Podcasts about Gulf

Subscribe now for the full episode and much more content. Danny and Derek welcome back to the program Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, to talk about when and how the US will become fully involved in Israel's war with Iran. They discuss the major interest groups within the Trump 2.0 administration, why the Iranians would continue negotiating with the US at this point, how European leaders are navigating the crisis, the war as a part of global colonial domination by the North Atlantic/Western Europe, whether Iran can see a way out of this cycle with Israel, the bogus argument of the enrichment “red line,” how other Arab states in the Gulf are responding to the conflict, and the goal of regime collapse.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys bring in the 1st day of summer with some rapid fire stories, like drag queen story time for Palestine, and if Iran tried to assassinate Trump last year.

Did you know that oysters are not only popular items at seafood festivals, but vital to the health of our estuaries?  Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Sandra Brooke, Ph.D., research faculty at Florida State University's Coastal and Marine Laboratory and scientific director and lead investigator of the Apalachicola Bay System Initiative.  Brooke has worked on deep-water coral ecosystems in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, Norwegian Fjords, South Atlantic Bight and the Gulf of Mexico, including  assessing damage following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. She'll discuss the ecosystem services provided by oysters, oyster shell recycling, oyster farming, and why and how oyster reefs are threatened, and can be restored.Related Websites: https://marinelab.fsu.edu/

Children's picture books are some of the most transparently ideological materials available to parents and educators, and as cultural objects they are an expression of the zeitgeist of a particular era. They reveal much about the hopes, values, and aspirations of the society that produces them, as well as that society's vision of its place in the wider world at large.Children's Picture Books and Contemporary Egyptian Society (AUC Press, 2025) by Dr. Yasmine Motawy examines a new wave of Egyptian picture books that was published in the current century to see how these books responded to larger societal trends and transformations in Egypt, as well as to explore the ideologies that lie behind them. Dr. Motawy argues that a host of factors, including the growth of gated communities and international schooling, the proliferation of lucrative literary awards, returning Gulf migrants, television dramas, and nationwide reading advocacy initiatives helped give rise to a new kind of children's picture book in Egypt.Dr. Motawy focuses on three clusters of selected picture books to investigate the extent to which these books reproduce hegemonic discourses or, alternatively, open up new horizons of childhood agency and societal transformation. The first cluster includes books that directly socialize the child by showing them ‘how things are done,' in both the domestic sphere and the increasing globalized spaces that children frequent with their families. The second cluster aims at reframing cultural notions around femininity through the retelling of folk and fairy tales, while the third cluster addresses children's abilities to assess the impact of their actions on their environment, and invites them to examine their personal suitability to positions of power and stewardship. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Up until last week, it seemed unthinkable for a UN member state to strike a nuclear site. But Israel did just that when it launched its attack on Iran, hitting military and atomic sites, and killing key figures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It also seemed unthinkable for missiles to penetrate Israel's Iron Dome and destroy infrastructure in cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. Yet again, civilians are paying the heaviest price. More than 240 people have been killed in Iran so far. In Israel, at least 24 people have been killed in retaliatory strikes. One week on, the war shows no signs of abating, with the US hinting it might get involved, too. A sense of unease has gripped the region, with neighbouring states fearing further escalation. A group of 20 countries including Gulf states, Jordan and Egypt has called for an end to hostilities. In a worst-case scenario, the repercussions could be catastrophic for them, too. In this episode of Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher looks at the consequences of the war on the Middle East and asks what will happen to the region if Tehran were to fall? She speaks to Hasan AlHasan, senior fellow for Middle East policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Thomas Juneau, Middle East researcher and a professor at University of Ottawa, Canada. Editor's Note: We want to hear from you! Help us improve our podcasts by taking our 2-minute listener survey. Click here.

