It seems the pond's main duty these days is to try to cope with the bromancer trying to cope with mad King Donald.
The bro has always been Trump curious.
Lately he seems to have become increasingly disenchanted, yet still feels compelled to both siderist his suffering.
His latest headline is a classic of the both siderist art form perfected by the NY Times.
The header: Triumph or tragedy? Does Donald Trump have any options left in Iran? The case for acting against Iran was strong, but Trump made many miscalculations and was not prepared for easily foreseen contingencies.
The caption: President Donald J. Trump delivers a message on Holy Week. Picture: Supplied
What on earth is the message King Donald delivered on Holy Week? Obscenity, blasphemy, and the pagan rantings of an ancient Moloch?
Mad King Donald is way less Xian than the pond, and that's saying something.
As for the bro, it's amazing really that anyone could find any hope of a "triumph" in what King Donald has done to the United States and to the planet, yet there it was in the headline, taking up as much room as "tragedy" as the way into the bro's four minute ramble.
The bromancer diligently ferreted through the tea leaves and the chicken's entrails, hoping against hope that he'd see signs of the triumph ...
One Trump tragedy is that he gives many good things a bad name. The case for acting against Iran was strong, but Trump and his administration have made many miscalculations and not prepared for easily foreseen contingencies.
Much worse, the way the President talks, his wild language, endless self-contradictions, and contempt and humiliation for US allies, is doing serious strategic harm to the US and its allies.
Trump’s most recent threat bears repeating. On Truth Social he posted: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F..kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
This is both an astonishing and contemptible social media post from Trump. It also almost certainly indicates a failure of analysis of the nature of the Iranian regime.
One of the reasons America is so friendless in this military campaign, which is inherently defensible if done properly, is because no one can sign up to Trump’s rhetorical instability, his reversals day by day (only a few days ago, in a formal address to the American people, he said the US had no concerns about the Strait of Hormuz).
The Iranian regime is defined by its activist hatreds of America and Israel, and its social practices of pietistic fundamentalist Shia Islamism. That is a toxic and evil mixture. Trump thinks that every time he threatens Iran, he’s putting its leaders under pressure. The Iranians apparently regard Trump’s wild declarations as a sign of desperation.
You see?
Somehow "inherently defensible" creeps into the narrative, accompanied by a small billy goat butt - "if done properly", which is the sort of thing that happens when the pond attempts a triple pike into the pool and ends up doing a belly flop.
In what possible way could it be "inherently defensible" when in reality that sort of attempt to bomb into submission is inherently stupid and ineffectual, as Vlad the sociopath has discovered to his cost in his long and inherently indefensible monstering of Ukraine.
Even the both siderist NY Times gets this ...
Even though it creates misery and loss, the methodical bombing of civilian centers has more often been shown to rally support for resistance. (*intermittent archive, and you know what that means)
Still, historians generally now argue that, even if that did play some role in exhausting those countries, it was largely because of damage to German and Japanese industrial output rather than the terror it caused. Axis countries were also aggressive in bombing enemy cities, casting further doubt on notions that the strategy could be a decisive factor on its own.
And any World War II lessons may be of limited utility in understanding the wars that came after, as countries quickly learned from that conflict to move military production away from city centers. Tellingly, such bombing has seldom worked since.
American war planners discovered this in the Korean War, when bombing Pyongyang only hardened the North’s commitment. A decade later, they tried it again in Vietnam. But an internal Pentagon report concluded that striking Hanoi, the North Vietnamese capital, had been “in retrospect, a colossal misjudgment.”
Iran and Iraq struck each other’s capitals during their 1980s conflict to try to force one side to back down. Instead, both nations were rallied by watching foreign bombs fall on civilian neighborhoods, helping to stretch the war to nearly a decade.
Insurgent groups have likewise adapted this tactic, to little more success.
Northern Irish groups struck repeatedly in London, hoping to dispel British commitment to the territory. Instead, the bombings led to more severe measures by British authorities in Northern Ireland. Palestinian groups that ignited bus and cafe bombs in Israeli cities during a period of conflict in the 2000s found much the same result.
