Fear that their crimes against our children will be exposed for all to see. Fear that their obscene profits will dry up. Fear that they will no longer be able to frighten or bully or mandate parents into harming their own children.
For decades, Big Pharma has relied on fearmongering, mandates and laws that protect vaccine makers and the medical establishment from liability for the injuries their products cause.
But the jig is finally up. Kennedy recently announced that HHS is creating an agency within the CDC that will focus on vaccine injuries — that’s the best news parents have heard in decades.
Today, on World Autism Day, let’s honor autistic children and adults everywhere by demanding our federal agencies unlock the four decades of data that hold the secrets to why autism rates are soaring — so we can end the autism epidemic once and for all.
Other Countries Seem To Like Tariffs… So Why Are People Opposed To Trump’s Tariffs?
Zero Hedge
April 3, President Donald Trump announced it as “Liberation Day.” And by that he meant we were going to be liberated from asymmetrical tariffs of the last 50 years. And it was going to inaugurate a new what he called “golden age” of trade parity, greater investment in the United States, but mostly, greater job opportunities and higher-paying jobs for Americans.
And yet, the world seemed to erupt in anger. It was very strange.
Even people on the libertarian right and, of course, the left were very angry. The Wall Street Journal pilloried Donald Trump.
But here’s my question.
China has prohibitive tariffs, so does Vietnam, so does Mexico, so does Europe.
So do a lot of countries.
So does India.
But if tariffs are so destructive of their economies, why is China booming?
How did India become an economic powerhouse when it has these exorbitant tariffs on American imports?
How did Vietnam, of all places, become such a different country even though it has these prohibitive tariffs?
Why isn’t Germany, before its energy problems, why wasn’t it a wreck? It’s got tariffs on almost everything that we send them.
How is the EU even functioning with these tariffs?
I thought tariffs destroyed an economy, but they seem to like them. And they’re angry that they’re no longer asymmetrical.
Apparently, people who are tariffing us think tariffs improve their economy. Maybe they’re right. I don’t know.
The second thing is, why would you get angry at the person who is reacting to the asymmetrical tariff and not the people who inaugurated the tariff?
Why is Canada mad at us when it’s running a $63 billion surplus and it has tariffs on some American products at 250%. Doesn’t it seem like the people who started this asymmetrical—if I could use the word—trade war should be the culpable people, not the people who are reluctantly reacting to it?
Sort of like Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine. Do we blame Ukraine for defending itself and trying to reciprocate? No, we don’t. We don’t blame America because it finally woke up and said, “Whatever they tariff us we’re gonna tariff them.”
Which brings up another question: Are our tariffs really tariffs?
That is, were they preemptive? Were they leveled against countries that had no tariffs against us? Were they punitive? No. They’re almost leveled on autopilot. Whatever a particular country tariffs us, we reciprocate and just mirror image them. And they go off anytime that country says, “It was a mistake. We’re sorry. You’re an ally. You’re a neutral. We’re not going to tariff this American product.” And we say, “Fine.” Then the autopilot ceases and the automatic tariff ends. In other words, it’s their choice, not ours. We’re just reacting to what they did, not what we did.
Couple of other questions that I’ve had. We haven’t run a trade surplus since 1975—50 years. So, it wasn’t suddenly we woke up and said, “It’s unfair. We want commercial justice.” No. We’ve been watching this happen. For 50 years it’s been going on. And no president, no administration, no Congress in the past has done anything about it. Done anything about what? Leveling tariffs on our products that we don’t level on theirs.
It was all predicated in the postwar period. We were so affluent, so powerful—Europe, China, Russia were in shambles—that we had to take up the burdens of reviving the economy by taking great trade deficits. Fifty years later, we have been deindustrialized. And the countries who did this to us, by these unfair and asymmetrical tariffs, did not fall apart. They did not self-destruct. They apparently thought it was in their self-interest. And if anybody calibrates the recent gross domestic product growth of India or Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, they seem to have some logic to it.
There’s a final irony.
The people who are warning us most vehemently about this tariff quote the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. But remember something, that came after the onset of the Depression—after. The stock market crashed in 1929. That law was not passed until 1930. It was not really amplified until ’31.
And here’s the other thing that they were, conveniently, not reminded of: We were running a surplus. That was a preemptive punitive tariff, on our part, against other countries. We had a trade surplus. And it was not 10% or 20%. Some of the tariffs were 40% and 50%. And again, it happened after the collapse of the stock market.