In 1682, the Mississippi River was explored by French adventurer and fur trader René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle. He explored the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, and the Mississippi River. He is best known for an early 1682 expedition in which he canoed the lower Mississippi River from the mouth of the Illinois River to the Gulf of Mexico; there, on April 9, 1682, he claimed the Mississippi River basin for France after giving it the name La Louisiane, in honor of Saint Louis and Louis XIV. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/hHdrrI8Kyt4 which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. Mississippi River books available at https://amzn.to/4feWoDM LaSalle book available at https://amzn.to/4li1mmY ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus Mark's TIMELINE video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Librivox: Historical Tales: Vol 2—American II by Charles Morris (Chapter 7, La Salle the Explorer of the Mississippi) read by Kalynda.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Interest and grave concern have been mounting over the impact of agriculture and the food choices we all make on the environment, particularly on climate change. With natural weather disasters occurring much more frequently and serious threats from warming of the atmosphere in general, it's natural to look for places to make change. One person who has thought a lot about this is our guest today, Dr. William Dietz of George Washington University. He's been a prominent voice in this space. Bill, you're one of the people in the field I respect most because our relationship goes back many years. Bill is professor and director of research and policy at the Global Food Institute at George Washington University. But especially pertinent to our discussion today is that Dr. Dietz was co-chair of the Lancet Commission on the global syndemic of obesity, under nutrition and climate change. Today, we'll focus on part of that discussion on beef in particular. Interview Summary Bill, let's start out with a basic question. What in the heck is a syndemic? A syndemic is a word that reflects the interaction of these three pandemics that we're facing. And those are obesity, under nutrition, and we've also called climate change a syndemic insofar as it affects human health. These three pandemics interact at both the biologic and social levels and have a synergistic adverse impact on each other. And they're driven by large scale social forces, which foster clustering and have a disparate impact on marginalized populations. Both in the developed and equally important, in the developing world. Here are a couple of examples of syndemics. So, increased greenhouse gases from high income countries reduce crop yields in the micronutrient content of crops, which in turn contribute to food insecurity and undernutrition in low and middle income countries. And eventually the reduction in crop yields and the micronutrient content of crops is going to affect high income countries. Beef production is a really important driver of the climate change, and we're a major contributor in terms of the US' contribution. And beef production drives both methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and in turn, the consumption of red and processed meat causes obesity, diabetes, colon cancer, and cardiovascular disease. And finally, obesity, stunting and nutrition insecurity occur in the same children and in the same population in low- and middle-income countries. Okay, so we'll come back to beef in a moment, but first, help us understand the importance of agriculture overall and our food choices in changing climate. Well, so I think we have to go back to where this, the increase in mean global surface temperatures began, in about 1950. Those temperatures have climbed in a linear fashion since then. And we're now approaching a key level of increase of 1.5 degrees centigrade. The increase in mean surface temperature is driven by increased greenhouse gases, and the US is particularly culpable in this respect. We're it's second only to China in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions. And on a per capita basis, we're in the top four with China, India, and Brazil and now the US. And in the US, agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions, and about 30% of fossil fuels are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. But when you look at the actual contribution of car use among the fossil fuel use, it's pretty close to the contribution of greenhouse gases from agriculture. The important point here is each one degree increase centigrade in air temperatures associated with a 7% increase in water vapor. And this is responsible for the major adverse weather events that we're seeing today in terms of increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, the droughts. And I learned a new term from the New York Times a couple of days ago from the science section, which is atmospheric thirst. I had trouble understanding how climate change would contribute to drought, but that same effect in terms of absorbing moisture that occurs and drives the adverse weather events also dries out the land. So increasingly there's increased need for water use, which is driven by atmospheric thirst. But that increase in air temperature and the increase in water vapor, is what really drives these storms. Because in the Pacific and in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, this increase in air temperature is associated with an increase in water temperature, which further drives the increase in the severity of these storms. Thanks for that background. Now let's get to beef. You and I were not long ago at the Healthy Eating Research conference. And you gave what I thought was a very compelling talk on beef. We'll talk in a minute about how much beef figures into this overall picture, but first, tell us how beef production affects both climate and health. And you mentioned nitrous oxide and methane, but how does this all work? Cattle production is a big driver of the release of methane. And methane comes from cow burps. The important thing to understand about methane is that it's 80 times more powerful than CO2 in terms of its greenhouse gas emission. And that's because it has a very long half-life when it gets up into the atmosphere? Well, actually it's interesting because the half-life of methane is shorter than the half-life of nitrous oxide. So, it's an appropriate target for reduction. And the reduction has to occur by virtue of reduced beef consumption, which would reduce beef production. The other piece of this is that nitrous oxide is derived from fertilizer that's not absorbed by plants. And the application of fertilizer is a very wasteful process and a huge percent of fertilizer that's applied to crops is not absorbed by those plants. And it washes into the Mississippi River and down to the Gulf of Mexico. But also, increases the genesis of nitrous oxide. And nitrous oxide is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than methane. About 260 times more powerful than CO2 with a very, very long half-life. So, as a target, we really ought to be focused on methane, and if we're going to focus