Al Qaeda’s justification for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has shifted, but the group has said that one aim was to compel American withdrawal from the Middle East. But Americans, rather than rising up against their country’s overseas deployments as Al Qaeda leaders had hoped, rallied in support of invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Though each conflict is different, this pattern is not a coincidence, but is explained by the politics as well as the psychology of warfare. And both appear to apply in Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Capital strikes intended to push a government toward conciliation or retreat instead do much to close off those options.
In practice, such attacks tell targeted leaders that they, and perhaps the very existence of their government, will not be secure until they eliminate the threat through outright victory. They will tend to escalate in response, rather than back down as their attackers hope.
And a negotiated peace, like the one Mr. Putin has urged, becomes harder for those leaders to enter because it means accepting that the threat to the capital will remain.
The public will often reach the same calculus, coming to see their attacker as an implacable threat that can only be neutralized through defeat.
The stiffening resolve inspired by such strikes can be equal parts strategic and emotional.
German rocket and air attacks on British cities during World War II, known as the Blitz, aimed to degrade British production as well as public support for the war, so that Britain would agree to withdraw from the conflict.
Instead, the attacks led to a drastic reduction in British support for peace talks with Germany, polls at the time found, raising pressure on British leaders to uphold the fight.
And German leaders had hoped that turning whole blocks of London into rubble would inspire Britons to turn against the leaders who insisted on staying in the war. But British approval of their government rose to near 90 percent.
The United States has stumbled on this effect several times, but perhaps most powerfully in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, when it sought to force back its Communist adversaries by bombing their towns and cities. Instead, the campaigns convinced those governments, as well as their populations, that they could only be safe by defeating the Americans for good, whatever the cost.
And here we go again, and what a regime to help, as at this point the reptiles flung in a visual distraction ... Demonstrators attend a pro-government gathering in a square in Tehran, Iran. Picture: AP
The pond does like the way that the bromancer consistently side steps around the way that Benji's fundamentalist theocratic government, campaigning for a greater Israel, managed to lure mad King Donald into the war ...
But analytically, we must deal with reality. The Iranian regime is tough and is built for war. It doesn’t care about suffering endured by its society. It has decentralised decision-making. A big chunk of society gets paid by the regime, and a big chunk has committed violence and murder on behalf of the regime. These folks won’t give up control.
The US has degraded Iran’s military capabilities. But Tehran is still firing missiles and drones, and controls the Strait of Hormuz.
It’s now clear Tehran is getting some help from both Russia and China, without any major pushback from Washington, which has its hands full. In the past few days, notwithstanding the devastation of Iran’s air defences, it has shot down a number of US aircraft.
It targets US bases, and Gulf Arab infrastructure, with some precision. Chinese and Russian help not only benefits it materially, but boosts the morale and self-belief of Iran’s rulers.
Any Trump escalation in Iran will lead to further disruption in the global economy and rising oil prices. This is disastrous politically for Trump and Republicans. It’s now all but certain Republicans lose the House in November’s midterm elections. They could well lose the Senate.
What's another bomb? Cars drive on the highway in front of a plume of smoke rising from the Dahieh neighbourhood after an Israeli airstrike on April 5 in Beirut. Picture: Getty Images
Put it another way, as they did in The Times ...
At this point, the bromancer began to waver, to have saucy doubts and fears ...
Geo-strategically, the big winner so far is Russia, earning billions and billions more for its oil, while the missiles and missile interceptors needed by Ukraine are expended and can’t be replaced at the rate they’re being used.
Trump is abusing allies, NATO especially, for not offering military support especially in the Strait of Hormuz. But this Trump demand is again literally incoherent. The US itself is not escorting any tankers through the Strait. It has not proposed a specific operation to clear the Strait. The Strait itself is so narrow, and drones now so cheap and plentiful, that it’s quite likely no operation to clear the Strait, short of invading Iran, is physically possible.
