Normal view

The madness of Trump’s Iran idea and who’s behind it

By: A A
13 June 2026 at 10:05

Trump’s Iran strikes: staged weakness or real madness? Behind him, Graham and Keene push oil theft and fantasy invasions.

Join us on TelegramTwitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Many may be confused about America’s recent attacks on Iran, given that they come each day while Trump keeps telling us that a deal is about to be made. Just days ago, analysts believed that Trump was genuinely angry about Netanyahu going ahead with his IDF attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah. But was that real, or staged? Given that Trump ordered strikes against Iran after that, a cynical view might be that there are only two scenarios why he would do something so incongruent. One: he believes that Iran is very close to signing a deal but needs the extra ’encouragement’ to finally get over the line. Or two: he felt embarrassed by what a whole phalanx of Western commentators were recently saying — that it was in fact Bibi who was running the whole show, using America’s resources to create chaos and havoc. The refusal by the Israeli PM to stop his troops fighting was a clear signal that Trump really doesn’t control the war and is very much a servile player to Israeli thinking.

But what is interesting is how Trump is not at all convinced that he has no military options, even given that they would certainly mean the total eradication of anything left of relations with GCC countries. Trump still believes even today that the US military — who have only a track record in the last 80 years of losing all wars and interventions they instigate — can actually take on Iran and win. As ludicrous as this sounds, it is what is at the heart of what is stalling any deal being struck, coupled with Trump’s sensational failure to negotiate — something he is simply incapable of doing despite his own hype and hubris. The US struck a number of water plants in Iran, which was an incredibly stupid initiative given that this is the region’s Achilles heel. If Iran wants to completely eliminate water desalination plants in, say, Qatar — a country which has no natural water at all — then it could easily do this in a matter of hours.

When a US Apache helicopter crashes, Trump’s reaction is a theatre of the absurd, similar to watching a child burst into tears on his first sports day where his new soccer shirt gets dirty on the pitch. The US is the aggressor, but when a helicopter is downed, this is met with misplaced outrage that borders on comedy. The reality is that no US military analysts believe the chopper was taken down by Iranian fire; it is more likely that it suffered a malfunction and crashed, with both pilots surviving. But it is interesting how Trump considers the war as more of a theatre of PR stunts rather than an important battle he can win.

One reason which explains this is the need for US troops to keep busy in the region, in a pathetic bid to remain relevant to GCC allies — a point made by the commentator Patrick Henningsen recently on RT television. Another reason, though, is the people that Trump keeps around him who he listens to, like Lindsey Graham — who one can only assume is being blackmailed by Israel over his sexual inclination, given his almost cultish beliefs in Zionism. But Graham knows nothing about war and seems to glean some sexual satisfaction from sending young American men in uniform to their deaths. On the other hand, General Jack Keene, a man who isn’t overburdened with intelligence, is probably responsible for a lot of the erroneous decisions Trump is making militarily, and certainly for stoking the “invasion option” while reminding the whole world what an irony-free zone America actually is.

Keene recently rambled on Fox News that he had no confidence in Iran ever keeping its word if Tehran were to ever sign a deal — a hilarious and preposterous claim given America’s reputation for never keeping its word on ceasefires and peace deals. The very fact that Trump is in talks with the Iranians every day demonstrates that they can be trusted, as it is the Trump camp which has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to integrity — the main reason why the Iranians are dragging their feet and are more comfortable with a drawn-out war that will recalibrate their position in the region and put down Israel and the US once and for all. For Keene to say such a thing is quite remarkable. But then he continues with his ideas about US troops “taking” Kharg Island, and a picture emerges of how and why Trump is so deluded about what the real capability of US troops is, and how his decisions and ideas are so detached from reality. Landing airborne troops on the island would only be possible if Iran allowed it to happen — so that it could disarm the occupiers and then hold them hostage as a key part of a new deal. That’s on a good day. On a bad day, if the more hardcore element of the IRGC has its way, they might simply decide to slaughter all of them. What Keene doesn’t seem to understand is the logistical nightmare of having 10,000 US soldiers on a single location within reach of just about everything Iran has to throw at it. And the talk of troops “landing” there with helicopters is a fantasy. How did General Keene become a general, given that he is stupid and seems to know little about warfare or Iran’s capability? The Iranians will shoot down US helicopters like they are having a fun day at clay pigeon shooting. But even if troops were allowed to land on Kharg and other islands, they have to be supplied practically every day. Presumably, the Iranians would prevent the supplies getting in and then starve the marines on the ground. If General Keene really has the ear of the president and Iran holds out for a better deal, the case for Trump to go to war becomes even stronger and grows each day.