on methane, we need to focus on beef. You could imagine people who are opposed to these views on climate change making fun of cows burping. I mean, are there enough cows, burping enough where the methane that's coming out is a problem? Yes. Maybe a better term that we can use is enteric fermentation, which is in effect cow burps. But enteric fermentation is the major source of methane. And nitrous oxide, the same thing. The agricultural system which supports cattle production, like the feedlot fattening from corn and wheat. The genesis of nitrous oxide is a product of fertilizer use and fertilizer use is a real important source of nitrous oxide because of the amount of fertilizer which is not absorbed by plants. But which washes into the Mississippi River and causes the dead zone in the Gulf, but also generates an enormous amount of nitrous oxide. So, between those two, the enteric fermentation and the origin of nitrous oxide from fertilizer use, are a lethal combination in terms of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. And it's important to know that those greenhouse gas emissions are associated with important declines in crop yields. Crop yields have declined by about 5% for maize for wheat, for soybeans, and somewhat less for rice. These crop yields have yet to affect the US but are clearly a problem in the Global South. In your talk, you cited a paper by Scarborough and colleagues that was published in the Journal Nature Food that modeled the environmental impact of various diets. Could you please explain what they found? This was a really nice study of four diets in the United Kingdom. Actually it was five diets. They looked at vegans, vegetarians, low meat eaters, medium meat eaters and high meat eaters. And looked at the contribution of these diets to the genesis of methane, nitrous oxide, and also importantly, land use and water use. And the most expensive, and the most detrimental environmental impact of these diets, were the among the high meat eaters. These were substantially greater than than the genesis of for example, methane by vegans. For example, high meat eaters generated about 65 kilograms per day of methane compared to vegans, which generated only four kilograms per day of methane. And when you reduce beef, and there were two lower categories, these measures come much more into line with what we'd like to have. The low meat eaters generate about half of methane that the high meat eaters generate. This is also true for their genesis of nitrous oxide. And importantly, the land use among vegans and vegetarians is about a third of the land use required for the production of beef. And water use by meat production is about twice that generated by the water use by the production of plant-based diets. I think these are important data because they, they really reflect the importance of a lower meat consumption and higher plant-based diet. Not just in terms of greenhouse gases, but also in terms of land use and water use. Not to mention health. Not to mention health. Yes. I think it's important to continue to remind ourselves that beef consumption is associated with a variety of chronic diseases like obesity, like diabetes, like colon cancer and like cardiovascular disease. So, there's this double whammy from beef consumption, not only on the climate but also on human health. In your talk that I heard it was interesting to see how you interpreted this information because you weren't arguing for no beef consumption. Because you were saying there could be tremendous benefit from people going from the high beef consumption category to a lower category. If you could take all the people who are consuming beef and drop them down a category, it sounds like there would be tremendous benefits. People could still have their beef but just not have it as often. Right. I think that's an important observation that we're not talking about the elimination of beef. We're talking about the reduction in beef. And the Eat Lancet Commission pointed out that protein consumption in the US was six times what it should be in terms of human needs. And a lot of that protein comes from beef. And there's this belief, widespread, popular belief that beef is the most important source of protein. But comparisons of plant-based diets and plant-based proteins have an equivalent impact and equivalent absorption pattern like beef and are equally nourishing. That's a really important thing to make prominent because people are thinking more and more about protein and it's nice to know there are various healthier ways to get protein than from a traditional meat diet. Well, one of the, one of the important reports from the dietary guidelines advisory committee was to reclassify lentils, beans and peas as proteins rather than vegetables. And I think that's a, something which has not been widely appreciated, but it gives us a real important area to point to as an alternative protein to beef. Bill, on this calculus, how important is the way the cattle are raised? So, you know, you have big cattle farms that might have a hundred thousand cattle in a single place being raised in very close quarters. And it's industrial agriculture, the kind of the epitome of industrial agriculture. But more and more people are beginning to study or experiment with or actually implement regenerative agriculture methods. How much would that help the environment? That's kind of a complicated question. If we just start with beef production, we know that grass fed beef has a healthier fatty acid profile than feedlot fat and beef. But the total generation of greenhouse gases among grass fed beef is greater because they're fostered on land for a longer period of time than those cattle which are committed to feedlots. My understanding is that most of the cattle that go to feedlots are first raised on grass and then moved to feedlots where they're fed these commodity products of corn and wheat and, and maybe not soy. But that feedlot fattening is a critical step in beef production and is associated with overcrowding, antibiotic use, the generation of toxic dust really. An enormous amount of fecal material that needs to be adequately disposed of. It's the feedlot fattening of beef is what adds the adverse fatty acid content, and also contributes to the local environment and the damage to the local environment as a consequence of the cattle that are being raised. Appreciate you weighing in on that. Let's talk about what might be done. So how do we go about increasing awareness, and the action, for that matter, in response to the contributions of beef production to climate change? It begins with understanding about the contribution of beef production to climate change. This is not a well understood problem. For example, there was a study of 10 major news sources a couple of years ago which asked what the major contributions were of climate change. And they surveyed a hundred articles in each of 10 sources of information, which were popular press like New York Times, Washington Post, etc. And, at the top of that list, they characterize climate change as a consequence of fossil fuels. Whereas a recognition of the contribution of the agricultural system was at the bottom of that list and poorly covered. It's no surprise