This is a remarkable position for President Trump to take.  Optimal Solutions:

(President Trump) – “Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines.

If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH — More actions to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP“

President Trump will use the full weight of the U.S. military to change behavior in Iran.  Not just to change the regime per se’, but to change the behavior of whoever surfaces to represent the interests of the people.  The change in behavior is the goal.

While this forced shift is underway, the full weight of the USA will also seek to mitigate any collateral economic damage to well behaved economic partners.  Forceful action, optimal stewardship.

(more…)

Consider the severe economic body blows to China in the past 14 months.

♦ First blow, the Trump tariffs hit Beijing hardest. ♦ Second blow, the Beijing tentacle on the Panama Canal is severed.  ♦ Third blow, global tariff threats changed the risk dynamic for southeast Asia countries who acted as transnational shippers for China. ♦ Fourth blow, cheap sanctioned oil from Venezuela was cut-off. ♦ Now, the fifth blow; cheap, sanctioned Iranian oil is disrupted.

As noted by Politico: Following USA military strikes, “ships have begun to avoid the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Iran — a critical shipping lane for Gulf nations to export oil to Asia. China in 2025 received about half of its imported oil from the six Gulf countries that rely on the strait. Other large crude oil producers in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates — transport almost all their crude exports through the geographic bottleneck.”

[SOURCE]

It’s not just a factor of oil flow, but also the price that China will ultimately end up having to pay.  Beijing was buying oil from Venezuela, Iran and Russia at steep discounts because their purchases were skirting western sanctions.

With Iranian oil production now no longer a market option, China will seek to replace their needs with more Russian alternative. However, that diversion means the oil India was purchasing from Russia will come at a higher price, and the refined final product that was exported by India will arrive to the European Union carrying an additional cost.

Simultaneously, Vladimir Putin was asked about Russia’s lack of military support to Iran in response to the U.S. military action, to wit the Russian president noted the technical terms of their joint military agreements did not include Russia’s immediate involvement.  In shorthand, Russia is busy and is not getting involved.

(more…)

President Trump holds a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office.  After brief remarks of mutual appreciation, President Trump and Chancellor Merz responded to questions from the assembled press pool.

Chancellor Merz expressed support for the objective of eliminating the regime threat from Iran.  President Trump notes at the beginning how Iran is targeting civilian targets in the region and generating even more support from the Gulf states for the USA.

When asked about the British and Spanish refusal to support U.S. military logistics and deployment, President Trump let the media be aware he is not happy with the position of Spain and the U.K.  President Trump also announced [11:00 of video] an economic embargo of trade with Spain as an outcome of their position.

.

(more…)

There has been an ongoing narrative from the insufferable leftists and professional pundits in opposition, that the United States military will soon run out of missiles, rockets, drones, bombs and lethal munitions.  Given the global stockpiles of these weapons, the underlying premise always seemed absurd.

President Trump responded to the false claims in both a direct Truth Social message and an interview with Politico.

[Truth Social] – “The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better – As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought “forever,” and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries finest arms!). At the highest end, we have a good supply, but are not where we want to be. Much additional high-grade weaponry is stored for us in outlying countries. Sleepy Joe Biden spent all of his time, and our Country’s money, GIVING everything to P.T. Barnum (Zelenskyy!) of Ukraine – Hundreds of Billions of Dollars’ worth – And, while he gave so much of the super high end away (FREE!), he didn’t bother to replace it. Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” President DONALD J. TRUMP

(VIA POLITICO) – […] In a roughly 4-minute phone call with POLITICO, Trump argued that Tehran’s military capacity is being steadily degraded, even as Iranian forces are expected to “keep lobbing missiles for a while.”

“They’re running out and they’re running out of areas to shoot them, because they’re being decimated,” Trump said. “They’re running out of launchers.”

[…] Trump during the interview said, “we have unlimited of the middle- and upper middle- ammunition and things. We save it and we build it.”

“The defense companies are on a rapid tear to build the various things we need,” he added. “They’re under emergency orders. We’re making it fast. But we have unlimited, as stupid as [former President Joe] Biden was, he didn’t use it.”

(more…)

Seeing how MSM and Trump opposition outlets are twisting and contorting the words and explanations from Secretary of State Marco Rubio it is worth posting the full transcript of his remarks from yesterday.

…” I’m not going to give away the details of our tactical efforts, but the hardest hits are yet to come from the U.S. military.  The next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now.  Someone was screaming, “How long will it take?”  I don’t know how long it’ll take.  We have objectives.  We will do this as long as it takes to achieve those objectives, and we will achieve those objectives.”…

[Full Transcript] – SECRETARY RUBIO: “The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven’t gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don’t understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I’ll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you’ll report it that way.

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it’s doing quite successfully. I’ll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that’s being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

The second question I’ve been asked is: Why now? Well, there’s two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact it beared to be true because, in fact, the – within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch. In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.

The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.

(more…)

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee today; her testimony began at 9:30am ET. Livestream links below:

.

(more…)

When addressing Greenland’s strategic value within U.S. Arctic defense efforts, President Trump argued that although the European Union and NATO insisted there was no need for American control —promising instead to marshal their combined military strength to defend the territory— he remained skeptical of their assurances. Trump’s remarks were met with swift shock and visible dismay. Pearls were clutched and jaws stood agape.

However, it only took a few weeks for a moment of clarity to surface following the Israeli/U.S. decision to strike Iran and eliminate the long-standing nuclear threat. Suddenly Great Britain and Spain tell the U.S. they will not allow American military use of their joint airbases.  Once, again President Trump’s lack of trust in NATO proved correct.

This visible example of unidirectional self-interest is happening at the same time European and British leadership are requesting demanding the United States provide the security guarantees for their Ukraine ambitions.  The contrast is stark.

Concerns about Islamist extremism within the U.K. appear to influence the thinking of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. With a significant number of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries now living in Great Britain, some argue that actions perceived as antagonizing more radical elements abroad could have domestic repercussions within the U.K.  That said, the contrast in support is so stark that opposition leadership inside the U.K. are now confronting the British Prime Minister.

.

(more…)

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.

This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

(more…)

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but DELIVER US FROM EVIL.

For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever. Amen †

.

(more…)

Susan Kokinda and the Lyndon LaRouche network give their perspective on the British reaction to the U.S. strikes against Iran.  The analysis has value from a review of the historic relationship of the British imperialist policy toward matters of foreign entanglement and the control mechanisms that have historically flowed from the U.K

As a consequence of British government policy much of the Kokinda analysis accurately touches on the root cause of U.K response. However, the emphasis on the modern UK government as the lead of a global network is not always as severe or ¹complicated as the Lyndon LaRouche network would espouse.  WATCH:

¹Great Britain has imported a large percentage of extreme Islamists.  As Iran is confronted, and as Israel is viewed as a significant beneficiary to that confrontation, the leftist British government -represented by majority base supporting Prime Minister Keir Starmer- is politically trying to retain stability.  Starmer does not want to upset the Muslim population within the U.K.  That is a significant political facet undiscussed in the Kokinda review of British response.

Additionally, the Trump Doctrine in confronting totalitarian dictators, or oppressive government systems, has always been to support the rise of the authentic ‘nationalist’ voice of the nation in question.  President Trump has no personal or policy motive to drive the outcome when the authentic rise of the voice happens. Instead, he seeks to remove the anti-American sentiment carried by the former -hopefully replaced- regime.

In all of President Trump’s prior foreign policy examples we see he focuses on creating opportunity for liberty and freedom, but he does not seek to determine how that liberty and freedom are ultimately expressed – so long as there is no negative outcome to American interests.

(more…)