Unconditional Surrender
How realistic is this goal? There's been very little overall analysis of the war's progress, either in legacy or alt media. The YouTube video embedded above has what I think is the most complete view both of the military action itself and the changing world environment that it's bringing about. Tom Nash of the Tom Nash report, as best I've been able to track down, is originally from Russia but on his YouTube channel comments primarily on Iran. He appears to be unapologetically pro-Israel.
The major points in his discussion:
- The war will likely last only a few more weeks
- Iran committed a major error by attacking the Gulf states indiscriminately once the war began
- This gave Saudi Arabia, which had been trying to appear more neutral, an excuse to come closer to Israel
- The prior US strategy to avoid direct confrontation with Iran has been proven wrong
- Inaction is no longer the safer option
- The war has alrady repositioned the global chess board, and regime change in Iran is irrelevant
- Partnership with Israel is a force multiplier in the region
- Partnership with Iran is a dead letter
- A direct US military alliance with Israel, including close tactical coordination, was previously unforeseeable
- Israel has completely replaced the UK as the main US strategic partner
- The elimination of Khamenei has undermined the "supreme leader" paradigm
- Iran is delaying his replacement from fear that anyone who is named will also be eliminated
- As a result, the regime is de facto already no longer viable
- Israel's value as a military, intelligence, and geopolitical partner has significantly increased at relatively low immediate cost.
The Royal Navy has a long and colorful history, and it has saved Britain against its enemies more than once. Sadly, however, Britain’s navy continues to shrink. At the end of 2024, the force was down to roughly 32,000 personnel and 62 commissioned ships.
Except that by the 1916 Battle of Jutland, the upstart German High Seas Fleet fought it to a draw, prompting Admiral Beatty's famous quote, “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today”. The Grand Fleet remained in port for the rest of the war for fear another admiral could, as Winston Churchill put it, "lose the war in an afternoon". By 1941, with the loss of Force Z to the Japanese near Malaya, this was precisely what happened. The link continues,
By the time of the Falkland Islands War, it was clear the Royal Navy’s focus on becoming an anti-submarine force had left it without the capacity to engage in expeditionary warfare.
The number of major ships in the force declined again, by 74%, after the Falkland Islands campaign.
. . . What is clearly needed is a plus-up in UK defense spending to supply the Royal Navy with what it needs to be a credible force. But that is a conversation no recent government has been willing to have with the electorate.
Trump's function as truthteller, perhaps reinforced by the passing of Queen Elizabeth, has exposed that the UK has long been little more than a polite fiction. On the other hand, the basic community of interest between the US and Israel has gone largely unrecognized, a point David Gelernter was making a generation ago:
Americanism, or the religious idea called “America,” seems like a secular idea. It can and has been professed by devout atheists. Its creed, a central element of Americanism, is completely secular in tone–of course there’s no canonical version, but most people would agree that it calls for liberty, equality, and democracy for all mankind–or something on those lines.
I’ll argue that despite all this, Americanism is profoundly Christian in its inspiration and worldview.
It is in fact profoundly Puritan.
It is in fact profoundly Biblical.
It in fact emerged not just from the Bible, but especially from the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.
It’s no accident that a seventeenth century American Puritan should have written, regarding his fellow-Puritans: “We are the children of Abraham; and therefore we are under Abraham’s covenant.”
. . . The American religion has two parts–not only the Creed, but a doctrine about America’s duty and her special standing and responsibilities in the world–a doctrine I’ll call American Zionism.
. . . American Zionism is based on another widely recognized aspect of Americanism. In earlier centuries, the analogy between America and Ancient Israel, or the European settlements in colonial America and Ancient Israel, was heard constantly. It was derived from the corresponding analogy between England or Britain and Ancient Israel. There’s nothing new in this observation.
. . . In short, I’ll argue that the analogy between America and ancient Israel was no mere figure of speech. It implied a doctrine that made assertions and imposed duties. That doctrine was Zionism. Zionism, suitably adjusted, is a fundamental part of Americanism, which is another reason why the idea of Americanism as a merely secular or civil religion doesn’t hold up.
These remarks predate MAGA, but MAGA is very similar, and Trump has declared that he's the authoritative interpreter of MAGA.
President Trump cast Tucker Carlson out of his Make America Great Again movement following the conservative talking head’s loud criticism of the US and Israeli assault on Iran.
“Tucker has lost his way,” the commander-in-chief told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl on Thursday. “I knew that a long time ago, and he’s not MAGA. MAGA is saving our country. MAGA is making our country great again. MAGA is America first, and Tucker is none of those things. And Tucker is really not smart enough to understand that.”
Come to think of it, "unconditional surrender" is a uniquely American idea. Lincoln adopted the phrase, initally used by Grant, to apply to the Confederacy. Roosevelt announced the terms in 1943 following the Casablanca Conforence; Truman repeated them in regard to Japan at Potsdam. With Trump using it yet again, it strikes me as a major reassertion of confidence. But now there's no Winston Churchill to reinforce it, as he did at Casablanca.
Comments
Post a Comment