that people don't understand this and that's where we have to start. We have to improve people's perception of the contribution of beef. The other thing is that I don't think we can expect any kind of progress at the federal level. But in order to build the critical mass, a critical focus, we need to look at what we can personally change. First in our own behavior and then engaging family, peers and organizational networks to build the political will to begin to generate federal response. Now, this brings up a really critical point that I'm not sure we have the time to do this. I don't think we are facing the whole issue of climate change with the kind of emphasis and concern that it deserves. I mentioned at the outset that the mean surface temperature is increasing rapidly. And the expectation was, and the goal was to achieve no greater than a 1.5 degrees centigrade increase by 2050. Well, in 2024, there was already a report that the mean surface temperature had already increased in some places by 1.5 degrees centigrade. So there has to be an urgency to this that I don't think people, are aware of. Youth understand this and youth feel betrayed and hopeless. And I think one of the important characteristics of what we can personally change, in engaging our family and peers, is a way of beginning to generate hope that change can occur. Because we can see it if it's our family and if it's our peers. Another important and critical strategy at the institution and state level is procurement policies. These, I think, are the most powerful tool that we have to change production at the municipal or local level, or at the state level. And we were part of an effort to get the HHS to change their procurement policy for their agencies. And although at the very last minute in the Biden administration, they agreed to do this, that's been superseded now by the changes that Trump has instituted. Nonetheless, this can be a local issue and that's where local change has to occur if we're going to build political will from the ground up. Bill, tell me a little bit more about procurement because a lot of people don't even think about that term. But it turns out that the federal government and local and state governments buy lots of food. How is it that they buy lots of food and how they could have sway over the food environment just by their purchasing decisions? So, let's take schools. Schools are a logical place. They have large contracts with vendors and if they set standards for what those vendors were supplying, like insisted on alternative proteins in at least some of their meal services that would have a big impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from school meals. And would have a positive impact on the health of students in those schools. This is known as value-based purchasing. Purchasing of products related to values that have to do with not only greenhouse gases, but also animal husbandry and fair workers' rights, and strategies like that. These are possible. They should be beginning in our universities. And this is an effort that we have underway here at George Washington University. But there are even better examples where universities have used plants as a default option in their cafeterias, which has, shown that when you do that and when you make the plant-based option the only visible choice, people choose it. And, in three universities, Lehigh, Rensselaer at Polytech, and Tulane, when they made plant-based options the only visible option, although you could ask for the alternative, the choices went up to 50 to almost 60 to 80% when the plant-based option was offered. And these were things like a lentil olive and mushroom spaghetti, which has a very low greenhouse gas emission. In fact, the net effect of these choices was a 24% reduction in greenhouse gases on days when the default was offered. These are practical types of initiatives. We need to increase the demand for these options as an alternative to beef. Bill, I like how you're approaching this from kind of the big top level down, but also from the ground up. Because you talk about things that the federal government could do, for example, but also how important individual choices are. And how people can work with their families and friends and have an inspirational effect by changing their own behavior. Those sorts of things make me hopeful. But let me ask, how hopeful are you? Because I'm hearing from you this sort of dire picture that we might be too late, and that the climate change is happening so rapidly and that the social change needed to overcome that is painfully slow. But on the other hand, you're speaking some optimistic things. So how do you feel overall about where this is going? I'm moderately hopeful. And moderately hopeful because I think young people are engaged. And we need to address the hopelessness that many of them feel. They feel betrayed by us. They feel like the adults in this country have let them down and have not focused enough. That's understandable. Particularly now given the distractions of the new administration. And I think we're in a real crisis and things all of a sudden are very fluid in terms of national initiatives. They've been dominated by the Trump administration, but I think that's changing. And I think that the kind of despotism that led to the station of troops in California, in Los Angeles, is a case in point of overreach of the government. The kind of ICE activities really deserve resistance. And all of that, I think, plays into this notion that we're in a fluid time. This is not a time that people are necessarily going to focus on beef consumption. But the fact that all of these climate changes, clearly a major issue at least for those who admit it, means that we need to begin and continue to build the political will for changes in beef consumption as well as changes in transportation policy. I think that actually beef consumption is an easier target then changes in transportation policy, which is driven by the way our communities are constructed. And in many cases, the only way to get from one place to another is by car, which means that we're going to have a continued dependence on fossil fuels. I don't think we can say the same thing about beef consumption because if we institute reductions in beef consumption, I think we can have a very immediate and longer-term impact on greenhouse gas emissions and therefore on climate change. Bio William (Bill) Dietz is the Director of Research and Policy for the Global Food Institute and a Professor in the Department of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences. Dietz is a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) and serves as a consultant to the Roundtable on Obesity Solutions. He also is the Director of the STOP Obesity Alliance at The George Washington University. He served as Director of the The Sumner M. Redstone Global Center for Prevention & Wellness until June 30, 2024. He is Co-Chair of the Washington, DC Department of Health's Diabesity Committee, a Commissioner on the Washington, DC Office of the State Superintendent of Education's Healthy Youth & Schools Commission, and Chair of its Subcommittee on Physical Activity. Dietz is also Co-Chair of The Lancet Commission on Obesity.