But Keene let the cat out of the bag when he talked about oil. It’s really only about oil, or energy, as it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and more recently Venezuela. For Trump to capture some oil production and then simply steal from it would be all in a day’s work for the president who has never had any problem with the stigmatisation of being called a thief. Trump believes oil theft is a real possibility and makes sense on any given day. But then there are days when he is desperate to get out of Iran altogether, which we can see with his panicky gestures — like the last strike, which actually achieved nothing but prepared Iran more for war, as the talks combined with bombardment don’t produce the results which Trump needs but make him look even weaker and more desperate. Has General Keene prepared Trump for a scenario where the ceasefire is over and he needs to move onto a new phase? Oil would only sweeten such a plan, and Keene makes no effort to hide this during his interview.

Schiff: Trump ‘telling falsehood after falsehood’ about war in Iran

12 June 2026 at 14:49
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday evening that President Trump’s account of the state of negotiations to end the Iran war “lacks a lot of credibility.”  Trump earlier in the day threatened ramped-up strikes on Tehran but later canceled them with a promise that Iran’s supreme leader had approved a deal to reopen the Strait…

Schiff: Trump ‘telling falsehood after falsehood’ about war in Iran

12 June 2026 at 14:49
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday evening that President Trump’s account of the state of negotiations to end the Iran war “lacks a lot of credibility.”  Trump earlier in the day threatened ramped-up strikes on Tehran but later canceled them with a promise that Iran’s supreme leader had approved a deal to reopen the Strait…

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘overselling’ Iran war like ‘all-you-can-eat buffet in Atlantic City’

12 June 2026 at 13:54
Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson took a swipe at President Trump over the way he is “selling” the ongoing military operation with Iran to the American people. “As of right now, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. It did not when this war began. Now it does,” Carlson said on a recent episode of his podcast…

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘overselling’ Iran war like ‘all-you-can-eat buffet in Atlantic City’

12 June 2026 at 13:54
Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson took a swipe at President Trump over the way he is “selling” the ongoing military operation with Iran to the American people. “As of right now, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. It did not when this war began. Now it does,” Carlson said on a recent episode of his podcast…

The Flaming Strait of Hormuz: A Ceasefire No One Signed

12 June 2026 at 05:59
The fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran, based on mutual control of the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with relentless economic and political pressure, is creating a protracted war of nerves. This scenario threatens to further destabilize the region, with no clear winner in sight. The Red Line and the Horizon of Expectations in the […]

Los bárbaros occidentales

By: A A
11 June 2026 at 14:05

Sobre el lento desenmascaramiento del orden liberal y el descubrimiento, bastante incómodo, de que el emperador lo sabía desde el principio

Marcos Paulo CANDELORO

Únete a nosotros en Telegram Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Hay algo casi infantil en la fascinación que parte de Occidente ha desarrollado por el lema de la alianza de naciones europeas. Sin embargo, la realidad revela que se trata más bien de un consorcio militar-financiero que intenta preservar una hegemonía que ya empieza a escapársele de las manos.

La guerra de Ucrania, en términos generales, no hizo sino acelerar un proceso que llevaba décadas en marcha. Europa se percató, algo tarde, de que el monopolio político, económico y cultural construido después de 1945 comenzaba a mostrar fisuras irreversibles. China, Rusia, India, Irán e incluso las potencias medianas comprendieron algo que Bruselas y Davos nunca han llegado a admitir del todo: que el orden internacional liberal nunca fue universal. Se trataba, más bien, de la universalización forzada de los intereses de Washington, disfrazada con el sentimental lenguaje del humanitarismo.

Aquí reside la ironía central de nuestra época. Los mismos países que pasaron décadas predicando la soberanía relativa, la gobernanza global y la responsabilidad internacional ahora redescubren frenéticamente el valor de las fronteras, del patriotismo industrial y de la autonomía estratégica. La globalización cumplió su propósito mientras consolidó su supremacía. En el momento en que comenzó a beneficiar a rivales civilizacionales, se convirtió en una amenaza existencial, y he aquí que el viejo instinto territorial resurgió rápidamente, ese mismo instinto que durante años se había tratado como un síntoma de atraso provinciano y, en casos más graves, como evidencia de algún tipo de psicopatología colectiva.

