RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21699/iran-china-taiwan

[E]xpect Xi to up the pressure on Taiwan and others in coming weeks.

Xi fully backed Iran and its three main proxy terrorist groups — Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Houthis — against Israel, with Beijing providing economic, diplomatic, propaganda, intelligence and weapons support.

For a time, Beijing looked as if it was driving events with its sly proxy war conducted by Iran. Now, China’s Iranian proxy, and its proxies in turn, are being decimated, and Beijing cannot respond other than by cutting and running. The mighty People’s Republic of China is bugging out of the Middle East.

But China is not entirely out of the fight. In addition to the renewed air campaign against Taiwan, Beijing has upped the pressure against the Philippines in the South China Sea. On June 19, the same day China started its most recent air campaign against Taiwan, the Philippine Coast Guard announced that more than 50 of China’s maritime militia vessels moved close to Iroquois Reef in the South China Sea, a feature within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines. A Philippine Coast Guard spokesman correctly called the Chinese action an “illegal swarming.”

China claims most of that crucial body of water, including features such as Iroquois, which are far from recognized Chinese shores.

This we learned on June 21: The United States is truly a great power — and China is not.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/22/what-trumps-critics-still-dont-understand-about-iran/

Note:  I wrote this column a few hours before the United States bombed and (according to President Trump) “completely and totally obliterated” the hardened Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.  Were those bombings, as some think, destabilizing actions?  Or were they, as others believe,  righteous and effective steps towards peace?

Righteous they certainly were. Whether they were also effective in luring Iran back into the community of nations is a matter that only time will tell.  In order for that to happen, as I argue below, Iran’s commitment to murderous, intolerant Islamism must be “completely and totally obliterated” along with its ability to export terror.  That is a matter that the Iranian people must decide.  For myself, I am in favor of making Iran Persia, i.e., a modern, secular state, again.

Donald Trump has betrayed his base by joining hands with the neo-cons in their belligerent support of war with Iran!

Donald Trump has betrayed Israel by trying to engage Iran in negotiations instead of bombing them now!

Which is it?

Neither.

For one thing, with every day that passes, Israel takes more chess pieces off the board of Iran’s military power, both in matériel and personnel. As of a couple of days ago, it was estimated that Israel had destroyed about 1000 of Iran’s 3500 to 4000 missiles. Add the 400-plus that Iran has lobbed at Israel’s cities, and you can see where this game of attrition is heading.

If one major goal is to extirpate Iran’s nuclear capability, then every day Israeli F-15s take flight is another milestone on the path to that goal. A weaker Iran is also a more pliant Iran.

It has been amusing to watch the chattering class suddenly become experts on the GBU-57 “bunker buster” bomb. Only the United States has them, and only the United States has bombers capable of delivering the 30,000-pound “Massive Ordnance Penetrators.” If you flip through the news, you will see scores, if not hundreds, of stories that repeat the same talking points.

At first, it was said that only the GBU-57 could destroy hardened sites such as the Fordow atomic bomb-making—officially, the “fuel enrichment”—site, buried hundreds of feet into a mountain.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/23/ten-iranian-questions/

1. What are we to make of Saturday night’s destruction of the three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan?

Trump and the U.S. military took a great risk and succeeded in astounding fashion. Operationally, the destruction of the nuclear sites seems to have gone perfectly, in contrast to a long history of America’s Middle East debacles from the failed 1980 Carter rescue mission to the 2021 flight from Kabul.

The long-overdue message to Iran is that there are finally consequences for a half-century effort of killing Americans, promising death to the U.S. and Israel, and attempting to murder a U.S. president.

It’s also surreal to see leftist critics now say that Trump deviated from past presidents’ heroic, peaceful efforts to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear threat, when suddenly, after assuming office, Trump was apprised that Iran was weeks away from getting a bomb.

So, how did that happen after all those heroic diplomatic efforts? Why was the Iranian bomb program not ended during the Biden administration’s last four years? And who but Barack Obama opened the floodgates of Iranian revenue to fund these monstrous programs?

How strange the legal criticisms of the left are. In 2011, repeatedly bombing and killing hundreds of Libyan civilians and setting off a decade of chaos and mayhem were constitutionally okay, but a one-mission taking out a rogue nation’s nuclear facilities that threatened world peace and likely killed few, if any, civilians was unconstitutional and amoral?

Note well: Obama bombed, with B-2s no less, Libya again on his last full day in office in 2017—to finish off his disastrous five-year-long Susan Rice/Samantha Power/Hillary Clinton (“We came, we saw, he died”)/Ben Rhodes-directed destruction of Libya.

In the end, critics on the left and right are flummoxed and left sputtering only, “Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon”—even as every prior president had failed to slow Iran’s progression to a bomb—until Trump alone just did.

Intelligence-wise, it was quite stunning how there were no leaks but lots of successful misdirection and deceptions, such as redeploying the B-2s to Guam. It also made sense to strike early in Trump’s two-week window of warning, as otherwise, each day of quiet worked against the element of surprise.

