Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

Checkmate in Iran

Driving home from work last evening I was listening to a political talk radio show on satellite radio and the discussion was about how the Felon had been warned that an attack on Iran would lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.  Indeed, war games over the last decades have always foreseen the closure of the Strait. Of course the Felon and his incompetent Secretary of Defense either ignored the warnings and/or fired intelligence analysts and military leadership who did not tell the Felon what he wanted hear.  Now, the USA - and much of the world - is being held hostage in a mess of the Felon's creation that shows that America's vast military is not read to deal with asymmetrical warfare, just as Putin has found victory in Ukraine to be illusive if not impossible. One cannot stress enough that the USA's current quagmire with Iran is of the Felon's creation and that a defeat by Iran will greatly weaken America's standing around the world over and above the damage the Felon has previously done. The Felon has no good options - support for a land war is nonexistent outside of some of the Felon's cheerleaders - so the question becomes whether the Felon's ego will demand that he continue the stalemate or walk away.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the mess of the Felon's creation:

It’s hard to think of a time when the United States suffered a total defeat in a conflict, a setback so decisive that the strategic loss could be neither repaired nor ignored. The calamitous losses suffered at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and throughout the Western Pacific in the first months of World War II were eventually reversed. The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America’s overall position in the world, because they were far from the main theaters of global competition. The initial failure in Iraq was mitigated by a shift in strategy that ultimately left Iraq relatively stable and unthreatening to its neighbors and kept the United States dominant in the region.

Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character. It can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished. Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America’s failure.

[The Felon] President Trump likes to talk about who has “the cards,” but whether he has any good ones left to play is not clear. The United States and Israel pounded Iran with devastating effectiveness for 37 days, killing much of the country’s leadership and destroying the bulk of its military, yet couldn’t collapse the regime or exact even the smallest concession from it. Now the Trump administration hopes that blockading Iran’s ports will accomplish what massive force could not. It’s possible, of course, but a regime that could not be brought to its knees by five weeks of unrelenting military attack is unlikely to buckle in response to economic pressure alone. Nor does it fear the anger of its populace. As the Iran scholar Suzanne Maloney noted recently, “A regime that slaughtered its own citizens to silence protests in January is fully prepared to impose economic hardships on them now.”

Some supporters of the war are therefore calling for the resumption of military strikes, but they cannot explain how another round of bombing will accomplish what 37 days of bombing did not. More military action will inevitably lead Iran to retaliate against neighboring Gulf States; the war’s advocates have no response to that, either. Trump halted attacks on Iran not because he was bored but because Iran was striking the region’s vital oil and gas facilities. The turning point came on March 18, when Israel bombed Iran’s South Pars gas field and Iran retaliated by attacking Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, the world’s largest natural-gas-export plant, causing damage to production capacity that will take years to repair.

The risk calculus that forced Trump to back down a month ago still holds. Even if Trump were to carry out his threat to destroy Iran’s “civilization” through more bombing, Iran would still be able to launch many missiles and drones before its regime went down—assuming it did go down. Just a few successful strikes could cripple the region’s oil and gas infrastructure for years if not decades, throwing the world, and the United States, into a prolonged economic crisis. Even if Trump wanted to bomb Iran as part of an exit strategy—looking tough as a way of masking his retreat—he can’t do that without risking this catastrophe.

If this isn’t checkmate, it’s close. In recent days, Trump has reportedly asked the U.S. intelligence community to assess the consequences of simply declaring victory and walking away. You can’t blame him. Hoping for regime collapse is not much of a strategy, especially when the regime has already survived repeated military and economic pummeling. It could fall tomorrow, or six months from now, or not at all. Trump doesn’t have that much time to wait, as oil climbs toward $150 or even $200 a barrel, inflation rises, and global food and other commodity shortages kick in. He needs a faster resolution.

But any resolution other than America’s effective surrender holds enormous risks that Trump has not so far been willing to take. Those who glibly call on Trump to “finish the job” rarely acknowledge the costs. Unless the U.S. is prepared to engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold; unless it is prepared to risk the loss of warships convoying tankers through a contested strait; unless it is prepared to accept the devastating long-term damage to the region’s productive capacities likely to result from Iranian retaliation—walking away now could seem like the least bad option. As a political matter, Trump may well feel he has a better chance of riding out defeat than of surviving a much larger, longer, and more expensive war that could still end in failure.

Defeat for the United States, therefore, is not only possible but likely. Here is what defeat looks like.

Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz. The common assumption that, one way or another, the strait will reopen when the crisis ends is unfounded. Iran has no interest in returning to the status quo ante. People talk of a split between hard-liners and moderates in Tehran, but even moderates must understand that Iran cannot afford to let the strait go, no matter how good a deal it thought it could get. For one thing, how reliable is any deal with Trump?

And Israel’s interests will be threatened. As many Iran experts have noted, the regime in Tehran currently stands to emerge from the crisis much stronger than it was before the war, having not only retained its potential nuclear capacity but also gained control of an even more effective weapon: the ability to hold the global energy market hostage. When the Iranians talk of “reopening” the strait, they still mean to keep the strait under their control. Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations.

The power to close or control the flow of ships through the strait is greater and more immediate than the theoretical power of Iran’s nuclear program. This leverage will allow the leaders in Tehran to force nations to lift sanctions and normalize relations or face penalties. Israel will find itself more isolated than ever, as Iran grows richer, rearms, and preserves its options to go nuclear in the future. It may even find itself unable to go  after Iran’s proxies: In a world where Iran wields influence over the energy supply of so many nations, Israel could face enormous international pressure not to provoke Tehran in Lebanon, Gaza, or anywhere else.