Children's picture books are some of the most transparently ideological materials available to parents and educators, and as cultural objects they are an expression of the zeitgeist of a particular era. They reveal much about the hopes, values, and aspirations of the society that produces them, as well as that society's vision of its place in the wider world at large.Children's Picture Books and Contemporary Egyptian Society (AUC Press, 2025) by Dr. Yasmine Motawy examines a new wave of Egyptian picture books that was published in the current century to see how these books responded to larger societal trends and transformations in Egypt, as well as to explore the ideologies that lie behind them. Dr. Motawy argues that a host of factors, including the growth of gated communities and international schooling, the proliferation of lucrative literary awards, returning Gulf migrants, television dramas, and nationwide reading advocacy initiatives helped give rise to a new kind of children's picture book in Egypt.Dr. Motawy focuses on three clusters of selected picture books to investigate the extent to which these books reproduce hegemonic discourses or, alternatively, open up new horizons of childhood agency and societal transformation. The first cluster includes books that directly socialize the child by showing them ‘how things are done,' in both the domestic sphere and the increasing globalized spaces that children frequent with their families. The second cluster aims at reframing cultural notions around femininity through the retelling of folk and fairy tales, while the third cluster addresses children's abilities to assess the impact of their actions on their environment, and invites them to examine their personal suitability to positions of power and stewardship. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Children's picture books are some of the most transparently ideological materials available to parents and educators, and as cultural objects they are an expression of the zeitgeist of a particular era. They reveal much about the hopes, values, and aspirations of the society that produces them, as well as that society's vision of its place in the wider world at large.Children's Picture Books and Contemporary Egyptian Society (AUC Press, 2025) by Dr. Yasmine Motawy examines a new wave of Egyptian picture books that was published in the current century to see how these books responded to larger societal trends and transformations in Egypt, as well as to explore the ideologies that lie behind them. Dr. Motawy argues that a host of factors, including the growth of gated communities and international schooling, the proliferation of lucrative literary awards, returning Gulf migrants, television dramas, and nationwide reading advocacy initiatives helped give rise to a new kind of children's picture book in Egypt.Dr. Motawy focuses on three clusters of selected picture books to investigate the extent to which these books reproduce hegemonic discourses or, alternatively, open up new horizons of childhood agency and societal transformation. The first cluster includes books that directly socialize the child by showing them ‘how things are done,' in both the domestic sphere and the increasing globalized spaces that children frequent with their families. The second cluster aims at reframing cultural notions around femininity through the retelling of folk and fairy tales, while the third cluster addresses children's abilities to assess the impact of their actions on their environment, and invites them to examine their personal suitability to positions of power and stewardship. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

//The Wire//2100Z June 19, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: MISSILE ATTACKS CONTINUE IN MIDDLE EAST AS USA CONTINUES WARTIME PREPARATIONS. DATA BREACH LEAKS 16 BILLION LOGIN CREDENTIALS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Middle East: Missile attacks between Israel and Iran continue. Crude oil prices have increased in response to the concerns that Iranian forces may mine the Strait of Hormuz (as has been theorized as a possibility for a long time). Navigational issues remain palpable as GPS jamming and spoofing has prevented satellite navigation methods from being effective. US military logistical flights continue throughout the region, and non-essential personnel are still quietly being evacuated from various diplomatic posts (such as the US Embassy in Baghdad). This afternoon the White House stated that President Trump will make his decision on direct strikes against Iran within the next two weeks.AC: As with everything the White House has stated this week; this can be interpreted in many different ways. This could be a quiet way of telling Israel "no" without openly defying them, or (more likely) it could be stalling for time while American military assets continue to pour into the region. There is also a fairly good chance that the "2 week" time period is a deception tactic, and that a decision has been made that will come to fruition much sooner than that.-HomeFront-USA: This afternoon a new data breach was reported as approximately 16 billion login credentials have been leaked. Google, Apple, and Facebook are most affected by the breach, which was discovered back in May (though the magnitude of which has only recently become public).