In conclusion, don’t you find it very ironic that Wall Street is blaming the Trump tariffs for heading us into a recession, if not depression, when the only great depression we’ve ever had was not caused by tariffs but by Wall Street?
As a follow up to Victor Davis Hanson’s brief essay, hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman commented on X that while Hanson made a compelling case for the Trump tariff strategy, he gets one issue incorrect. He describes the Trump tariffs as reciprocal and proportional to those other nations have assessed on us.
In actuality, the Trump tariffs were set at levels substantially above, and in many cases, at a multiple of the counterparty country’s tariff levels.
Initially, the market responded favorably, up more than one percent when Trump referred to ‘reciprocal tariffs’ in his Rose Garden speech. It was only when he put up a chart showing the actual tariffs that the markets plunged.
We can divine from this response that market participants are supportive of the administration using tariffs as a tool to lower the asymmetrical tariffs of our trading partners, but are highly concerned with tariff levels set well in excess of a corresponding country’s levels.
So why did Trump take this approach?The answer goes back to ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Trump’s negotiating style is to ask for the moon and then settle somewhere in between. It has worked well for him in the past so he is using the same approach here.
The market’s response is due to the fear that if this strategy fails and the tariffs stay in place, they will plunge our economy into a recession. And we don’t need to wait for failure as it doesn’t take long for a high degree of uncertainty to cause economic activity to slow.
Press reports today have said that all deals are now on hold. This is not surprising. Capitalism is a confidence game. Uncertainty is the enemy of business confidence.
The good news is that a number of countries have already approached the negotiating table to make tariff deals, which suggests that Trump’s strategy is beginning to work.
Whether this is enough to settle markets next week is unknowable, but we will find out soon.
The idea that Wall Street and investors are opposed to the President’s efforts to bring back our industrial base by leveling the tariff playing field is false.
Our trading partners have taken advantage of us for decades after tariffs were no longer needed to help them rebuild their economies after WWII.
The market is simply responding to Trump’s shock and awe negotiating strategy and factoring in some probability that it will fail or otherwise lead to an extended period of uncertainty that will sink us into a recession.
The market decline has been compounded by losses incurred at so-called pod shops and other highly levered market participants that have been forced to liquidate positions as markets have declined.
Stocks of even the best companies are now trading at the cheapest valuations we have seen since Covid. If the President makes continued progress on tariff deals, uncertainty will be reduced, and the market will begin to recover.
As more countries come to the table, those that have held out or have reciprocated with higher tariffs will have growing concerns about being left behind. This should cause more countries to negotiate deals until we reach a tipping point where it is clear that the strategy will succeed. When this occurs, stocks will soar.
Trump’s strategy is not without risk, but I wouldn’t bet against him.
The more that markets support the President and his strategy, the higher the probability that he succeeds, so a stable hand on the trading wheel is a patriotic one.
An important characteristic of a great leader is a willingness to change course when the facts change or when the initial strategy is not working. We have seen Trump do this before. Two days in, however, it is much too early to form a view about his tariff strategy.
[…]
Witnesses Tell House Task Force To Reinvestigate JFK Assassination
Filmmaker Oliver Stone testifies before the House Oversight Committee at the U.S. Capitol on April 1, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Zero Hedge
WASHINGTON—A panel of expert witnesses that included renowned filmmaker Oliver Stone told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets on April 1 that more work is needed to uncover the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
“Let us see past the lies, and let us hear what happened,” Stone told the task force. “The truth is the greatest treasure a Socratic soul can attain in this lifetime.”
The three-time Academy Award-winning director released a movie titled “JFK” in 1991 and followed that with a documentary in 2021 called “JFK: Revisited.”
He questioned the role played by the CIA, saying it “operates arrogantly outside our laws.”
A litany of motives for removing Kennedy existed at the time, including those related to expanding the Vietnam War and securing power for the military-industrial complex, among others, according to the director.
“He was changing things, changing too many things too fast. It was a major problem for some, and he was going to win a second election,” Stone told The Epoch Times after the hearing. “And he had a brother, a younger brother, and there was fear of a dynasty. They were terrified of that possibility.”
Expressing doubt about the Warren Commission’s findings in 1964, which fingered Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone gunman responsible for Kennedy’s murder, he asked the committee to reopen an investigation into the incident.
