Fact check: As a parliamentary republic, Israel separates the roles of head of state and head of government. As Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is the head of government. The head of state of Israel is the President, a post currently occupied by Isaac Herzog.
As for the IRGC's strategy, note further that they have been allowing tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz safely, but only those which have had their cargo paid for in (so far) Chinese yuan. It is possible the EU will negotiate to allow euro-denominated cargo to pass. But Iran's aim with the Strait seems at least in part to be to end the dominance of the US dollar in the global trade in oil, gas, and fertilizer. (What will happen with their Houthi proxy and the Bab-el-Mandab is another matter.)
The IRGC has also been designated a terrorist group and has heard (along with the rest of Iran) Pete Hegseth say "no quarter". They have absolutely no incentive to surrender.
Netanyahu, as head of government, directs the day-to-day operations of the executive because that is how a parliamentary republic works. But he is, as a factual matter, not head of state.
(At one time I was indifferent on the question of separating the roles of head of state and head of government. Events since I once expressed that view have led me to consider such separation vital to maintaining democratic governance, and further examination led me to the view that having a head of state with any democratic legitimacy is heavily detrimental to democratic governance--that is, I became a staunch monarchist. I consider the distinction therefore to be highly relevant.)
Excellent and true. Like the American bishops, slowly realizing that Trump is bad for humanity, the Church. I have been telling them that for five years. If gas hits 5 bucks a gallon, the maga idiots will spring from the abandoned buildings like zombies, flailing, as they realize the gig is up.
November 29, 2011: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
January 17, 2012: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."
October 9, 2012: "Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin -- watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
September 16, 2013: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!"
November 10, 2013: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly--not skilled!"
“If this is true — and there is good reason to believe it is, given that the regime murdered an estimated 35,000 of its own protesters in January alone”
I have no way of knowing what is true, but after 70 years on this Earth I have learned that much of what we were told to lead us to war has been false. And lies seem far more prevalent today. So I guess if I wanted to lead us to war against Iran I would make up a number like 35,000. There is no way to refute. There is also no credible evidence for it
Yes, you can pretty much create any reality with anonymous sources and a london based “iran” news channel with MSM to package it for credibility. Anyways, people believe what they want to believe. Maybe its true but there is good reason to be skeptical
My thoughts exactly. Wikipedia is never an acceptable source for any controversial proposition. Even in academia. Best to wait.
There's also a fascinating coincidence that the "protests" ended almost instantly the Starlink crackdown went into effect, given that both Israel and the USA admitted/boasted that Mossad networks were running the "protests".
Fact check: As a parliamentary republic, Israel separates the roles of head of state and head of government. As Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is the head of government. The head of state of Israel is the President, a post currently occupied by Isaac Herzog.
As for the IRGC's strategy, note further that they have been allowing tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz safely, but only those which have had their cargo paid for in (so far) Chinese yuan. It is possible the EU will negotiate to allow euro-denominated cargo to pass. But Iran's aim with the Strait seems at least in part to be to end the dominance of the US dollar in the global trade in oil, gas, and fertilizer. (What will happen with their Houthi proxy and the Bab-el-Mandab is another matter.)
The IRGC has also been designated a terrorist group and has heard (along with the rest of Iran) Pete Hegseth say "no quarter". They have absolutely no incentive to surrender.
This seems nit-picky. Netanyahu runs the regime.
Netanyahu, as head of government, directs the day-to-day operations of the executive because that is how a parliamentary republic works. But he is, as a factual matter, not head of state.
(At one time I was indifferent on the question of separating the roles of head of state and head of government. Events since I once expressed that view have led me to consider such separation vital to maintaining democratic governance, and further examination led me to the view that having a head of state with any democratic legitimacy is heavily detrimental to democratic governance--that is, I became a staunch monarchist. I consider the distinction therefore to be highly relevant.)
Excellent and true. Like the American bishops, slowly realizing that Trump is bad for humanity, the Church. I have been telling them that for five years. If gas hits 5 bucks a gallon, the maga idiots will spring from the abandoned buildings like zombies, flailing, as they realize the gig is up.
I have long used my own truth barometer which is so simple. Does this make sense? Yes, it does.
* sigh * Every MAGA locution is a projection and confession...
No explanation necessary.
November 29, 2011: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran."
January 17, 2012: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected."
October 9, 2012: "Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin -- watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate."
September 16, 2013: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!"
November 10, 2013: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly--not skilled!"
(Donald Trump, various posts on Twitter)
“If this is true — and there is good reason to believe it is, given that the regime murdered an estimated 35,000 of its own protesters in January alone”
Why is there good reason to believe this?
What do you believe is not true?
I have no way of knowing what is true, but after 70 years on this Earth I have learned that much of what we were told to lead us to war has been false. And lies seem far more prevalent today. So I guess if I wanted to lead us to war against Iran I would make up a number like 35,000. There is no way to refute. There is also no credible evidence for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
Yes, you can pretty much create any reality with anonymous sources and a london based “iran” news channel with MSM to package it for credibility. Anyways, people believe what they want to believe. Maybe its true but there is good reason to be skeptical
My thoughts exactly. Wikipedia is never an acceptable source for any controversial proposition. Even in academia. Best to wait.
There's also a fascinating coincidence that the "protests" ended almost instantly the Starlink crackdown went into effect, given that both Israel and the USA admitted/boasted that Mossad networks were running the "protests".