So why is Trump so wilfully mismanaging US allies, at such detriment to the US? US Studies Centre scholar Jared Mondschein offers one insight: “Trump has always seen NATO as something that entangles the US, rather than as a force multiplier as previous presidents did.”
If the Iranian regime survives this war and emerges with control of the Strait of Hormuz, it will likely earn enough revenue to rebuild its military, and it will have more influence on the global economy, and on the Middle East economy, than ever before.
Uh huh, that sounds like ending up way more tragedy than triumph, as the reptiles slipped in a final visual distraction: A protester waves the pre-Islamic Revolution Iranian flag and the Free France flag from World War II during a march against the Islamic Republic of Iran in Paris on April 5. Picture: AFP
But just as soon as the bro sees a little darkness, he turns around and discovers that mad King Donald has been "astonishingly effective":
This has made him overconfident. The tariffs didn’t work in policy terms. They didn’t cut the US trade deficit, didn’t create massive numbers of new manufacturing jobs, and led to China working out its far more powerful critical minerals weapon. Even to build the replacements to the weapons it’s using in Iran, the US needs Chinese critical minerals.
Trump is becoming more erratic even by his own standards. There is no one in this administration who talks back to him, gives him bad news, cautions him.
The near mass sackings of senior US generals are intensely disturbing. Senior military folks are not warmongers, but instinctively prudent, realistic. They also obey the law. In this most critical conflict, Trump’s hubris may well have led to severe, dangerous miscalculation. Then again, anything is possible, even a good outcome.
Greg Sheridan is The Australian’s foreign editor.
And there you have it.
After all that, still the bromancer holds out hope, even for "even a good outcome".
What can you say, except that he's almost as barking mad as King Donald ...
At this point, the pond should note that the current reptile jihad continues, thanks to a bit of bitter Bita ...
Once they get their teeth into a victim, the vampire reptiles never let go of their jihads, not until the last drop of blood is sucked dry...
As an aside, the pond can't help but immediately think of Boris and Natasha whenever Natasha's name bobs up. (They even scored their own live-action movie)
To note the crusade isn't to endorse or join it and in the normal course of things, the pond would have sent Natasha's hit piece to the intermittent archive ... but the archive is acting kinda funny at the moment, and the pond had trouble saving a link.
For those who care and want to try at some point ...
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation%2Ftaxpayerfunded-academic-cited-romance-novels-as-research-to-secure-900000-grant%2Fnews-story%2Fc3b530ba38957bf4a633ffb20f45077b?amp
(Hang on a mo', it came to life. Hopefully it will stop working again soon and save a stray correspondent from the jihad)
The pond was left wondering what it must feel like to hack away daily at hit pieces for the lizard Oz, with seemingly the sole purpose to generate fear, hate and loathing in the hive mind.
What an empty life ... it's not as if there aren't more obvious targets...
And that brings the pond to that lesser member of the Kelly gang, a certain Joe, who earlier had also tried to sort out mad King Donald for the reptiles ...
The header: Donald Trump faces blowback whether he strikes Iran’s infrastructure or backs down; Striking Iranian power plants risks punishing civilians and handing Tehran a propaganda win.
The caption for a man imitating a cane toad: US President Donald Trump has extended his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Picture: AFP
The good thing about Joe's piece was that it was just two minutes long, and could be swallowed in a bite, with Joe showing signs of a little more concern than the bromancer:
The US President has now extended his deadline for the regime to reopen the Strait of Hormuz until Tuesday at 8pm local time (10am Wednesday AEST) before he begins destroying Iran’s power plants and other infrastructure.
If Trump makes good on his threat, Iran will undoubtedly use the strikes for propaganda purposes to try to galvanise popular support against Washington and strengthen its own domestic position.
Doubts are already being raised over the extent to which US attacks on energy plants and other infrastructure will advance the key objectives set out by the administration at the start of the war.
Questions over the legality of potential strikes on civilian infrastructure will also risk staining the legitimacy of the US campaign against an oppressive regime.
More broadly, it may further isolate Washington and draw criticism from trusted allies and partners.
None of the options is good.
The US President faces blowback if he follows through on his threat. But if he continues to extend the deadline, his threats lose credibility.