Some lawmakers on the dais acknowledged a need to follow up on questions regarding the chain of custody of evidence and discrepancies in testimony and records related to the crime, saying the lack of transparency over nearly 62 years has eroded trust in government.
“For over six decades, questions have lingered, shrouded in secrecy and speculation,” task force chairwoman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said during opening remarks. “What has been alarming to me is the amount of stonewalling the federal government put forth to hide this information from the American people.”
Chairwoman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) questions witnesses at the House Oversight Committee for Government Reform Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets hearing regarding the JFK files at the U.S. Capitol on April 1, 2025. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch TimesShe said revelations in the approximately 80,000 pages of documents that were declassified by President Donald Trump on March 18 are “staggering” and raise “serious concerns.”
Task force members in both parties denounced what they called overclassification and called for increased transparency from the government.
“This is a known fact that we all should agree on. Federal agencies, obviously, have in the past obscured information and key facts from the public for too long,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. “The CIA and [FBI], especially in this period of time, were deeply flawed institutions.”
Others on the panel, however, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), used their allotted time to criticize the sitting president for what she described as a rush to release classified material that could result in the release of private information, such as Social Security numbers.
One witness called to testify, Jefferson Morley—an author and independent journalist who has researched the JFK assassination for 30 years and told the commission that he is a “liberal Democrat”—dismissed the line of inquiry.
Author and researcher Jefferson Morley testifies to the House Oversight Committee for Government Reform task force on the declassification of federal secrets during a hearing regarding the JFK files at the Capitol in Washington on April 1, 2025. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch TimesHe said some of the new files show that James Angleton, longtime counterintelligence chief for the CIA; Richard Helms, who was the director of the CIA; and agency liaison to Congress George Joannides all lied under oath about the killing.
“Obstructing Congress cannot be considered evidence of incompetence,” Morley said. “Three false statements by top CIA officers about Kennedy’s accused killer, that is a pattern. It’s a pattern of misconduct; it’s a pattern of malfeasance.”
Author James DiEugenio highlighted a document written by Arthur Schlesinger—special assistant to Kennedy—and long redacted by the CIA, as of paramount importance in understanding the context of the murder, as it reveals Kennedy’s intention to reorganize the agency and minimize its authority.
He called for a new investigation, warning that “secrecy is the enemy of democracy.”
“I really hope that people will learn from the past and learn from experiences,” DiEugenio told the task force. “The CIA and the FBI should not have the last word on JFK’s murder. You should.”
[…]
Via https://www.zerohedge.com/political/witnesses-tell-house-task-force-reinvestigate-jfk-assassination
Neocons Attempt To Stall U.S.-Russia Talks
By Moon Over Alabama
Negotiations between the U.S. and Russia about the war in Ukraine seem to be losing steam.
Russia has long insisted on a solution of the conflict which removes the root causes of it. It can not allow for Ukraine to become a NATO battering ram at its doorstep. It can not allow a fascist government in Ukraine.
Any solution to the conflict must resolve (at least) those two issues.
The Trump administration wants the Ukraine problem out of its way. It wants to implement a ceasefire to be able to turn away and ignore the festering problem.
Russia won’t have that (archived):
On Tuesday, Moscow reinforced its hard-line, maximalist demands when Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov complained that Russia’s demand “to solve the problems related to the root causes of the conflict” was being ignored by the U.S., and “we cannot accept all of this as it is.”As the U.S. overstates its progress in talks, Moscow seems concerned that Trump’s negotiators do not understand how serious it is about these demands, according to [Thomas Graham, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council under the George W. Bush administration and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations].
“The question is whether the administration has the patience to continue those negotiations and whether they can conduct the negotiations in ways that can extract concessions from the Russian side,” he said.
“Extract concessions”? By what?
The U.S. has no leverage over Russia. It is the Russian army that is winning on the battlefield in Ukraine. It has ample reserves in soldiers. It is by far outproducing NATO in weapons and munitions. It is stable in political, social and economic terms.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is threatening Russia with more sanctions (machine translation):
“Now we are not interested in negotiations for the sake of the negotiations themselves – we will not continue this indefinitely. We have a certain amount of time during which we want to understand whether they are ready or not, and this time is already coming to an end. Congress has already started working on a bill for additional sanctions, and pressure from the Capitol will continue to grow, ” the US Secretary of State said.According to him, it was important “just to start a dialogue, because we haven’t talked for a long time, but now we need to make progress.”