El conflicto actual, por consiguiente, trasciende con creces la dimensión militar y se adentra en el terreno antropológico, ese terreno sobre el que la hoja de cálculo del consultor de Davos no explica absolutamente nada. Por un lado, Occidente posmoderno se transformó en una máquina burocrática de disolución cultural, un bloque político incapaz de defender su propia memoria histórica y, sin embargo, deseoso de exportar compulsivamente la política de identidad al resto del planeta. Por otro lado, los países que han comprendido algo bastante elemental que Aristóteles ya había descrito siglos antes de que existieran los consultores de ESG, (Environmental, Social and Governance (Ambiental, Social y Gobernanza evalúan el desempeño ambiental, social y de gobernanza de una empresa, determinando su sostenibilidad y capacidad de generar valor a largo plazo) a saber, que los pueblos sobreviven gracias a la preservación de la identidad, la continuidad histórica y la cohesión simbólica

Rusia lo comprendió pronto, China aún antes, y ambas percibieron que el liberalismo occidental había dejado de funcionar como modelo económico para convertirse en una especie de religión negativa, fundada en la deconstrucción permanente de los lazos orgánicos. La familia se convierte en opresión, la nación en prejuicio, la religión en atraso, la masculinidad en peligro, la frontera en violencia moral, en una lista cada vez más extensa de aquello que debe ser pulverizado en nombre de un progreso que nadie es capaz de definir con precisión. No es casualidad que Occidente contemporáneo produzca riqueza material y depresión espiritual con igual eficiencia industrial.

Y, sin embargo, lo más curioso de todo es observar cómo la prensa internacional insiste en narrarlo todo a través de la vieja lente moral de la Guerra Fría. Democracia contra autoritarismo, libertad contra tiranía, civilización contra barbarie: he aquí la caricatura que ya no convence ni siquiera al ciudadano europeo o estadounidense medio, a ese ciudadano común que mira Londres, París o Los Ángeles y se da cuenta, sin necesidad de un diploma de Harvard, de que quizás el colapso viene desde dentro. La crisis migratoria europea es solo el síntoma visible, amigos. El verdadero problema es mucho más profundo y, además, resulta considerablemente más embarazoso, pues Europa se ha cansado de sí misma, ha perdido el instinto civilizatorio básico de la supervivencia, ha transformado la culpa histórica en política de Estado, ha sustituido la identidad por la administración tecnocrática y ha cambiado la pertenencia por el consumo

Mientras tanto, el establishment occidental responde de la única manera que conoce: con censura, vigilancia y propaganda moralizante. Toda disidencia se convierte en una amenaza para la democracia, toda crítica al globalismo en extremismo, toda resistencia cultural en radicalización, y los regímenes supuestamente liberales han llegado a depender abiertamente de mecanismos antiliberales para su supervivencia política, en un espectáculo que avergonzaría incluso a Carl Schmitt.

La máscara se cayó durante la pandemia, se cayó de nuevo con la guerra y se cayó definitivamente en medio de la creciente desesperación de las élites globalistas enfrentadas al surgimiento de cualquier fuerza mínimamente soberanista.

El ciudadano medio, el de a pie, por consiguiente, ha comenzado a considerar una hipótesis bastante herética: que la mayor amenaza a la libertad contemporánea quizás no provenga de Moscú ni de Pekín, sino del propio aparato burocrático-financiero que gobierna Occidente en nombre de la democracia, neutralizando elecciones, censurando opiniones y redefiniendo los conceptos básicos de la realidad mediante una ingeniería semántica permanente. El nuevo orden mundial, por lo tanto, prescinde del modelo del imperio formal. Bastará con algo mucho más sofisticado: un régimen administrado por conglomerados financieros, plataformas digitales, organismos transnacionales y estructuras de inteligencia capaces de moldear el comportamiento humano a escala industrial, preservando al mismo tiempo la estética de la libertad.

Y quizás sea precisamente esto lo que explique el creciente pánico en Occidente. Por primera vez en décadas, el resto del mundo ha comenzado a darse cuenta de que el emperador está desnudo. Lo más triste de todo, sin embargo, es que el emperador siempre lo supo. Simplemente contaba con que nadie lo mirara, y así no se den cuenta.