Another option is the deployment of ground troops, with more than 50,000 US forces now in the Middle East that could be used to help secure the Strait by force, seize the regime’s enriched uranium or capture the oil terminal on Kharg Island to use as leverage – all options fraught with the risk of US casualties.
Six weeks after launching Operation Epic Fury, the frustration of the US President boiled over in his Truth Social post on Easter Sunday where he called on the regime to “open the f..kin’ strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in hell”.
An eleventh-hour deal would give Trump an offramp from the cycle of escalation he now finds himself in, although both sides remain far apart.
The terms of any agreement and what happens to the Strait of Hormuz would be seen as the crucial measure of who holds the upper hand.
Iran is demanding that it retain control over the waterway – an unacceptable outcome for Washington and the world.
A new front has also emerged in the conflict in the form of a deeper and profound rift between the US and Europe. This threatens to be one of the most consequential developments of the conflict so far.
Already Trump’s position on NATO has shifted decisively.
His previous complaint was that the alliance wasn’t working given the free-riding of European partners. But now he has adopted a more confronting and existential position: he no longer believes in NATO at all.
Trump is now publicly canvassing a withdrawal and making clear that the trust underpinning the alliance has been killed off by the refusal of US allies and partners to secure the Strait of Hormuz.
White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told The Australian that “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear, and as the President emphasised, ‘the United States will remember’.”
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is due to meet with Trump on Wednesday, an opportunity to try to repair the damage in the transatlantic partnership.
In practical terms, Trump’s disenchantment may have meaningful consequences for Europe and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, including the diversion of US military resources and munitions intended for Ukraine to assist the Iranian war campaign.
A key risk is Trump washing his hands of the conflict in Eastern Europe given his belief the US was abandoned by its allies in the Middle East.
A key risk?
Oh Joe, Joe, mad King Donald abandoned the Ukrainians long ago, and has done everything in his power to help out and enable Vlad the sociopath, and now keeps boasting about how he can emulate Vlad's war criminal behaviour by bombing Iran back to the stone age ...
And now thanks to mad King Donald and the reptiles, the pond comes to a genuine curiosity ...
The header: Donald Trump using the F-word is the least of our problems with the President; There is a bit of General George Patton in Trump, in the way he bullies through with little concern for consequences.
The caption for that snap of a maniacal grin: This is not US President Donald Trump’s first excursion into obscenity. Picture: AFP
The pond confesses to not having thought of Jack Marx for years, and so was completely surprised to see him bob up in the hive mind.
His wiki listing is out of date, and his Facebook page has just 121 followers ... with his last post a couple of years old and about his struggles in rehab.
His return would have been interesting if he'd had something remotely interesting to say ...
Such impostors are living large this week, on the back of Donald Trump having used the notorious “doing word” in a post on Truth Social. (Those easily offended should be assured, however, that they can approach the following paragraph with confidence.)
“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran,” the American President wrote. “There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F..kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Actually that's not what he said ... this is what he said ...
Yes, he used the "f" word in full, he didn't slip in dots or asterisks or dashes or some other tomfoolery, which is why the reptiles diluting it was full of rich irony - as if they were being run by the google bot overlord who takes a view on what turns up in this blog.
Suddenly Jack's attempt at being a hard hitting takedown artist looked pretty feeble ...
Also deeply hurt was Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene – the devout Christian who was banned from Twitter for “multiple violations of our civic integrity policy” – who called fellow Republican Lauren Boebert a “little bitch” and recommended the then Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, be executed. Greene said everyone in Trump’s administration needed to “beg forgiveness from God” for Donald’s vulgarity. God, it seems, has no problem with corruption, infidelity or homicidal wrath, but really gets upset when confronted by a bit of the old bad language.
Jack decided to dress this latest example of dementia in action as a form of "plain speaking" ... US President Donald Trump is a plain speaker. Picture: AFP
Actually like a lot of swearing, it's merely a sign of impotence, frustration and a limited vocabulary.