The above-mentioned draft law provides for the introduction of new sanctions against Moscow, as well as duties in the amount of 500% on imports for countries that purchase Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.
In “weeks, not months,” we will know if Russia is ready to end the war, Rubio said.
Russia is already under a total of 28,000 individual sanctions. If the U.S. is threatening other countries with sanctions for buying Russian oil they will find ways around it. It is, like the U.S. ‘tariffs’, just another way of wreaking the global U.S. position.
There are signs that Rubio and his fellow neo-cons in the Trump administration have decided to stall further talks:
Trump’s inner circle opposes a phone call to Putin until the Russian leader commits to a full ceasefire in Ukraine, two unnamed administration officials said.Despite Trump saying he plans to speak to Putin days earlier, no call between the two leaders has been scheduled, the unnamed officials said.
It is possible Trump will abruptly decide he wants to speak to Putin, but he has been advised against calling the Russian leader until Moscow communicates they agree to a full ceasefire in Ukraine, the two officials said.
Not talk to Putin and wait for what? Godoh?
There is fortunately a second line of communication between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev. Russia is offering the U.S. very big investment opportunities. This is Putin’s carrot while the steady progress of the Russian army in Ukraine is his stick.
Dmitriev, during his visit in Washington, stated that talks were going well but that there are certain powers who want to derail them:
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who is visiting Washington this week, said on Thursday that unidentified forces were trying to sow tension between Russia and the United States.”Today, numerous forces interested in maintaining tension stand in the way of restoring constructive cooperation… These forces are deliberately distorting Russia’s position, trying to disrupt any steps towards dialogue, sparing neither money nor resources for this,” Dmitriev said on Telegram.
“Opponents of the rapprochement are afraid that Russia and the United States will find common ground, begin to understand each other better and build cooperation both in international affairs and in the economy,” he said.
It is obvious that the moves against further negotiations are coming from neo-conservatives, like Rubio, within the Trump administration.
Will Trump be able to disarm them?
[…]
Via https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/04/neocons-attempt-to-sabotage-us-russa-talks.html#more
Are Trump’s Advisors Lying to Him About Iran?? By Mike Whitney
[image error]
Mike Whitney
I have repeatedly argued that launching an attack against Iran would result in a catastrophic defeat for the US military. I believe this for many reasons, foremost among them my long-held conviction that the aircraft carrier is an obsolete relic of a bygone era that will not survive a war against a peer or near-peer adversary…. it just so happens that the largest and most expensive war-game exercise in Pentagon history tested the thesis back in 2002. It was a massive battle simulation code-named Millennium Challenge. The Pentagon spent a whopping 250 million dollars setting the whole thing up, and it consisted primarily of a carrier strike group escorting a large amphibious landing force into the Persian Gulf….
the naval task force had transited the Strait of Hormuz, and then he launched salvos of land-based ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles launched from low-flying planes and helicopters, and swarms of elusive “fast boats” against the flotilla of ships. This attack entirely overwhelmed the defense capabilities of the fleet, and in a matter of mere minutes, all nineteen ships in the task force had been sunk, along with their entire complement of 20,000 sailors and marines.
It was a total catastrophe – not to mention a shocking humiliation for Pentagon planners… The problem is that, while the US military is substantially weakened since its high-water mark of dominance in 2002, the Iranians are significantly more formidable in every category….
I’d like to think the desk jockeys at the Pentagon “learned their lesson”, but I’m confident they did not. And if the US attempts to make war against Iran at this late stage of the empire’s denouement, I expect the real-life results to be at least as disastrous as they were in simulation over twenty years ago.
Will Schryver @imetatronink
Donald Trump’s advisors are withholding critical information that could dramatically impact his decision to launch preemptive air-strikes on Iran. Trump’s assumption –that the United States can inflict devastating damage on Iran without suffering significant losses itself– speaks to Trump’s ignorance about the breathtaking improvements in Iran’s state-of-the-art air-defense systems and hypersonic missiles. As we noted in earlier articles, Iran’s extraordinary missile and air-defense capability were put on full display during the tit-for-tat dust-up between Israel and Iran last year. But the results of those conflagrations have been shaped into a narrative that bears no relation to the truth. The Israeli-friendly media would have you believe that Israel overwhelmingly prevailed both offensively and defensively when, in fact, they fell short on both counts. What we learned from the altercation is that Israel’s air campaign was sharply rebuffed by Iran’s advanced multi-layered air defense systems while the vast majority of Iran’s long-range hypersonic ballistic missiles cut-through Israeli vaunted air defense systems striking targets unopposed. This basic outcome has been confirmed by a number of reputable analysts and even appeared in an article in the mainstream Guardian which said:
Satellite and social media footage has shown (Iranian) missile after missile striking the Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert, and setting off at least some secondary explosions, indicating that despite the highly touted effectiveness of Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow air defences, Iran’s strikes were more effective than had been previously admitted.