It was not exactly rah-rah, Yanqui recklessness, but rather almost inevitable. Trump had warned the Iranians on numerous occasions. They never got the message. They were apparently listening to the American Left’s smears of Trump as a “TACO” (“Trump Always Chickens Out”)—a silly slur phrase that just died Saturday night.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/president-trump-speaks-with-bold-action/

Last Saturday, Israel’s operation to eliminate the existential threat of a nuclear armed, genocidal regime reached a spectacular culmination with President Trump’s massive strike against three of Iran’s most important nuclear weapons facilities. The strikes settled the debate over whether Trump would, or should continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to 46 years of the mullahs’ aggression and the West’s serial appeasement. Trump settled the debate with powerful, decisive action of a sort that our country has avoided for nearly five decades of “diplomatic engagement” and “preemptive cringing” that rationalized our failure of nerve.

But the existential danger of the Iranian theocrats’ nuclear ambitions has never been in question. That didn’t matter to a few Republican “no foreign entanglements” and “endless neocon wars” Congressmen and advisors, who have rejected the existence of the threat, mainly by saying Iran is not capable of, nor interested in possessing nuclear weapons. But that claim has been preposterously false. Just recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported, “Iran carried out multiple implosion tests, a key military skill necessary for developing the atomic bomb. Implosion tests do not have civilian nuclear uses.”

Additionally, according to The Straits Times, “At least until Israel’s attacks, Iran was enriching uranium up to 69 percent purity and had enough material at that level for nine weapons if enriched further, according to the IAEA yardstick. That means Iran’s so-called ‘breakout time’––the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb––was close to zero, likely a matter of days or little more than a week, analysts say.”

Another argument from some Republicans of an isolationist bent deployed the neocon strawman of “forever wars” that do not directly serve our national interests and security, are poorly managed, and needlessly cost American lives and resources. But the conflicts these critics have in mind––the Afghanistan War, the second Gulf War against Iraq, the Russo-Ukrainian War, and the Obama-Clinton NATO adventurism in Libya––are false analogies with Israel’s campaign to eliminate the threat of an apocalyptic, messianic genocidal regime that is the world’s most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, now on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons.

https://www.thefp.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The president warned that he wouldn’t tolerate a nuclear Iran. He meant what he said.

President Trump promised he would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Last night, with seven B-2 bombers and a dozen 30,000-pound bombs, he made good on that vow. The world is better off for it.

Trump announced Saturday evening that the U.S. had completed a “spectacularly successful” strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz, Esfahan, and Fordow. The last of those is a heavily fortified facility buried some 300 feet deep in a mountain in Iran’s Qom Province. Although Israel has bunker busting bombs, none have the size and destructive power of the most advanced American bombs, with the capability of destroying or severely damaging the site.

In a moment of political decisiveness and courage, Trump deployed those bombs, despite strenuous objections from the “restrainers” in his administration and parts of the MAGA coalition.

“There’s no military that could’ve done what we did,” Trump said during a brief speech to the nation Saturday night. He is correct. As Niall Ferguson and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant recently noted in these pages, Fordow was essentially impervious to assault. There was one bomb that could cut through its defenses: America’s GBU 57A/B Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP). And there was only one plane built to deliver that bomb: the American B-2 Spirit.

“With a single exertion of its unmatched military strength,” Ferguson and Gallant wrote, “the United States can shorten the war, prevent wider escalation, and end the principal threat to Middle Eastern stability. It can also send a signal to those other authoritarian powers who have been Iran’s enablers that American deterrence is back.”

That is exactly what this White House has done.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/22/donald-trump-on-the-iran-strikes-pithy-powerful-and-to-the-point/

Let’s not beat around the bush: as a speechwriter at the highest levels of politics and business for 45 years – including the most successful presidential campaign in history – this commentator can present you an undeniable truth.

President Donald J. Trump’s remarks Saturday night in the wake of America’s “spectacular military success” striking Iran’s key nuclear facilities didn’t necessarily amount to an oration for the ages. But they did showcase a heroic man rising to a historic moment – and then some – with a pithy, powerful and pointed address.

Pithy: Your correspondent has in the past agonized over 45’s “every-which-way riff-apaloozas” and penchant for “detours and travelogues” in which he “double-covers every subject and theme.”

Not this time. With a declaration weighing in at a trim three minutes, 19 seconds, Trump didn’t waste one of his mere 525 words. He leaped into his literally earthshaking news, stating the clear objective of the attack – “the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror.” 

