PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Veranito 2025

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/4fc32349-b944-4df2-bec0-ff8875afd91a

Trump faces backlash from Maga base after strikes on Iran

Critics concerned that US military personnel could face retaliation by Iran and its proxies


Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon said Israel had forced the president’s hand © USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

President Donald Trump faced a fierce backlash from parts of his Maga movement over his decision to launch strikes against Iran, with critics saying he had been manoeuvred into a new Middle East war by Israel.

“An overwhelming majority of the people [in the US] don’t want to get involved in any of this,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist in his first term, said on his War Room podcast shortly after the strikes.

Even before US B-2 bombers attacked the Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the prospect of US involvement in the war had exposed deep splits in the pro-Trump camp.

Hawks including Senator Lindsey Graham and the influential radio show host Mark Levin advocated US involvement in Israel’s war on Iran, while Bannon and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson urged Trump to keep the US out of hostilities.

Carlson said there was no justification for attacking Iran, adding there was “zero credible intelligence” to suggest it was “anywhere near” building a nuclear bomb.

Sceptics said that Trump, in teaming up with Israel to attack Iran, would be betraying his pledge to end the US’s “forever wars” and keep the country out of military entanglements in the Middle East — a key pillar of his “America First” agenda.

Any strikes would, they said, also expose thousands of US military personnel across the Middle East to retaliation by Iran and its proxies in the region.

There has also been concern among the president’s supporters that he has been steered into participating in the military operation against Iran by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, after initially relying on diplomacy to try to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme.

Speaking on his podcast, Bannon said Israel had “essentially forced President Trump’s hand” by starting a war with Iran, knowing it did not have the military capability to finish the job and that only American bunker-busting bombs could destroy facilities such as Fordow.

“A lot of people I know that are Israel supporters are going to say — why are we doing the heavy lift here and why are we engaging in combat operations in a war that’s a war of choice?” he asked.

Some right-wing podcasters who have been strongly supportive of Trump were expressing bafflement with his decision to attack Iran on Saturday.

“I felt like it was supposed to be America First . . . and now . . . it just feels like we’re working for Israel,” the influential rightwing podcaster Theo Von said. “I think to a lot of people it’s . . . you just start to feel very disillusioned pretty quickly . . . in our leaders.”

“Donald Trump has now launched an illegal war of aggression against Iran,” said Dave Smith, a stand-up comic who has long been associated with the Maga movement. “Worst of all, he did it on behalf of a foreign government against a country who posed no threat to us.”

But others fell into line, expressing support for Trump’s actions. “With the weight of the world on his shoulders, President Trump acted for the betterment of humanity,” said conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. “For the next few hours spare us the armchair quarterbacking and instead trust our commander-in-chief.”

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who earlier this week said “we are sick and tired of foreign wars. All of them”, was less combative on Saturday, saying only on X: “Let us all join together and pray for peace.”

Others, however, sensed a risk that Trump could be dragged into escalating US involvement, possibly by supporting Israeli actions to decapitate the Iranian regime.

“President Trump has clearly signaled, as he has all along, that he opposes a regime change war in Iran,” said Jack Posobiec, the rightwing media personality, in a post on X. “This is about the nuclear programme of Iran which he promised he would end from day one.”

Matthew Boyle, Washington bureau chief of rightwing populist news website Breitbart, said Trump had a lot of explaining to do supporters in his Maga base who would have preferred the US to stay out of the war.

“He’s got to win this movement over and bring them with him, and take proactive steps to do that,” he said. “He’s got to win that trust back from people.”

[Derby]

¿Qué repercusión tendría para el dólar el pinchazo de la burbuja inmobiliaria?

U.S. home sale prices reach a record of almost $400,000, but buyers may see some relief

The median home sale price in the U.S. just touched a record high, but new data shows that buyers are nevertheless paying below asking price.

The median sale price hit a record $396,500 for the four weeks ending June 15, or a 1% increase from a year earlier, according to a Friday report from Redfin. But buyers are actually paying far less than sellers' median asking price, which stood at $422,238 for the same period, the real estate company's data shows.

That means buyers paid 6%, or $26,000, less than sellers hoped they would.

Americans are increasingly finding themselves squeezed out of the housing market, as mortgage rates remain high and the inventory of affordable homes remains low. As a result, the dream of home ownership, which is a meaningful way to build wealth, is becoming more distant for large swaths of the population.

Last year, just 24% of home sales came from first-time homebuyers, down from 50% in 2010, data from the National Association of Realtors shows. The typical first-time homebuyer's age also hit an all-time high of 38, according to the group.

For those Americans who are trying to get their feet on the first rung of the property ladder, data from Redfin shows that sellers may be willing to be flexible on price, especially as there are now more sellers than buyers in the market.

High housing costs and widespread economic uncertainty have hurt demand, Redfin said.

As a result, the onus is on sellers to make sure their homes are in tip-top shape, and are reasonably priced, otherwise they're unlikely to sell, according to Redfin.

"I'm explaining to sellers more and more that we need to be strategic in our pricing strategy because homes that are overpriced, even slightly, are likely to sit on the market and invite buyers to negotiate," Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Redfin agent Kelly Connally said in a statement.

She added, "Pricing is most important, but with fewer buyers than usual out there, sellers should also make sure their home is in excellent condition and be ready to make repairs upon inspection."

Buyers can't necessarily expect a discount on their home of choice, though.

"There are a few exceptions: Homes in desirable locations that are in perfect condition are still hot and typically sell at or above asking price," Connally said.

[CHOSEN]

Jaja, vivimos en un frenopático gigante al aire libre.

[asustadísimos]

[Siete guerras anglo para negar la muerte del capitalismo popularcapitalista.— Bréxit, Dombás, Nord Stream, Palestina, Argentina, tu gasto militar y la cruzada para recuperar la tierra de los arios.]

[asustadísimos]

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvzxFSC_5xI]

[senslev]

https://www.huffingtonpost.es/global/el-parlamento-irani-aprueba-cierre-estrecho-ormuz.html

Por él se transporta el 20% del petróleo mundial. La decisión final queda en manos del ayatolá Alí Jamenei.

[sudden and sharp]

 

[Derby]

https://www.businessinsider.com/sandwich-generation-gen-x-inheriting-homes-baby-boomer-millennials-retirement-2025-6

Gen X's real estate gripes

I wrote about boomers passing down their homes to millennials — and managed to enrage the forgotten generation


Getty Images; Ava Horton/BI

Tales of intergenerational turmoil tend to strike a nerve, so I steeled myself for some angry emails last month when I wrote a story about the millennials who aren't ready to inherit homes from their baby boomer parents. Both boomers and millennials have good reason to get touchy about media scrutiny — each side has caught plenty of grief for the economic shortcomings of the younger generation. But in all my mental preparation, I failed to consider that my story would piss off an entire other cohort: Gen Xers.

What I wrote still rings true: Millennials stand to inherit trillions of dollars' worth of real estate as baby boomers age out of the market, which means they'll soon be wading through complicated questions about trusts, taxes, and what to do with all of their parents' worthless junk. In nearly 3,000 words on this looming wealth transfer, however, I made no mention of Gen Xers.
Readers let me have it.

"You seem to not realize that there was a generation between the boomers and the millennials," one wrote.

"Not trying to be a bitch, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to salvage your credibility."

"Please remember that Gen X exists."

In the grand scheme of internet discourse, the messages were polite and level-headed (typical Gen Xers), but there was one email that really stuck with me. It was from Amy Reed, a 52-year-old in Ohio, who wanted to emphasize that Gen Xers like her were already dealing with the nightmare scenarios outlined in my millennial-centric story. Members of the so-called Sandwich Generation, in their mid-40s to early 60s, are stuck with the daunting task of sorting out their parents' affairs while also helping out their own children. And nobody seems to care.

"I know Gen X is the forgotten generation," Reed wrote. "It just hurts when I'm the one dealing with this."

In my defense, baby boomers and millennials are the two largest living adult generations, and together they drive the housing market. Boomers own a whopping $19.7 trillion worth of US real estate, or 41% of the country's total value, so it's no surprise their concerns rise to the top in any discussion of America's homebuying shifts. Millennials may not be the richest, with only 20% of the nation's real estate value to their name, but they are the largest cohort by population (and maybe the loudest).

By contrast, Gen Xers get lost somewhere in the middle. Their population numbers lag behind both millennials and boomers. While they own about $14 trillion of real estate, or 29% of the country's value, they've also had more time than millennials to amass that wealth, riding out the market's gains since the global financial crisis. Gen Xers may inherit a portion of boomers' riches, but economists and demographers I talked to say the vast majority — or whatever is left of it after costly retirements and eldercare — will end up in the hands of millennials.

    "I know Gen X is the forgotten generation. It just hurts when I'm the one dealing with this."
    - Amy Reed, Gen Xer

Reed was right, though. Gen X really is the forgotten generation. These poor middle-agers, former latchkey kids raised on MTV, are now toiling in the shadows, upstaged by the splashier generations on either side of them.

"The boomers kind of sucked up all the air in the room," Eric Finnigan, a demograher at John Burns Research and Consulting, tells me. Millennials, by extension, get all this attention as the children of the boomers. Gen X, meanwhile, "has this reputation as kind of being on their own," Finnigan says.

Gen Xers appear to be doing just fine on the housing front: They were the highest-earning buyers last year, and around 70% of them own their homes, data from the National Association of Realtors and the Census Bureau shows. But while millennials may look enviously at their ho-hum path to prosperity, Gen Xers got screwed in their own way, too. The typical Gen Xer bought their first home in 2004, in the thick of the housing bubble, NAR data shows. After the financial crisis, their cohort was the most likely to end up underwater on their homes. By 2014, more than a quarter of Gen Xers owed more on their mortgages than their houses were worth, NAR found, the highest rate of any generation.

Most Gen Xers have recovered financially since then, says Jessica Lautz, an economist at NAR who studies demographic trends. Now, though, they're caught in a different kind of bind as they care for two generations with vastly different needs. A survey published in September by John Burns indicated that around 40% of Gen Zers living on their own still got financial help from their parents — most of whom are probably Gen Xers.

"There's a lot of financial pressure on this generation, actually," Lautz says.

Reed knows this all too well. We talked on the phone a few days after she emailed me, and I was struck by how much her predicament speaks to the stress of being a Gen Xer these days. Her parents are in their 80s, divorced, and dealing with various health issues. Each of them is a homeowner for now, but Reed knows that in the not-so-distant future, she'll have to move them into senior living. Then she'll have to figure out what to do with their property — not just the houses, but the decades' worth of stuff stashed inside. "That is just beyond daunting," Reed tells me.

Reed and her husband also send money each month to their two children, ages 27 and 30, who rent homes in California and Arizona because they can't afford to buy. Reed says she's trying to save up to help them with down payments when they're ready.

"I work full time, my husband works full time, and we just kind of do what we can," Reed says. "You just balance it, because you don't have a choice."

    "There's a lot of financial pressure on this generation, actually."
    Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist at the National Association of Realtors

Reed says between the monthly payments to her children and all those trips to take care of her parents when health crises strike — not to mention the time off from work — she has no idea how much all of this is costing her. "I don't want to know," she says. "I just do it." Her own children, "cuspers" who may count as either young millennials or older Gen Zers, depending on your definition, are already begging her not to leave them with piles of stuff and an aging property that requires lots of maintenance. Reed's goal, she says, is to eventually sell their house and move into an apartment out west, closer to the kids. She hopes to leave them with money, not a bunch of open-ended questions.

Such financial pressures have other Gen Xers fretting over whether they'll be able to afford retirements at all. One woman in her 50s told Business Insider last year that she had spent more than $100,000 taking care of her mother in a 15-year span.

"I'm exhausted financially, and, frankly, I didn't consider growing up I'd be the financial rock of my family," she said.

Every cohort is guaranteed to go through its own Sandwich Generation moment, caught at the life stage when its members are relied upon by both their parents and their children. It's difficult enough to shoulder all of those burdens at once. It's another thing to do it with hardly a pat on the back.

Gen Xers aren't known for making a fuss, though. They've kept their heads down, grinding through their careers and bumping Nirvana through their headphones. Reed isn't any different.
"I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing," Reed says. "And you know, how society views my generation? Whatever. I can't change it."

[gregorsamesa]

]https://www.vozpopuli.com/espana/politica/abalos-preparo-en-una-reunion-secreta-la-estrategia-ante-el-TS-que-incluye-dejar-a-sanchez-y-zapatero-al-descubierto.html] 

    Ábalos preparó en una reunión secreta la estrategia ante el TS que incluye dejar a Sánchez y Zapatero al descubierto
Vozpópuli reconstruye un encuentro clave, celebrado el pasado jueves, en el que el exministro recibió consejo legal para que colabore en la investigación   

Si el fulano éste consigue que se zumben a Zapatero (el bobo solemne) y el perro Sanxe (el galgo de Paiporta) y con ello tira abajo la Organización supuestamente  mafiosa conocida como PsoE, estoy dispuesto a votarle en las generales por su servicio al país. 

[CHOSEN]

No me creo nada.

-El ataque no ha sido por sorpresa.
-El ataque difícilmente ha podido afectar a unas instalaciones que seguramente estén a más de 200m (yo mismo he estado a +500m de profundidad).
-El ataque no termina con las pretensiones nucleares iraníes.
-El ataque estadounidense malamente puede arrastrar a la OTAN, que queda sentenciada a desaparecer.
-El ataque puede meter en un lío a Trump (*Bipartisan War Powers Resolution) que ya tiene a medio MAGA en contra.
-Etc.

Demasiadas contrariedades.
EEUU no gana nada.
Apenas aumentaría un poco sus ventas de gas a una Europa ya en proceso de descarbonización. Esto, sumado a las vacunas falsas y la obligación de aumentar el gasto militar -puras transferencias de riqueza europea a la sede del Imperio- es un balance bastante pobre para lanzarse a la 3GM.
No encaja.
NADA ENCAJA.


Lo que si tenemos claro es el aftermath, y perdón por el anglicismo:

-El ataque ha puesto en el tablero la tecnología obsoleta de la que disponen los EEUU (repostaje en vuelo... ¿en serio?  ) quizás para hacer una última proyección de fuerza.
-Irán no ha solicitado ayuda "incluso/a pesar de" el acuerdo de colaboración en inteligencia firmado hace unos meses con Rusia.
-Irán sigue hostigando muy ligeramente a Israel en un juego de gato y ratón.
-Irán no abandona la vía diplomática.
-El estrecho de Ormuz se cierra, como era totalmente evidente, lógico y esperable.

Todo esto no hace mas que apoyar los puntos iniciales, y vuelve a poner sobre la mesa la estrategia CLEAN BREAK originada en los 90 y ampliamente aireada en los 2000.
No es un secreto. Es el plan del Likud:
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
https://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

Wesley Clark, NATO supreme commander general:
“attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAnNJW9_KYA

Asustadísimos creo que se equivoca cuando dice que EEUU controla a Israel.
Los EEUU no tienen ningún interés en el erial Palestino.
Es Israel la que controla a los EEUU, su Golem.
Esta es la guerra del ZOG, y negarlo es simplemente no querer ver la realidad que está escrita -por los mismísimos actores- desde hace más de 20 años.


Hasta ahí lo que *aparentemente* hay.
A partir de aquí, lo que yo creo:
Hemos asistido a un ataque fake orquestado por la administracion Trump para ganar tiempo ante los que ya intentaron hacerle un Kennedy dos veces, replegar el poder del imperio saliente, y evitar que el final sea tan desordenado como todos sabemos que puede llegar a ser.
Para ello está siendo "ayudado" por Rusia y China, silentes pero vigilantes de la transición al Nuevo Orden Multipolar entrante y que, al igual que a los dirigentes norteamericanos de religión cristiana (y por tanto, no-judíos), TAMPOCO tienen especial interés ni en el paupérrimo erial palestino, ni en el mini-etnoestado israelita, ni en nada de la charlotada global a la que estamos asistiendo.

[Derby]

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/why-the-fed-is-on-hold

Why the Fed is on Hold, Paul Krugman

Trump, Powell and the fog of inflation




Cautious, not stupid

Donald Trump got something right this week. Declaring that Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, is a “stupid person,” Trump predicted that the Fed wouldn’t cut interest rates at this week’s meeting. And he was correct! He was also correct to point out that the European Central Bank, which is to the euro what the Fed is to the dollar, has repeatedly cut rates while the Fed hasn’t.

Anyway, Powell isn’t stupid. Nor is he, as Trump also said, “a political guy” who’s keeping rates high to punish MAGA, or something. Of course, interest rate policy does have political effects, which Trump knows perfectly well. You may recall that back in 2024 he warned Powell not to cut interest rates before the election — because when it comes to Trump, every accusation is actually a confession.

But the reason Powell isn’t cutting rates now is that the Fed is in a difficult position, largely thanks to, you guessed it, Trump himself, with an assist from the ghost of Arthur Burns (I’ll explain later.)

It occurred to me, reading Trump’s insults, that I haven’t seen many simple explanations of the dilemmas the Fed now faces — again, largely thanks to Trump himself. So I thought I might go a bit wonkier than usual and try to explain why the Fed is on hold for the time being.

The basics: By buying or selling short-term U.S. government debt, the Fed can effectively control short-term interest rates. Strictly speaking, all it controls is the federal funds rate, the interest rate at which banks lend money to each other overnight. But this rate has a lot of influence on longer-term rates, which in turn affect the real economy by affecting housing construction, business investment and so on.

In setting rates, the Fed has a “dual mandate”: full employment and price stability. These days full employment is normally interpreted to mean an official unemployment rate of around 4 percent, which is low enough that most people can easily find jobs but not so low that the economy overheats. Price stability is interpreted to mean inflation low enough that people don’t think about it much, but not zero inflation, which turns out to create some technical problems for economic management.

Now, the Fed was way off its target from 2021 to 2023, when inflation surged in the United States (and in almost every nation.) President Biden and his party paid a high price for that inflation surge, which is surely the main reason Trump won the 2024 election. But the surge was transitory. Trump inherited a “Goldilocks” economy in inflation had subsided without the protracted high unemployment some economists (but not me!) claimed was necessary:



The Fed, however, had raised interest rates a lot to fight that inflation surge, so one might have expected a series of rate cuts now that the inflation issue is largely behind us. And Trump might well be riding high in the polls if he had just left the economy alone and taken credit for Biden’s victory over inflation.

Instead, however, he went wild on tariffs.

On April 2 — Liberation Day, in MAGAspeak — Trump imposed huge tariffs on almost every nation. He has modified those tariffs several times since then, but it’s deeply misleading to say, as all too many news reports do, that the tariffs were “paused.” They were reshuffled, with lower tariffs on some countries and goods but higher tariffs on others, but the overall picture remains a leap in average tariffs to levels not seen for 90 years:


Source: Yale Budget Lab

This tariff surge creates big problems for at least one and possibly both sides of the Fed’s dual mandate.

What we know for sure is that the tariffs will cause a large jump in consumer prices. That jump isn’t visible in official price data yet, partly because many businesses rushed to hoard foreign goods before the tariffs kicked in and are still meeting consumer demand out of those stockpiles. But the big price hikes are already happening, and will become obvious to everyone over the next few months.

It's true that Trump continues to insist that tariffs won’t raise prices, that foreigners will pay them. But this is nonsense. Imagine that a Democratic president were to impose a 15 percent sales tax on every good made in America. Would Trump say “This won’t raise prices, because businesses will absorb the tax”? Of course not. So why imagine that foreign businesses will absorb the cost of tariffs, which are nothing but sales taxes on goods made abroad?

The only coherent argument against a large inflationary hit from tariffs was the claim that tariffs would push up the value of the dollar against other countries’ currencies, which would in turn reduce the prices of their goods measured in dollar terms. Both Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, and Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, made this argument before the big Trump tariffs went into effect.

But the dollar has, in fact, gone down rather than up:



This decline reflects a general loss of confidence in American stability and reliability. But that’s another discussion. What it means for the Fed is that yes, Trump’s tariffs are about to cause a major inflationary hit.

And the Fed isn’t going to cut interest rates in the face of surging inflation. My guess is that Trump has never heard of Arthur Burns, who led the Fed under Richard Nixon. But the Fed remembers. Burns is often accused of having kept interest rates low in 1972, despite rising inflationary pressures, in an attempt to ensure Nixon’s reelection — and thereby helping to set the stage for stagflation. One cardinal rule for every Fed chair since then has been, “Don’t be Arthur Burns.”

A tariff-fueled surge in inflation, then, is about as sure a thing as we ever get in economics. But after that, things get a lot less certain.

First, will the price shock from tariffs be a one-time event, or will it feed through into a sustained rise in the inflation rate? The Fed learned long ago to “look through” bumps in the inflation rate caused by fluctuations in volatile prices like the price of oil. That’s why it bases its interest policy on “core” inflation that excludes food and energy — not because food and energy prices don’t matter, but because excluding them gives a better measure of underlying inflation.

But how should we think about the tariffs? Are they a passing event like the now-forgotten oil price surge of 2007-8, or the potential beginning of 70s-type stagflation? I don’t know, and neither does Jay Powell. History offers no guidance: The Trump tariffs are the biggest trade policy shock in history.

Given this fog of inflation Powell is, and should be, cautious. He doesn’t want to be Arthur Burns.

But wait, there’s more. How will the tariffs affect the other side of the Fed’s mandate? Will the tariffs, and especially uncertainty about where they’re going, cause an economic slowdown and rising unemployment? Many observers believe that this will happen, and if it does it would indeed be a reason to cut interest rates. But again, nobody knows, since we’ve never before had a president who keeps announcing huge changes in tariffs every few weeks.

So what would you do if you were Jerome Powell? Almost surely what he is actually doing: Wait and see.

And Trump’s childish insults aren’t going to make any difference, except possibly to make Powell even more cautious to avoid giving the impression that he can be bullied.

MUSICAL CODA

https://youtu.be/rdw-e9UXW50

[Derby]

https://www.baha.com/Irans-parl-agrees-to-close-Hormuz-strait-for-traffic/news/details/64329085

Iran's parl agrees to close Hormuz strait for traffic


EPA-EFE/MEHDI DEHDAR

Member of the Iranian Parliament Esmaeil Kowsari told the press on Sunday that the lawmakers voted in favor of closing the Strait of Hormuz for traffic in response to the United States and Israel's recent attacks on the country's territory.

In order to become official, the decision must be approved by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strait is considered a significant route for oil transport. Previously, US officials such as Vice President JD Vance and State Secretary Marco Rubio warned Iran against the closing of Hormuz, with the latter describing it as an "economic suicide."

Meanwhile, local media reported that the Majlis also voted in favor of resuming the country's nuclear program.

[Derby]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/michael-hudson-why-america-is-at-war-with-iran.html

Michael Hudson: Why America Is at War with Iran, by Yves Smith

(...) The motivation has nothing to do with Iran’s attempt to protect its national sovereignty by developing an atom bomb. The basic problem is that the United States has taken the initiative in trying to pre-empt Iran and other countries from breaking away from dollar hegemony.