Publicado originalmente por  The Elegant Ruin

 Traducción:  InfoPosta

Trump embraces May price spikes amid Iran war: ‘I love the inflation’

10 June 2026 at 17:56
President Trump told reporters Wednesday that he loved “inflation,” after he was asked about inflation spiking in May. “No, I love it. The numbers were great,” Trump said when asked if he was concerned about the latest data, which showed the consumer price index rising to 4.2 percent over the past 12 months — with…

Trump embraces May price spikes amid Iran war: ‘I love the inflation’

10 June 2026 at 17:56
President Trump told reporters Wednesday that he loved “inflation,” after he was asked about inflation spiking in May. “No, I love it. The numbers were great,” Trump said when asked if he was concerned about the latest data, which showed the consumer price index rising to 4.2 percent over the past 12 months — with…

Franco-German defence rift deepens with collapse of FCAS programme

By: A A
10 June 2026 at 13:56

By Hélène de LAUNZUN

Join us on TelegramTwitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Franco-German combat aircraft programme collapses after years of disputes, showcasing the difficulty with military cooperation within the EU.

Rumours had been circulating for many months, but it was confirmed on Monday, June 8th: France and Germany have decided to abandon the core joint fighter plane component of their joint Future Combat Aircraft System (FCAS) project. With it goes a project that symbolised ambitions for deeper military cooperation between the two countries.

The project was launched in 2017 on the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron and then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Its aim was to replace, by 2040, the French Rafale and the German-Spanish Eurofighter. After months of stalled progress, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Macron agreed that the main industrial partners involved in the project—Dassault Aviation on the French side and Airbus Defence and Space on the German-Spanish side—were clearly unable to work together because of diverging interests.

It was one of Europe’s largest military programmes, with an estimated total cost of €100 billion. The technological ambition was highly advanced: more than just a fighter jet, the system was to integrate combat drones, connected sensors and a next-generation digital network, thereby forming what was described as a ‘combat cloud.’

Disagreements between the industrial parties have multiplied in recent months, centring on the sharing of industrial responsibilities, intellectual property, and the governance of the project. In the spring, Macron was still insisting he believed in it, but progress remained elusive.

For defence expert Jean-Dominique Merchet, the programme had in fact been “on life support” for several months, and the German decision to formalise the end merely confirmed a shared recognition of irreconcilable industry positions rather than a unilateral move. The fact that the announcement came from Berlin—without a joint statement from partner countries France and Spain—confirms the major political setback for Macron, who has been the project’s main champion since its launch in 2017. According to Merchet, the announcement definitively confirms the now insurmountable disagreements between Dassault Aviation and Airbus over the development of the fighter plane intended to form the core of the programme. The analyst is now questioning the future of the other components of the FCAS, notably the combat cloud, the engines, and the support drones. This failure could undermine another major Franco-German project, the future European battle tank, which is itself already facing numerous difficulties.

Similar frictions have affected other joint efforts in recent years. In some cases, one side  has withdrawn or scaled back its commitment—as in the case of the Tiger helicopter, where Germany backed out, or the Eurodrone, where France is currently discussing exit terms; in others, like the MAWS maritime patrol programme and the CIFS future artillery system, it’s due to delays, differing priorities, and mutual strain.

For both countries, the failure tests their ability to advance next-generation capabilities.

For France, the failure of the FCAS will test the national defence industry’s ability to bounce back. France must now consider the possibility of a new-generation programme that it would lead alone or in cooperation with other potential partners such as Sweden, Italy, India or the United Arab Emirates. Germany is expected to consider options including additional F-35 acquisitions or interest in alternative collaborative frameworks.

The failure of the FCAS is highly symbolic at a time when, under American pressure, Europe was seeking to assert its strategic autonomy. The programme, which symbolised Europe’s ability to carry out its major armaments projects autonomously in the face of the United States and China, illustrates above all the persistent difficulties European states face in effectively coordinating their industrial, strategic, and national interests.

Original article:  europeanconservative.com

Trump shares ‘West Wing’ clip dismissing ‘proportional response’ after strikes on Iran

10 June 2026 at 12:57
President Trump late Tuesday shared a clip from the series “The West Wing” dismissing the concept of a “proportional response” after the U.S. launched a new round of strikes on Iran in retaliation for an attack on an Apache helicopter. The president first shared on Truth Social the statement issued by U.S. Central Command (Centcom)…

Trump shares ‘West Wing’ clip dismissing ‘proportional response’ after strikes on Iran

10 June 2026 at 12:57
President Trump late Tuesday shared a clip from the series “The West Wing” dismissing the concept of a “proportional response” after the U.S. launched a new round of strikes on Iran in retaliation for an attack on an Apache helicopter. The president first shared on Truth Social the statement issued by U.S. Central Command (Centcom)…

❌