And then immediately and forcefully “pre-butted” any doubts about the achievement of that objective with a stout insistence that the pariah state’s “key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

The commander in chief crisply moved into a convincing and compelling defense of the actions he had ordered and graciously thanked the team that carried them out – including his Israeli partners, the “great American patriots” of the U.S. military and their leaders. Then segued smoothly into a plea for peace and a sharply, shockingly straightforward statement – given the namby-pamby double-speak in which matters of diplomacy are usually expressed – of the consequences should Iran not respond to his overture.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/22/confronting-chinas-commercial-malign-influence-in-africa/

In another welcome sign of the Trump Administration’s focused prioritization of American interests in foreign policy, the State Department’s Senior Bureau Official for African Affairs recently rolled out a clear-eyed approach to U.S. engagement in Africa. As part of a long-overdue restructuring of the State Department, the Trump Administration articulated a directive to U.S. diplomats that puts enhanced trade and commercial diplomacy at the forefront of advancing U.S. interests, with the American private sector squarely in the lead as the engine of mutual prosperity and expansive growth. As highlighted throughout a hearing by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, threats from Chinese activities across Africa, especially commercial activities, directly undermine U.S. interests across the continent.

Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) laid out the challenge directly, calling China “the most significant long-term strategic threat to the United States” and highlighting that throughout Africa, “China is exercising its military, economic, and political power and advancing its authoritarian agenda, all while undermining the sovereignty of African nations and the strategic interests of the United States.” To help confront this harmful influence directly, the Trump Administration’s updated strategy prioritizes the need to reduce barriers to entry for U.S. companies and level the playing field for American businesses. Fair, clear, and equal rules of doing business, coupled with strengthened institutions and the rule of law to uphold those standards, are the opportunity the private sector seeks as it evaluates prospective markets. Coupled with broader Trump Administration reforms at trade promotion and enhanced prioritization ensuring American competitiveness in Africa, this strategic focus on “trade, not aid” is what both our African partners and the American people want.

The success of this strategy goes beyond the ongoing reorganization and strategic restructuring of the state. As Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-ID) noted during another recent hearing focused on issues in East Africa, “There are countries where meaningful engagement is possible—but only with sober judgment and clear-eyed realism. We must stop building U.S. policy in Africa around individual leaders and instead focus on strengthening institutions, expanding private sector ties, and empowering the region’s young and dynamic populations.” That clear focus requires careful analysis of the various ways China’s coercive activities have been successful in the past to help inform what is needed to expand commercial relationships in Africa.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/middle-east/the-decision-that-will-define-trump/

I can understand President Trump’s taking his time to decide whether or not to intervene in the Israel/Iran war, given the strength of the ‘no new wars’ sentiment of much of his base.  In deference to them he did not rush into a decision.

However, he was caught up by two considerations of his own devising.  Firstly, his firm and repeated assertion that Iran will never be allowed a nuclear weapon.  And, secondly, his demand that allies step up to the plate in defending themselves if they expect US help.  Implicit in that demand is that the US will help those friends and allies who help themselves.  Israel has done that in spades.  And, in doing so, it is rendering a great service to the rest of the world.

If Trump did not support Israel at this critical time, as he has now done, how seriously should, for example, the Albanese government take his demand to increase our own spending?  After all, the effective US contribution would not involve boots on the ground.  Just dropping two or three bunker busting bombs on selected sites from virtually uncontested airspace.  It would pose no risk of escalation from other state parties because they have not already intervened against Israel.

What is the downside?  There is a risk that Iran would strike US facilities in retaliation and that, undoubtedly, would hurt Trump domestically.   It would not, however, materially damage US power. There is a risk that the MOAB bomb might not have been able to penetrate the Fordow fortifications.  But two or three strikes would probably increase the chances.  It would be surprising if it did not do significant damage.  There is speculation the facility could be 100 metres or more below the surface.  But no matter how far underground it is, there must be surface level access points, and it would be strange if Israel did not know where they are.  With modern guidance systems a MOAB can be delivered straight through the front door — or any other door, for that matter.

I believe that Trump genuinely deplores war, as I do.  However, that does not make him a member of the kumbaya brigade, any more than it does me.  No military action comes without risk.  But sometimes the risk of inaction outweighs the alternative.

How, for example, would Taiwan – already in some doubt about US resolve to defend it – feel about a decision by Trump not to take all steps available to help Israel rid the world of the risk of Iran having a nuclear bomb?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/misunderstanding-trump/

Many are now demanding that Trump act abroad in the way they think he had promised and campaigned–which can be mostly defined as how closely he should parallel their own version of MAGA.

But Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either an ideological isolationist or an interventionist.

He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at home and its own particular agendas abroad?

Trump did not like neo-conservatism because he never felt it was in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did not deserve such largess, or who would never evolve in ways we thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national interests.

So-called, optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at the expense of shorting Middle America back home.

However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down “little rocket man”, warning Putin not to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindberg isolationism but a sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t tread on me”/ or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy” .

Trump’s much critiqued references to Putin—most recently during the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than was either Obama or Biden), but art-of-the-deal/transactional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your formidable rival in possible deal-making, but seek simultaneously to praise—and beat—him.)

Similarly, Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering, treacherous Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, someone dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941 was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers, and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis.

Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on the doorstep of Europe.