Experts who analyzed the footage noted at least 32 direct hits on the airbase. None appeared to have caused major damage, but some landed close to hangars that house Israel’s F-35 jets, among the country’s most prized military assets…. Guardian
In short, Iran has the ability to put their missiles on any target in any location in Israel and Israel has no way to stop them. Here’s how military analyst Brandon Weichert summed it up in an interview on Absolute Truth:
Yes. Iran’s threat has evolved and the fact that everyone in the West in official positions seems to be reading off the same script should tell you that Iran, as I warned years ago, has evolved key capabilities to threaten Israel as never before. Brandon Weichert @WeTheBrandon (short video)
So, Iran not only has the offensive tools to inflict significant damage on US/Israeli bases and critical infrastructure in the region; it also has one of the most advanced, cutting-edge air-defenses in the world.
[image error]Does Trump know this?
No, he does not. Trump is a victim of Israeli misinformation as are his advisors. And that misinformation is affecting his ability to objectively weigh the risks against the benefits of any prospective conflict . He thinks that Iran will be quickly overpowered and forced to capitulate. But that’s a conclusion he’s drawn based the analysis of last year’s fracas between Israel and Iran. All of our research suggests that the media’s version of events is thoroughly unreliable and deeply flawed. Even so, that is the analysis on which Trump has based his decision to go to war.
[image error]
Iran displayed its capability to knock-out Israeli air bases in time of conflict….
Important:
People must bear in mind, that no soft defeat measure helped to prevent the strike:
– No GPS/GLONASS spoofing and jamming helped, whether by or
– No sabotage asset
– No secret space-based counter system…
In a real war scenario, Iran would use its high-precision missiles against the hardened and small targets… Patarames @Pataramesh
Given Iran’s impressive military capability, we think Tehran will retaliate, and the scale of their retaliation will be proportional to the magnitude of the perceived threat. If Iranian leaders think they face an existential threat (and the possible annihilation of the regime), then they are going to respond as if “their lives depended on it”, because their lives do depend on it. Which means they’re going to pull out all the stops and use whatever weapons they have to ensure their own self-preservation. They are not going to capitulate or wave the white flag. They’re going to go ‘scorched earth’ and fight to the death.
Trump doesn’t know any of this, because Trump is setting policy based on information he’s gleaned from an agenda-driven media operating on Israel’s behalf. He seems to think the war will be a “cakewalk” that will shower him with the praise and glory he deserves. He doesn’t realize that he is on-course to pop the biggest myth of all, the myth of US military superiority.
[…]
Via https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/are-trumps-advisors-lying-to-him-about-iran/
April 5, 2025
Policy Reversal: Why Is the U.S. Softening Its Position on Iran?
An analysis of the situation suggests that the policy shift is tied to a combination of factors—from the failure of sanctions to the Trump administration’s domestic political calculations. Additionally, Iran’s response and that of the international community play a key role in determining how events will unfold.
The Failure of “Maximum Pressure”
In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), expecting that harsh sanctions would force Iran to make concessions. The Trump administration believed economic strangulation would either lead to regime change in Tehran or its surrender on the nuclear issue. However, these calculations proved wrong.
Instead of backing down, Iran responded by escalating its nuclear activities. According to the IAEA, Tehran has significantly increased its stockpile of enriched uranium and begun developing more advanced centrifuges. Moreover, the country strengthened ties with Russia and China, finding alternative ways to bypass sanctions. As a result, the “maximum pressure” policy not only failed to achieve its goals but, from Washington’s perspective, worsened the situation by bringing Iran closer to developing nuclear weapons.
Now, Washington seems to have realized that isolating Iran hasn’t worked and is attempting to shift to diplomatic methods. The question, however, is whether it’s too late—Tehran, hardened by bitter experience, is unlikely to agree to new negotiations without serious guarantees.