-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: The GPS jamming throughout the Strait of Hormuz may be the cause of the recent collision between oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman a few days ago. GPS jamming and spoofing in these waters has been extremely common over the past few decades, so it hasn't impacted operations that much more than normal. However, it's still a concern as operating in a GPS-denied environment makes things more challenging, and if crew members become complacent, tragedy can strike very quickly. Should things also go kinetic in the Strait of Hormuz, the rescue of crews onboard stricken commercial vessels will become more challenging due to these navigational issues.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about the Juneteenth ‘holiday', and how there is a moron epidemic in America.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about democrats switching sides to hide their scandals, and how we don't want em.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about Biden celebrating Juneteenth, and how one man in Dallas was surprised to find out he was married.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about Ted Cruz going off on Democrats, Jake Tapper exposing himself as the bad guy, and members of DNC spreading more lies about Republicans supporting School choice.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about some Juneteenth history, and how Biden tried to kill the 4th of July.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk about the current progress of Elon Musk's SpaceX, and how lobbyists are paying Dan Patrick off to suddenly care about low grade THC products.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys discuss some grim topics like the conflict in Iran, Nuclear War, and most of all, J.D Vance's Blue Sky account has been deleted.

Today on the Walton and Johnson Show, the boys talk the threat of war, the MOP weapon, and Kenny confesses the one thing he loves about Iran.

Disorder and Diagnosis: Health and the Politics of Everyday Life in Modern Arabia (Stanford UP, 2024) offers a social and political history of medicine, disease, and public health in the Persian Gulf from the late nineteenth century until the 1973 oil boom. Foregrounding the everyday practices of Gulf residents--hospital patients, quarantined passengers, women migrant nurses, and others too often excluded from histories of this region--Laura Frances Goffman demonstrates how the Gulf and its Arabian hinterland served as a buffer zone between "diseased" India and white Europe, as a space of scientific translation, and, ultimately, as an object of development. In placing health at the center of political and social change, this book weaves the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula into global circulations of commodities and movements of people. As a collection of institutions and infrastructures, pursuits of health created shifting boundaries of rule between imperial officials, indigenous elites, and local populations. As a set of practices seeking to manipulate the natural world, health policies compelled scientists and administrators to categorize fluid populations and ambiguous territorialities. And, as a discourse, health facilitated notions of racial difference, opposing native uncleanliness to white purity and hygiene, and indigenous medicine to modern science. Disorder and Diagnosis examines how Gulf residents, through their engagements with health, fiercely contested and actively shaped state and societal interactions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Disorder and Diagnosis: Health and the Politics of Everyday Life in Modern Arabia (Stanford UP, 2024) offers a social and political history of medicine, disease, and public health in the Persian Gulf from the late nineteenth century until the 1973 oil boom. Foregrounding the everyday practices of Gulf residents--hospital patients, quarantined passengers, women migrant nurses, and others too often excluded from histories of this region--Laura Frances Goffman demonstrates how the Gulf and its Arabian hinterland served as a buffer zone between "diseased" India and white Europe, as a space of scientific translation, and, ultimately, as an object of development. In placing health at the center of political and social change, this book weaves the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula into global circulations of commodities and movements of people. As a collection of institutions and infrastructures, pursuits of health created shifting boundaries of rule between imperial officials, indigenous elites, and local populations. As a set of practices seeking to manipulate the natural world, health policies compelled scientists and administrators to categorize fluid populations and ambiguous territorialities. And, as a discourse, health facilitated notions of racial difference, opposing native uncleanliness to white purity and hygiene, and indigenous medicine to modern science. Disorder and Diagnosis examines how Gulf residents, through their engagements with health, fiercely contested and actively shaped state and societal interactions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