And then there’s the word itself, irrespective of who is using it. It’s quite bizarre that it’s deemed offensive, considering what it represents. It describes an act of creation – the privatisation of The Big Bang – which is the reason we are all here. We should be more offended by “death”, “murder”, “cancer”, “lack of air”.
My father died last week. I watched him take his last breath. It fell to me to deliver his eulogy, and the choice of words has never been heavier. I felt bossed about by that odd aversion to crude absolutes, like “death”, “dead” and “died”, some pansy voice inside me suggesting “passed”, “passed away” and “no longer with us” instead. I ignored that voice. I’m glad I did. My dad was a plain speaker.
Donald Trump is a plain speaker, too. The unwise do not have the luxury to be manipulative. He says whatever comes into his head, and it’s left to his handlers to clean up the mess. He might be the first politician in history whose words can be absolutely trusted, even if his motives cannot.
Stupid is as stupid scribbles, and the reptiles blessed us with another snap of a man whose words apparently can absolutely be trusted ... except in the many ways he lies and tells porkies and invents alternative realities... US President Donald Trump gestures after speaking at a televised address on the conflict in the Middle East. Picture: AFP
Perhaps with Jack's guidance, the pond might learn to trust King Donald's words in due course ... possibly the process might only take those immortal two weeks the mad king keeps talking about ...
Patton was no strategist – he believed in charging ahead at full speed, using profane language to inspire his men to follow him (those who recall Franklin Schaffner’s film from 1970 will remember it well). Trump does the same; his army of followers willing to go with him, die with him. They will, too. But they won’t do so because Donald Trump uses bad language. Rude words never hurt anyone. It’s Donald Trump’s mind, the thing with which he sleeps, that is the danger. We should be thankful, I guess, that the window to his mind is yawning open. Even if there are rude words in there, I think we can handle it.
Those focusing on Trump’s profanity are like people beating up fleas in a catfight. The administration he captains is guilty of many things, but ribald language is the least of them. It’s hardly surprising – those in an argument who’ve run out of ammunition always pick on the bad language of their adversary, as if piety is more important than acumen. F..k that.
Oh dear. An attempt at a final flourish, and still the dots got in the way.
That saved the pond from its omniscient overlord, the google bot, but it didn't help Jack maintain his hard-swearing tough guy pose ...
And so to Dame Groan, and the reason the pond dilly-dallied and delayed with Joe and Jack was that it would make the arrival at the Tuesday groaning all the sweeter and more rewarding ...
The header: Our war on fossil fuels is ending in a battle for energy; The so-called ‘experts’ simply did not accept the possibility renewable energy would not replace fossil fuels.
The caption for the wildly exciting snap of gas guzzlers in a queue: Lining up at the bowser for petrol at Costco service station in Kilburn, South Australia. Picture: Brett Hartwig
The trouble with delaying Dame Groan's arrival is that instead of a cosmic explosion, an ecstatic eruption, it's more likely to be just the usual onanisms about renewables and climate science spilling to the ground ...
Dame Groan is an oil and gas junkie.
Always has been, always will be ...and how she hurts at the cruel way they've been treated ...
Working on the assumption that the net-zero transition is an economic prize – an assumption that is immediately refuted by dint of the necessary compulsion and large subsidies required to achieve it – Australia has put up multiple barriers to any fossil fuel-based developments.
Add in the false proposition that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy and we have been led down a path of economic harm and insecurity.
We are now witnessing the consequences of our overdependence on imported fossil fuels – think petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, helium, fertilisers, plastics – and an inability to remedy the situation in an acceptable time frame.
There was always an astonishing naivety – nay, complete ignorance – about the consequences of blocking the use and development of fossil fuels. Far too much attention was given to the electricity grid and the scope for turbines and solar panels to generate electrons to replace ageing coal-fired plants.
The external environmental costs of turbines, solar panels and large-scale batteries have essentially been ignored. True environmentalists should hang their collective heads in shame. As a less dense form of power than coal/gas/nuclear, renewable energy would always require vastly larger land masses, with much larger environmental footprints.