Another reason for the policy shift may be domestic U.S. issues. Facing economic challenges and a lack of clear successes, President Trump urgently needs a foreign policy win that can be framed as a major achievement of his so-called “new approach.” A full-scale war with Iran is too risky—a scenario that could spell disaster for both the region and the U.S. itself. Thus, the administration is likely betting on a temporary agreement that can be marketed as a “diplomatic breakthrough.” However, this approach risks new problems—if the deal proves short-lived, it will further erode international trust in the U.S.
Internal Divisions in U.S. Leadership
The rhetorical shift also reflects deep divisions within the American leadership. While some officials, like Steven Whitcoff, advocate for negotiations, others—including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—continue to insist on Iran’s complete abandonment of its nuclear program. These contradictions indicate a lack of a unified strategy.
Part of the administration appears to recognize the futility of further pressure, while another faction remains committed to a hardline approach. This division makes any long-term U.S. strategy unstable—a change in administration or even a shift in Congressional power dynamics could undo any agreements reached. Such confusion weakens the effectiveness of U.S. policy and gives Iran additional leverage.
Iran’s Response: Why Tehran Doesn’t Trust the U.S.
Iranian leaders remain deeply skeptical of Washington’s new overtures. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly stated that “threats and bribes do not work on Iran.” The experience of the 2015 JCPOA showed that the U.S. could abandon the deal at any moment, even if Iran fully complied.
After Washington’s unilateral withdrawal, Tehran lost faith in American guarantees. Now, Iran’s leadership demands not only sanctions relief but also legally binding commitments to prevent the U.S. from reneging again.
The situation is further complicated by internal political struggles in Iran. Conservative factions, empowered after the JCPOA’s collapse, oppose any concessions to the West. Additionally, Iran has adapted to sanctions by finding alternative oil markets and deepening cooperation with China and Russia. This reduces the effectiveness of U.S. pressure and diminishes Tehran’s incentives to compromise.
Even Washington’s closest allies, like Israel, have expressed discontent with the policy shift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated he distrusts new negotiations with Iran and views any concessions as dangerous.
European nations, however, have long called for renewed dialogue. Germany, France, and the UK—who remained in the JCPOA after the U.S. exit—hope for de-escalation. Yet their influence is limited, as key decisions are made in Washington and Tehran.
The Future of U.S.-Iran Relations. Currently, negotiations remain at an impasse. The U.S. offers dialogue but maintains sanctions, while Iran refuses concessions without guarantees. Experts believe Trump is attempting a “good cop, bad cop” tactic, similar to his approach with North Korea. However, unlike in 2015, Tehran is no longer willing to negotiate under pressure. Iranian leaders recognize that time is on their side—the longer the U.S. fails to achieve its goals, the weaker its position becomes.
A Way Out?
An exit from the deadlock—which the U.S. created in its relations with Iran—was discussed during recent trilateral talks between China, Russia, and Iran in Beijing. The meeting produced a comprehensive initiative to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, based on five principles:
Peaceful Solutions Over Sanctions: All parties must reject coercive pressure and illegal restrictions, prioritizing dialogue. Conditions for renewed negotiations must be created while avoiding escalatory steps.Balancing Rights and Obligations: Iran must uphold its commitment against nuclear weapons development, while the international community recognizes its right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.Returning to the JCPOA as a Foundation: The initiative calls for renewed focus on the JCPOA, urging the U.S. to demonstrate goodwill and rejoin the process.Dialogue Over UN Pressure: Premature involvement of the UN Security Council would undermine trust and stall progress. Confrontational mechanisms would negate years of diplomacy.Gradual Steps and Mutual Compromises: Forceful methods are ineffective—only equal consultations can produce a compromise respecting all parties’ interests and global demands.The softening of U.S. rhetoric is a clear sign that “maximum pressure” has failed. Yet without real concessions and guarantees, negotiations are unlikely to yield a breakthrough. Iran has learned to play the long game, leaving Washington with a choice: serious, equal-footed dialogue or further escalation with unpredictable consequences. For now, the situation remains in limbo, with neither side willing to make the first move.
[…]
Via https://journal-neo.su/2025/04/05/policy-reversal-why-is-the-u-s-softening-its-position-on-iran/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
![[image error]](https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Gmvb6-GbkAAzkHZ-TrumpIran-MW-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[image error]](https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/GZBYLvnWQAA09U5-TrumpIran-MW-3.jpg){kind=link}