17 Comments
User's avatar
Joseph's avatar

Does anyone else not buy the "friendly fire" story on those F-35s?

What, ONE Kuwaiti fighter went Red Baron on all three?

Smells like the same BS.

The Omission's avatar

šŸ˜‚ - Red Baron reference got me.

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around how one Kuwaiti fighter took out 3 F-15s but something happened.

Pxx's avatar
21hEdited

I think more plausible Iran was shooting at them and they fled the missiles lower and faster than original plan to return, and entered Kuwait outside the designated corridor, and were shot down from the ground. Previous incidents in the Red Sea last year had similar situation where F-18's (multiple per the public report) were shot at by US ships because ships software to exchange IFF coding was not working for whatever reason, and they fell back to old school methods of avoiding friendly fire, which broke down once actually attacked

Anecdotage's avatar

The press corps is also corrupt. Trading access in exchange for not asking hard questions is the very definition of corruption. Today's media only care about getting the biggest engagement numbers. No one is trying to break a difficult story because the public needs to know. And such investigative journalists as do exist are very happy to tell you about how heroic and brave they are and how wicked everyone with power is, without ever uncovering the next Abu Ghraib.

Pxx's avatar

Not that it matters, but there was no closing window assassinate Khamenei - he was old, embraced the possibility of martyrdom with ease, and was not hiding at all. The window that was closing for Israel was a possibility of a JCPOA 2 type deal being inked. In fact what Netanyahu most wanted to avoid was a state of peace, because war is necessary to carry out the program of territorial expansion (ie stealing land from neighbors) which he publicly articulated over the years.

Amy Cohen's avatar

I keep coming back to that toss away claim that ā€œthe talks were going nowhere. They weren’t interested in dealingā€. And all of the evidence to the contrary. And the extraordinary hypothesis that the talks may actually have been merely a strategy to pull together critical stakeholders so that Israel could take them out. This too supports, of course, the notion of a much longer lead up. This would be Bibi/Mossad’s hand with Trump encouraged to see visions of yet more oil…

It isn’t that the press are useless, their complicity is a necessary component of the operation. They may as well have signed the Pentagon pledge.

It isn’t only that they fail to ask the questions. It’s that their pages and websites repeat the lies, giving them power and credibility. They know they’re following corrupt orders. ā€œJust doing their jobs so as to keep accessā€ is the equivalent of ā€œjust following ordersā€. It’s sift propaganda but propaganda nonetheless.

Soon more will die (perhaps already have). Will they try to sustain the charade?

Another great analysis. Thank you.

ā€œIt’s the lies, stupid.ā€

Kemper Williams's avatar

Excellent article. As you say, about 60% of Americans oppose this ā€˜operation.’ It’s easy to blame it on AIPAC-bought politicians. Another big factor though is the financial sector here…energy, military contractors etc. It took $40 for me to fill up my shitty 2014 Mazda today…last month it was $25.

The Omission's avatar

This prices are going to keep biting too. I believe Brent Crude is at $115 a barrel as of this evening. Fuel goes up. Food goes up. This doesn’t end until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change.

Pxx's avatar
21hEdited

WTI and Brent can be kept somewhat under control by using up the SPR. East Asian crude prices even higher, as they're typically indexed to Dubai/Oman who are now in Force Majeure. The real bite will be global inflation getting imported back in the US. The time lag is perfectly timed for the election in November too

John McIntire's avatar

Brilliant. One comment: you reject Hypothesis 2 largely on the final call from BN coming after movement of US forces. But much could have been arranged before that final call (eg, your picture of the MAL dinner in 12/25). The final call could have been to discuss something gleaned from electronic intercepts (eg) on 2/27/26.

The Omission's avatar

Thank you.

No, I think what I’m trying to say with Hypothesis two is behaviorally this was a war Trump wanted.

The trigger and the cause are two different questions. Netanyahu may have provided the moment. Trump provided the intent. Trump’s own statements establish that intent as far back as March 2025 and it did not depend on any single phone call.

John McIntire's avatar

Yes. A disaster overall.

Leslie Marshall's avatar

The strike in the ā€˜damaged’ E-3, it’s right on the ray dome. That’s within 2m radius accuracy.

No one seems to be addressing that; aside from Iranian weapons capability which was supposed to be destroyed; and the diminishing capacity of defence systems to stop them; they appear to be capable of a level accuracy when they do get through that no one predicted.

Mikko's avatar

Re: decision to go to the war. DJT said to the Japanese prime minister that he didn’t talk because wanted to surprise. Response to imminent threat is not kept as a surprise.

HHH's avatar

With theory 3 - just because Saudi/MBS are threatened by Iran's power in the region, doesn't mean they wanted the war. You have provided no evidence that Saudi/MBS approved of this war on the onset. Yes, now that the war has started, they would like to finish the job but that's different than the false assumption you've built in Theory 3.

The Omission's avatar

There is evidence of pre war lobbying per Axios. The Saudi Defense Minister KBS told experts in Washington that if military action does not happen it will only embolden the regime. That was in January. One month before the strikes.

Then The Washington Post reported on Feb 28 that MBS had multiple calls with Trump urging him to attack Iran. It was after the encouragement of Saudi Arabia and Israel the decision to attack was decided.

There is more. Now Saudi Arabia denies it but of course they do. My hypothesis stands on the available data I could find.

Pxx's avatar
21hEdited

None of the GCC wanted this whatsoever. Iran's tactic of retaliating vs regional powers hosting US bases was known in advance, and the GCC oil infrastructure was always recognized as hopelessly vulnerable (which is why Saudi folded vs Ansar Allah instantly as soon as they managed to hit a refinery). Stories to the contrary are pretty transparent attempts from the US/Israel side to plant ideas in the press for the purpose of deflecting the blame.

If Iran survives this as a state, GCC will come out the biggest losers by far. All the petro-monarchies are in the process of slowly but surely trying to come up with some scheme to invest in the "next thing" after oil, whatever it may be. The credibility of their region for investment purposes is shot now.