The need for extraordinarily expensive transmission lines has simply added to the catastrophe. There is also the important point that the turbines, solar panels and batteries have relatively short lives relative to coal-fired and nuclear plants, with the associated need for expensive replacement. But here’s the thing: notwithstanding the billions of dollars expended to spur the expansion of renewable energy, there hasn’t been a significant decline in the overall use of fossil fuels here. According to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, “fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) accounted for 91 per cent of Australia’s primary energy mix in 2023-24”. In energy terms, Australians consume twice as much in liquid fuels as in electricity.
Okay, so we've read it all before, and the pond is sure we'll read it all again, and as usual, the reptiles will parade the villains who have treated Dame Groan so vilely ... Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen pictured speaking at a press conference outside his electorate office in Fairfield West. Picture: NewsWire / Monique Harmer
Usually the pond would be inclined to slip in another story about how stuffed the planet is ... but not having the intermittent archive to hand means paywalls can get in the way.
What the heck ...
Trump envisions a new era of offshore oil drilling. Scientists know all too well how that story ends.
By Jeffrey Marlow (*intermittent archive, still working?)
A teaser trailer ...
Meanwhile, the groaning carried on ...
Far too much emphasis has been placed on the scope for electrification while ignoring the vital and largely uncontested role of fossil fuels in primary iron, cement, fertilisers and plastics. This naivety has been clearly demonstrated by recent events. It’s worth outlining how the war against fossil fuels has been waged by governments across many fronts to understand our current predicament.
To take a recent example, the mandate of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation had been altered to prevent any investments in fossil fuels. To ensure ongoing oil delivery, however, the Albanese government has had to reverse this mandate.
Then there are the recent amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Act, which explicitly exclude fossil fuel projects from using the streamlined assessment pathway.
They cannot obtain the benefit of being classified a “national interest proposal” or be granted an exemption from being a “restricted action” in a conservation zone. The likely effect is to thwart new fossil fuel developments, including drilling for oil.
There followed another snap of assorted villains ... Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen hold a joint press conference at Parliament House on the national fuel security crisis and emergency economic measures. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Dame Groan's lust for oil was worse than a meth addict looking for a fix ...
The point is that the federal government executes its anti-fossil fuel stance in many ways in addition to the massive subsidies made available to the transition of the electricity grid. It is hardly surprising therefore that exploration for oil, for example, has effectively dried up, notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of highly prospective areas in this country.
It was only two decades ago that we were nearly self-sufficient in oil; we are now down to 20 per cent and falling. We no longer have a large-scale urea factory – the Gibson Island plant closed two years ago – and Qenos, the country’s largest producer of polyethylene and polymers, has also shut up shop. Mind you, state governments, including Coalition ones, have also demonstrated hostility to fossil fuels by facilitating the rollout of renewable energy and refusing to green-light any new or replacement coal-fired power plants. They have blocked or significantly delayed fossil fuel exploration and extraction. They have also wasted money on unachievable pipedreams – green hydrogen in South Australia, anyone?
It’s worth noting the economic effects of this intransigent opposition to fossil fuels. According to CBA Economics, “the closure of critical air and shipping routes, especially the Strait of Hormuz, is rupturing fragile global supply chains, slowing down the passage and pushing up prices of a variety of products, including oil, gas, chemicals, resins, fertilisers, cement and grains”.
A last snap of the villain in chief, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen speaking to an Endeavour Energy employee in Bidwill, Western Sydney launching a local community battery. Picture: Jane Dempster / The Australian
The idea of running a “just in time” economy has a certain appeal until consideration is given to the large adverse consequences of disruptions to vital supply chains. It might look cheaper at the time, but the real costs become apparent when the flows of vital inputs to economic activity are impeded and their price skyrockets. We should have learned that lesson from the Covid experience, but it was essentially ignored.
A reserve of petrol/diesel/aviation fuel of around 30 days was always insufficient. It also puts us at significant odds with many other countries. Australia needs to remove immediately the impediments to increasing the domestic availability of liquid fuels lest we find ourselves in this position time and time again.