The new status quo in the strait will also occasion a substantial shift in relative power and influence both regionally and globally. In the region, the United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran. As the Iran scholars Reuel Gerecht and Ray Takeyh wrote recently, “The Gulf Arab economies were built under the umbrella of American hegemony. Take that away—and the freedom of navigation that goes with it—and the Gulf states will ineluctably go begging to Tehran.”

They will not be the only ones. All nations that depend on energy from the Gulf will have to work out their own arrangements with Iran. What choice will they have? If the United States with its mighty Navy can’t or won’t open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans’ capability will be able to, either.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Saturday Male Beauty

 

The Felon Echoes Nixon's Racist Strategy

If one takes the time to read Project 2025, it becomes clear that the endeavor is a white "Christian" nationalist plan to drag America back to the 1950's, include instituting Jim Crow 2.0 curtailment of the rights of blacks and racial minorities, erasing LGBT civil rights, and eroding the rights of women among other nefarious goals. The Felon, of course, lied about knowing anything about Project 2025 even as he has implemented it step by step after taking office.  At its core, Project 2025, is an effort to restore white supremacy which plays well with working and lower class whites who seemingly are desperate to be able to look down on and discriminate against others.  Indeed, this desire for a license to discriminate to boost a sense of superiority - which the Felon has openly embraced - has lead to such individuals voting Republican even as the GOP agenda is hostile to the financial wellbeing of these voters. All of this is part of a tend within the GOP that traces back to Richard Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" that sought to attract southern whites who were hostile to racial minorities - principally blacks - having voting protects and equal treatment under the law. Sadly, the extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court are all in on this effort to erase the rights of blacks, other non-whites, the LGBT community and others.  A piece at Salon looks at this ugly agenda and the Felon's willingness to fan open racism:

Anyone who’s observed the Supreme Court over the past few years knew it was pretty much assured that the conservative majority would gut the Voting Rights Act the first chance they got. But the anticipation made the Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais no less shocking and appalling for having been anticipated. 

The conservative justices paved the way for the massive redistricting of Southern states that is already transpiring only days after the ruling. These actions will almost certainly eliminate most of the South’s Black representation, leaving those states essentially where they were before the Civil Rights Movement. 

After the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, Republicans set out to maintain and solidify control of the South. The operation went into full force in 1968 when historian and political scientist Kevin Phillips took note of Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s success in embedding racist-coded “law and order” messages in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and he persuaded GOP candidate Richard Nixon to follow suit. The GOP’s “Southern Strategy” was born. 

As the historian Rick Perlstein laid out in “Nixonland,” his epic history of the period, Phillips and Nixon understood something about the American cultural upheaval that most of the people in the media and elite institutions did not. White working-class and precarious middle-class voters were alarmed not only at the upending of the racial caste system but also at what they saw as an unraveling of society in general. The Vietnam War was raging, there were protests in the streets and their own kids were repudiating many of their values. The changes felt chaotic and overwhelming, so when Nixon promised “law and order,” they embraced it. In this sense, the Southern Strategy was about much more than just the Southern states — and remains so today.

As Perlstein wrote in the opening pages, “The main character in Nixonland is not Richard Nixon. Its protagonist, in fact, has no name — but lives on every page. It is the voter who, in 1964, pulled the lever for the Democrat for president because to do anything else, at least that particular Tuesday in November, seemed to court civilizational chaos, and who, eight years later, pulled the lever for the Republican for exactly the same reason.”

Despite the fact that Donald Trump thinks he invented the phrase “law and order,” the truth is that virtually every Republican candidate for president and Congress has used that slogan in the 60 years since — and everyone has always known exactly what they meant by it.

But in another important way Trump’s Southern Strategy is even more nefarious and blatant than Nixon’s, and it’s far older than the one Phillips imagined in the 1960s. The [Felon] president is reaching back to the really bad old days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries for inspiration. As the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch observed on May 3, the Justice Department, which has had a tough time prosecuting revenge cases against the president’s perceived enemies, has apparently realized that it would have more success bringing them in the solid Southern GOP states. 

Bunch notes that the recent case brought against former FBI Director James Comey was rejected by prosecutors and the courts in Virginia, which has trended Democratic in recent elections. But it was taken up by the very Trumpy U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina without any reported qualms. . . . . Federal prosecutors were able to get an equally absurd case handed down against the Southern Poverty Law Center in Mississippi by fatuously claiming that because the organization had paid informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups, it was supporting terrorism.

The late Republican strategist Lee Atwater famously laid out the Southern Strategy tactics years ago when he said that, in the past, politicians could just scream racist epithets and that would be enough. But he realized the GOP needed to be more subtle as the years went by. The results were coded tropes involving “law and order,” “welfare queens” and other veiled appeals that their racist base would understand, while not offending suburban whites who weren’t comfortable with overtly crude rhetoric. 

Starting with Nixon, virtually all GOP politicians skillfully deployed that tactic keeping the coalition of big and small business, evangelicals and anti-communists in the tent alongside true believers in the South’s “Lost Cause” myth. But [the Felon] Donald Trump is now on the verge of jettisoning that aspect of the strategy once and for all. 

As the Republican Party becomes more and more alienated from the white suburbs that no longer back its candidates — largely due to Trump’s grotesque behavior — they are finding they no longer need to hide their true agenda. It looks like the old Confederacy is making another run at it — this time with a loud-mouthed New Yorker at the helm and a Supreme Court majority ready to do its dirty work.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty