Ann Riordan - أنونة

NEW ANALYSIS: Tucker Carlson's nuclear strike warning seems to be drawing all the headlines right now, and in many ways, rightfully so. But it's missing the point in my opinion. Undoubtedly, a nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain would open up Pandora's Box on the use of nuclear weapons, with no shortage of countries that would be itching to use them. As a result, this should certainly be condemned. However, in my own assessment, I think that the LIKELIHOOD that President Trump uses nuclear weapons against Iran is fairly low. Possible? Certainly. Likely? No. But there IS something that is highly likely, and while not as truly existential to humanity, would come with enormous consequences... And that is the maintenance of the current status quo in the Iran War, or any continuation of the war whatsoever at this point. In anything short of a return to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, or a removal of American forces and the blockade from the region, there WILL be global economic devastation that would rival the Great Depression. This isn't "unlikely", this is HIGHLY likely, and I think that it is something that is being sidelined right now as a result of this nuclear warning. There is no credible argument that Iran can escalate across the Gulf at will. Look at how easily Ansar Allah (Houthis) are penetrating Saudi airspace and blasting energy infrastructure and airports, including the Aramco Headquarters in Dhahran. Simultaneously, Iran is striking moving vessels, under US air cover, with multiple Marines on board in the Strait of Hormuz... And your argument is Iran CAN'T devastate the Gulf if forced to? As of now, there are effectively four options in the Iran War for President Trump to pursue. Three are catastrophic, and one is not. 1) First use nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain - Catastrophic 2) Comprehensive bombing campaign on economic and civilian infrastructure in Iran that would warrant immediate and devastating Iranian retaliation - Catastrophic 3) A continuation of the current status quo, which if you believe would eventually risk the collapse of Iranian society, Iran will respond and we can't defend - Catastrophic 4) Make the necessary concessions to Iran that President Trump AGREED to under the MOU at Versailles, or lift the blockade and remove our troops from the region and reset the negotiations under non-aggressive circumstances for Iran that do warrant retaliation - NOT CATASTROPHIC Whether it be the first use of nuclear weapons, whether it be a comprehensive bombing campaign, or whether it merely be a continuation of the current status quo, there is ZERO scenario in which there is not enormous and catastrophic consequences imposed on all of humanity. Except an end to war. Tucker Carlson's nuclear warning should be taken very seriously, but don't miss the forest for the trees here: All of this is catastrophic unless President Trump deescalates this conflict.

Bitch YOU ALSO killed civilian mariners at sea! You ALSO targeted civilian infrastructure, neighborhoods, and other facilities! Taking the moral high ground stance in a war of aggression is CRAZY work.

NEW: Professor Marandi, a former advisor to the Iranian nuclear negotiating team for the JCPOA, is likely seeking to preempt a Trump Friday jawbone by explicitly shooting down the speculation that there is ANY movement on the Iranian side pertaining to their nuclear program. But don’t take it just from Marandi. Yesterday, Ghalibaf himself said that the Iranians are only interested in a deal that meets their 7 core demands, with nuclear concessions not being one of them. Aragchi, in his op-ed published in the Financial Times, also stated that Iran is interested in a deal… but only if that deal is compatible with the strategic realities of the war. See: 7 core demands. And just this past week, Mohsen Rezaee stated that Iran would not be giving up one gram of their highly enriched uranium. Iran has been EXTREMELY consistent in their demands since the United States shredded the MOU by forcing vessels through Hormuz and revoking the oil sanction waivers at the behest of Israel and FDD. Unless you believe President Trump is about to unfreeze tens of billions of dollars to Iran as an act of good faith to return to the MOU… There’s not a deal on the horizon.

Clarification: My HYPOTHESIS, which is not iron-clad but does logically flow, but with INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to state as immutable fact, is that the United States is pressuring PRIVATE companies and sovereign-owned entities to non-report to the VOLUNTARY reporting system that is the UKMTO. The UKMTO only files reports from what CSO’s and third-parties report to them. If nobody reports a vessel strike or a vessel attack, then the UKMTO does not report it. The UKMTO, in their most recent monthly report, stated that “a majority” of vessel attacks are not being reported to the UKMTO, thus the current figure of 30 vessel strikes in the month of October is likely (if we take “a majority” mathematically literally) at MOST half of the true figure thus far in October. It CAN be stated with “a very high degree of confidence” that the true number of vessels struck so far in October is GREATER than what is publicly reflected in UKMTO and IMO reporting data. Words matter. Nuance matters.

Ah shit… this is definitely me they’re referencing… (It’s true though)

NEW: With Ansar Allah (Houthis) successfully striking the Saudi energy infrastructure at Ras Tanura, a site more than 700 miles away from the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, it has been truly staggering to see how effortlessly Ansar Allah has been able to target Saudi energy infrastructure and airports. Speaking to @AlMonitor this morning, I highlighted Ansar Allah’s ability to strike critical targets across The Kingdom, and what this means for the war and the global energy markets: Brett Erickson, managing principal at Obsidian Risk Advisors, told Al-Monitor, “The Houthis have turned Saudi infrastructure into target practice with remarkably little resistance. From airports to critical energy infrastructure, virtually nothing appears beyond their reach.”  He went on, “The greatest threat to global energy markets is no longer whether Saudi Arabia can defend its infrastructure, but whether the Houthis decide to destroy it.” Erickson added that “Saudi Arabia’s energy security increasingly rests not on Riyadh’s ability to defend its infrastructure, but on the Houthis’ willingness to spare it.” “That is an extraordinarily dangerous position for the global energy market to be in,” he added. al-monitor.com/originals/202…

The Gulf countries, as evidenced by this statement from Omani FM Badr Albusaidi, along with the Quadrilateral Summit held in Tehran yesterday, indicates that most of the Gulf understands that any return to war with Iran from the United States will just lead to greater defeat and destruction for the US.