Here’s how the neocons spell out the U.S. national interest in overthrowing the Iranian government and introducing a regime change – not necessarily a secular democratic regime change, but perhaps an extension of the ISIS-Al Qaida Syrian Wahabi terrorists.

With Iran and its component parts turned into a set of client oligarchies, U.S. diplomacy can control Near Eastern oil. And control of oil has been a cornerstone of U.S. international economic power for a century, thanks to U.S. oil companies operating internationally and also as domestic U.S. producers of oil and gas. Control of Near Eastern oil also means control of the vast holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and private-sector investments by Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries.

The United States holds these OPEC and other foreign investments as hostages, which can be expropriated much as the United States grabbed $300 billion of Russia’s monetary savings in the West in 2022. This explains why these countries fear acting in support of the Palestinians or Iranians in today’s conflict.

But Iran is not only the key to control of the Near East and its oil and dollar holdings. Iran is the key link for China’s Belt and Road program for a New Silk Road of railway transport to the West. If the United States can block it, this interrupts the long transportation corridor that China hopes to construct.



Iran also is a key to blocking Russian development via the Caspian and access to the south. Under U.S. control, an Iranian client regime could threaten Russia from its southern flank, bypassing the Suez Canal.



To the Neocons, this makes Iran a central pivot on which U.S. national interest is based – if you define that national interest as creating a coercive empire of client states.

I think that Trump’s warning to Tehran citizens to evacuate their city is just trying to stir up domestic panic as a prelude to the U.S. attempt to mobilize ethnic opposition and try to break up Iran into component parts. That is similar to the U.S. hopes to succeed in breaking up Russia and China into regional ethnicities. That is the U.S. strategic hope for a new international order remaining under its command.

b>Trump’s Republican Budget Plan and Its Vast Increase in Military Spending

The irony, of course, is that U.S. attempts to hold onto its fading economic empire continue to be self-defeating. The objective is to control other nations by threatening economic chaos. But it is this U.S. threat of chaos that is driving them to seek alternatives elsewhere. But an objective is not a strategy. And the plan to use Netanyahu as America’s counterpart to Ukraine’s Zelensky, demanding U.S. intervention with his willingness to fight to the last Israeli, much as US/NATO are fighting to the last Ukrainian, is a tactic is quite obviously at the expense of strategy. It is a warning to the entire world to find an escape hatch. Along with the U.S. trade and financial sanctions intended to keep other countries dependent on U.S. markets and a dollarized financial system, the attempt to impose a military empire from central Europe to the Middle East is politically self-destructive. It is making the coming split between the US unipolar world order and the Global Majority irreversible on moral grounds as well as simple self-interest.

The ease with which Iranian missiles have been able to penetrate Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome defense shows the folly of Trump’s pressure for an enormous trillion-dollar subsidy to the U.S. military-industrial complex for a similar boondoggle here. So far, only the oldest and least effective missiles have been used. The aim is to deplete Israel’s anti-missile defenses so that in a few days or even a week it will be unable to block a serious Iranian attack. This already was demonstrated a few months ago, just as Iran showed how easily it could bomb U.S. military bases.

The ostensible US military budget actually is much larger than is reported in the bill. Congress funds it in two ways: The obvious way is by direct arms purchases paid for by Congress directly. Less acknowledged is MIC spending routed via U.S. foreign military aid to its allies – Ukraine, Israel, South Korea, Europe and Asian countries to buy U.S. arms. This shows the extent to which the military burden is what normally accounts for the entire U.S. budget deficit and hence the rise in ostensible government debt (much of it self-financed by the Federal Reserve since 2008, to be sure).

America’s 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is not applicable to this situation, unless the government is willing to spell out what the Iranian “threat” is really all about: preventing any other country from acting independently of U.S. self-proclaimed interests. And under Article 51 of the UN Charte,r a member state may not make an attack on another country unless attacked by that country or preventing an imminent attack by that country. Even then, the United States would have to receive Security Council authorization. This obviously would be blocked. If the United States proceeds without such authorization, Trump and his advisors will be as guilty as Netanyahu of perpetrating a war crime.

The problem, of course, is that the United Nations is now seen to have become toothless and irrelevant as a world organization able to implement international law. Breaking free of the U.S. unipolar order requires a full spectrum of alternative international organizations independent of the United States, NATO and other client allies.

[sudden and sharp]

No me creo nada.

-El ataque no ha sido por sorpresa.
-El ataque difícilmente ha podido afectar a unas instalaciones que seguramente estén a más de 200m (yo mismo he estado a +500m de profundidad).
-El ataque no termina con las pretensiones nucleares iraníes.
-El ataque estadounidense malamente puede arrastrar a la OTAN, que queda sentenciada a desaparecer.
-El ataque puede meter en un lío a Trump (*Bipartisan War Powers Resolution) que ya tiene a medio MAGA en contra.
-Etc.