Disorder and Diagnosis: Health and the Politics of Everyday Life in Modern Arabia (Stanford UP, 2024) offers a social and political history of medicine, disease, and public health in the Persian Gulf from the late nineteenth century until the 1973 oil boom. Foregrounding the everyday practices of Gulf residents--hospital patients, quarantined passengers, women migrant nurses, and others too often excluded from histories of this region--Laura Frances Goffman demonstrates how the Gulf and its Arabian hinterland served as a buffer zone between "diseased" India and white Europe, as a space of scientific translation, and, ultimately, as an object of development. In placing health at the center of political and social change, this book weaves the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula into global circulations of commodities and movements of people. As a collection of institutions and infrastructures, pursuits of health created shifting boundaries of rule between imperial officials, indigenous elites, and local populations. As a set of practices seeking to manipulate the natural world, health policies compelled scientists and administrators to categorize fluid populations and ambiguous territorialities. And, as a discourse, health facilitated notions of racial difference, opposing native uncleanliness to white purity and hygiene, and indigenous medicine to modern science. Disorder and Diagnosis examines how Gulf residents, through their engagements with health, fiercely contested and actively shaped state and societal interactions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

State government reporter Jeanie Lindsay is joining us for one final time to talk about access to lawmakers in Olympia. Reporters don’t like being the story, but some drama in the press corps covering Washington’s government was one of the stories of this year’s session. This is an issue that the press is grappling with in D.C., too. The Associated Press was blocked from covering the president because they wouldn’t refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. They sued and a federal judge reinstated their access. But it’s not just President Trump or the right wing, the press corps in the state capitol face some intense pressures from the Democrats running Olympia. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/politics. Sound Politics is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. Our editor is Catharine Smith. Our producer this week is Hans Anderson. Our hosts are Scott Greenstone and Libby Denkmann. And we want to hear from you!Send us your politics questions by emailing soundpolitics@kuow.org or give us a call at 206-221-0511.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tensions in the Middle East have escalated once more this week, with Israel and Iran launching strikes against one another. Resolution remains unclear and the USA appears hesitant to act as peacemaker. India, given its close diplomatic relationships with both Iran and Israel, has often been seen as a mediator. But where does it stand, given how unrest in Iran could have huge economic and trade implications at home? Rohan Venkat discusses with Nicolas Blarel, Associate Professor of International Relations at the Institute of Political Science.Here are the Cycle Recommendations from this episode:India Outside In #4a: What does Modi's 'unprecedented' outreach to the Gulf and Israel mean for India? India Outside In #4b: Why India-US ties are central to Delhi's expanding West Asia presenceThe Nehru Years; An International History of Indian Non-Alignment by Swapna Kona Nayudu India's world special issueazad essa's book hostile homelandsRhys MacholdSubscribe below to our contributors' Substacks:ET Write Home by Emily TamkinIndia Inside Out by Rohan VenkatThe Political Tricycle is a Podot podcast.It's presented by Emily Tamkin and Rohan Venkat.Executive Producer: Nick Hilton.Producer: Ewan CameronFor sales and advertising, email nick@podotpods.comTo watch a video version of the show, go to COOLER.NEWS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Disorder and Diagnosis: Health and the Politics of Everyday Life in Modern Arabia (Stanford UP, 2024) offers a social and political history of medicine, disease, and public health in the Persian Gulf from the late nineteenth century until the 1973 oil boom. Foregrounding the everyday practices of Gulf residents--hospital patients, quarantined passengers, women migrant nurses, and others too often excluded from histories of this region--Laura Frances Goffman demonstrates how the Gulf and its Arabian hinterland served as a buffer zone between "diseased" India and white Europe, as a space of scientific translation, and, ultimately, as an object of development. In placing health at the center of political and social change, this book weaves the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula into global circulations of commodities and movements of people. As a collection of institutions and infrastructures, pursuits of health created shifting boundaries of rule between imperial officials, indigenous elites, and local populations. As a set of practices seeking to manipulate the natural world, health policies compelled scientists and administrators to categorize fluid populations and ambiguous territorialities. And, as a discourse, health facilitated notions of racial difference, opposing native uncleanliness to white purity and hygiene, and indigenous medicine to modern science. Disorder and Diagnosis examines how Gulf residents, through their engagements with health, fiercely contested and actively shaped state and societal interactions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018's Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range. The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits. The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