Demasiadas contrariedades.
EEUU no gana nada.
Apenas aumentaría un poco sus ventas de gas a una Europa ya en proceso de descarbonización. Esto, sumado a las vacunas falsas y la obligación de aumentar el gasto militar -puras transferencias de riqueza europea a la sede del Imperio- es un balance bastante pobre para lanzarse a la 3GM.
No encaja.
NADA ENCAJA.


Lo que si tenemos claro es el aftermath, y perdón por el anglicismo:

-El ataque ha puesto en el tablero la tecnología obsoleta de la que disponen los EEUU (repostaje en vuelo... ¿en serio?  ) quizás para hacer una última proyección de fuerza.
-Irán no ha solicitado ayuda "incluso/a pesar de" el acuerdo de colaboración en inteligencia firmado hace unos meses con Rusia.
-Irán sigue hostigando muy ligeramente a Israel en un juego de gato y ratón.
-Irán no abandona la vía diplomática.
-El estrecho de Ormuz se cierra, como era totalmente evidente, lógico y esperable.

Todo esto no hace mas que apoyar los puntos iniciales, y vuelve a poner sobre la mesa la estrategia CLEAN BREAK originada en los 90 y ampliamente aireada en los 2000.
No es un secreto. Es el plan del Likud:
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
https://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

Wesley Clark, NATO supreme commander general:
“attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAnNJW9_KYA

Asustadísimos creo que se equivoca cuando dice que EEUU controla a Israel.
Los EEUU no tienen ningún interés en el erial Palestino.
Es Israel la que controla a los EEUU, su Golem.
Esta es la guerra del ZOG, y negarlo es simplemente no querer ver la realidad que está escrita -por los mismísimos actores- desde hace más de 20 años.


Hasta ahí lo que *aparentemente* hay.
A partir de aquí, lo que yo creo:
Hemos asistido a un ataque fake orquestado por la administracion Trump para ganar tiempo ante los que ya intentaron hacerle un Kennedy dos veces, replegar el poder del imperio saliente, y evitar que el final sea tan desordenado como todos sabemos que puede llegar a ser.
Para ello está siendo "ayudado" por Rusia y China, silentes pero vigilantes de la transición al Nuevo Orden Multipolar entrante y que, al igual que a los dirigentes norteamericanos de religión cristiana (y por tanto, no-judíos), TAMPOCO tienen especial interés ni en el paupérrimo erial palestino, ni en el mini-etnoestado israelita, ni en nada de la charlotada global a la que estamos asistiendo.

y más...

Sánchez, a puerta gayola ante Trump, tensa a la OTAN y sorprende a Europa
https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20250622/10814308/sanchez-puerta-gayola-trump-tensa-otan-sorprende-europa.html

Es un toro robusto, macizo, de más de seiscientos kilos, con una anilla en la nariz, rubicundo y furibundo, temible, con ganas de guerra. Sánchez extiende el capote frente a la puerta de toriles, mientras grita: “¡No te voy a pagar el 5%!” En el palco presidencial ponen los ojos como platos. Una voz con acento alemán exclama: “¡Este español se ha vuelto loco!” Una señora italiana se mesa nerviosamente los cabellos.

España pacta con la OTAN que no estará obligada a gastar el 5% del PIB en defensa
https://elpais.com/espana/2025-06-22/espana-pacta-con-la-otan-que-no-estara-obligada-a-gastar-el-5-del-pib-en-defensa.html

En una declaración institucional, Sánchez ha calificado de “éxito” un acuerdo que, según ha asegurado, permitirá a España “cumplir sus compromisos con la Alianza Atlántica y preservar su unidad, sin tener que incrementar el gasto en defensa hasta el 5% del PIB”. El presidente del Gobierno se ha mostrado respetuoso con la mayoría de países de la OTAN que han decidido comprometerse a alcanzar este porcentaje de gasto militar en 2035, pero ha enfatizado: “Nosotros, como país soberano, elegimos no hacerlo”. A continuación, ha desgranado las razones por las que considera este aumento “desproporcionado e innecesario”, contraproducente para la construcción de una Unión Europea de la seguridad y la defensa y, en último término, incompatible con mantener el Estado del bienestar. Adelantándose a las previsibles críticas de la oposición, ha negado que España haya roto la unidad de la OTAN o se haya quedado “fuera de su paraguas protector”. “Ninguna de estas cosas es cierta. España permanece dentro del consenso de la OTAN”, ha subrayado.

Faltaría alguna pieza... y eso.

[conejo]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/06/michael-hudson-why-america-is-at-war-with-iran.html

Michael Hudson: Why America Is at War with Iran, by Yves Smith

(...) The motivation has nothing to do with Iran’s attempt to protect its national sovereignty by developing an atom bomb. The basic problem is that the United States has taken the initiative in trying to pre-empt Iran and other countries from breaking away from dollar hegemony.

Here’s how the neocons spell out the U.S. national interest in overthrowing the Iranian government and introducing a regime change – not necessarily a secular democratic regime change, but perhaps an extension of the ISIS-Al Qaida Syrian Wahabi terrorists.

With Iran and its component parts turned into a set of client oligarchies, U.S. diplomacy can control Near Eastern oil. And control of oil has been a cornerstone of U.S. international economic power for a century, thanks to U.S. oil companies operating internationally and also as domestic U.S. producers of oil and gas. Control of Near Eastern oil also means control of the vast holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and private-sector investments by Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries.

The United States holds these OPEC and other foreign investments as hostages, which can be expropriated much as the United States grabbed $300 billion of Russia’s monetary savings in the West in 2022. This explains why these countries fear acting in support of the Palestinians or Iranians in today’s conflict.

But Iran is not only the key to control of the Near East and its oil and dollar holdings. Iran is the key link for China’s Belt and Road program for a New Silk Road of railway transport to the West. If the United States can block it, this interrupts the long transportation corridor that China hopes to construct.



Iran also is a key to blocking Russian development via the Caspian and access to the south. Under U.S. control, an Iranian client regime could threaten Russia from its southern flank, bypassing the Suez Canal.



To the Neocons, this makes Iran a central pivot on which U.S. national interest is based – if you define that national interest as creating a coercive empire of client states.

I think that Trump’s warning to Tehran citizens to evacuate their city is just trying to stir up domestic panic as a prelude to the U.S. attempt to mobilize ethnic opposition and try to break up Iran into component parts. That is similar to the U.S. hopes to succeed in breaking up Russia and China into regional ethnicities. That is the U.S. strategic hope for a new international order remaining under its command.

b>Trump’s Republican Budget Plan and Its Vast Increase in Military Spending

The irony, of course, is that U.S. attempts to hold onto its fading economic empire continue to be self-defeating. The objective is to control other nations by threatening economic chaos. But it is this U.S. threat of chaos that is driving them to seek alternatives elsewhere. But an objective is not a strategy. And the plan to use Netanyahu as America’s counterpart to Ukraine’s Zelensky, demanding U.S. intervention with his willingness to fight to the last Israeli, much as US/NATO are fighting to the last Ukrainian, is a tactic is quite obviously at the expense of strategy. It is a warning to the entire world to find an escape hatch. Along with the U.S. trade and financial sanctions intended to keep other countries dependent on U.S. markets and a dollarized financial system, the attempt to impose a military empire from central Europe to the Middle East is politically self-destructive. It is making the coming split between the US unipolar world order and the Global Majority irreversible on moral grounds as well as simple self-interest.

The ease with which Iranian missiles have been able to penetrate Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome defense shows the folly of Trump’s pressure for an enormous trillion-dollar subsidy to the U.S. military-industrial complex for a similar boondoggle here. So far, only the oldest and least effective missiles have been used. The aim is to deplete Israel’s anti-missile defenses so that in a few days or even a week it will be unable to block a serious Iranian attack. This already was demonstrated a few months ago, just as Iran showed how easily it could bomb U.S. military bases.

The ostensible US military budget actually is much larger than is reported in the bill. Congress funds it in two ways: The obvious way is by direct arms purchases paid for by Congress directly. Less acknowledged is MIC spending routed via U.S. foreign military aid to its allies – Ukraine, Israel, South Korea, Europe and Asian countries to buy U.S. arms. This shows the extent to which the military burden is what normally accounts for the entire U.S. budget deficit and hence the rise in ostensible government debt (much of it self-financed by the Federal Reserve since 2008, to be sure).

America’s 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is not applicable to this situation, unless the government is willing to spell out what the Iranian “threat” is really all about: preventing any other country from acting independently of U.S. self-proclaimed interests. And under Article 51 of the UN Charte,r a member state may not make an attack on another country unless attacked by that country or preventing an imminent attack by that country. Even then, the United States would have to receive Security Council authorization. This obviously would be blocked. If the United States proceeds without such authorization, Trump and his advisors will be as guilty as Netanyahu of perpetrating a war crime.

The problem, of course, is that the United Nations is now seen to have become toothless and irrelevant as a world organization able to implement international law. Breaking free of the U.S. unipolar order requires a full spectrum of alternative international organizations independent of the United States, NATO and other client allies.

On May 25, 2025, the first freight train from Xi’an, China, arrived at the Aprin dry port, Iran, marking the official launch of a direct rail link between the two countries.

https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/06/09/iran-china-railway-eurasia/?utm_source=chatgpt.com