The Storm Skiing Journal and Podcast is a reader-supported publication. Whether you sign up for the free or paid tier, I appreciate your support for independent ski journalism.WhoErik Lambert, Co-Founder of Bluebird Backcountry, Colorado and founder of Bonfire CollectiveRecorded onApril 8, 2025About Bluebird BackcountryLocated in: Just east of the junction of US 40 and Colorado 14, 20-ish miles southwest of Steamboat Springs, ColoradoYears active: 2020 to 2023Closest neighboring U.S. ski areas: Steamboat (:39), Howelsen Hill (:45), Base elevation: 8,600 feetSummit elevation: 9,845 feetVertical drop: 1,245 feetSkiable acres: 4,200-plus acres (3,000 acres guided; 1,200-plus acres avalanche-managed and ski-patrolled)Average annual snowfall: 196 inchesLift fleet: None!Why I interviewed himFirst question: why is the ski newsletter that constantly reminds readers that it's concerned always and only with lift-served skiing devoting an entire podcast episode to a closed ski area that had no lifts at all? Didn't I write this when Indy Pass added Bluebird back in 2022?:Wait a minute, what the f**k exactly is going on here? I have to walk to the f*****g top? Like a person from the past? Before they invented this thing like a hundred years ago called a chairlift? No? You actually ski up? Like some kind of weird humanoid platypus Howard the Duck thing? Bro I so did not sign up for this s**t. I am way too lazy and broken.Yup, that was me. But if you've been here long enough, you know that making fun of things that are hard is my way of making fun of myself for being Basic Ski Bro. Really I respected the hell out of Bluebird, its founders, and its skiers, and earnestly believed for a moment that the ski area could offer a new model for ski area development in a nation that had mostly stopped building them:Bluebird has a lot of the trappings of a lift-served ski area, with 28 marked runs and 11 marked skin tracks, making it a really solid place to dial your uphill kit and technique before throwing yourself out into the wilderness.I haven't really talked about this yet, but I think Bluebird may be the blueprint for re-igniting ski-area development in the vast American wilderness. The big Colorado resorts – other than Crested Butte and Telluride – have been at capacity for years. They keep building more and bigger lifts, but skiing needs a relief valve. One exists in the smaller ski areas that populate Colorado and are posting record business results, but in a growing state in a finally-growing sport, Bluebird shows us another way to do skiing.More specifically, I wrote in a post the following year:Bluebird fused the controlled environment and relative safety of a ski area with the grit and exhilaration of the uphill ski experience. The operating model, stripped of expensive chairlifts and resource-intensive snowmaking and grooming equipment, appeared to suit the current moment of reflexive opposition to mechanized development in the wilderness. For a moment, this patrolled, avalanche-controlled, low-infrastructure startup appeared to be a model for future ski area development in the United States. …If Bluebird could establish a beachhead in Colorado, home to a dozen of America's most-developed ski resorts and nearly one in every four of the nation's skier visits, then it could act as proof-of-concept for a new sort of American ski area. One that provided a novel experience in relative safety, sure, but, more important, one that could actually proceed as a concept in a nation allergic to new ski area development: no chairlifts, no snowmaking, no grooming, no permanent buildings.Dozens of American ski markets appeared to have the right ingredients for such a business: ample snow, empty wilderness, and too many skiers jamming too few ski areas that grow incrementally in size but never in number. If indoor ski areas are poised to become the nation's next-generation incubators, then liftless wilderness centers could create capacity on the opposite end of the skill spectrum, redoubts for experts burned out on liftlines but less enthusiastic about the dangers of touring the unmanaged backcountry. Bluebird could also act as a transition area for confident skiers who wanted to enter the wilderness but needed to hone their uphill and avalanche-analysis skills first. …Bluebird was affordable and approachable. Day tickets started at $39. A season pass cost $289. The ski area rented uphill gear and set skin tracks. The vibe was concert-tailgate-meets-#VanLife-minimalism-and-chill, with free bacon famously served at the mid-mountain yurt.That second bit of analysis, unfortunately, was latched to an article announcing Bluebird's permanent closure in 2023. Co-founder Jeff Woodward told me at the time that Bluebird's relative remoteness – past most of mainline Colorado skiing – and a drying-up of investors drove the shutdown decision.Why now was a good time for this interviewBluebird's 2023 closure shocked the ski community. Over already? A ski area offering affordable, uncrowded, safe uphill skiing seemed too wedded to skiing's post-Covid outdoors-hurray moment to crumble so quickly. Weren't Backcountry Bros multiplying as the suburban Abercrombie and Applebee's masses discovered the outside and flooded lift-served ski areas? I offered a possible explanation for Bluebird's untimely shutdown:There is another, less optimistic reading here. Bluebird may have failed because it's remote and small for its neighborhood. Or we are witnessing perception bump up against reality. The popular narrative is that we are in the midst of a backcountry resurgence, quantified by soaring gear sales and perpetually parked-out trailheads. Hundreds of skiers regularly skin up many western ski areas before the lifts open. But the number of skiers willing to haul themselves up a mountain under their own power is miniscule compared to those who prefer the ease and convenience of a chairlift, which, thanks to the megapass, is more affordable than at any point in modern ski history.Ski media glorifies uphilling. Social media amplifies it. But maybe the average skier just isn't that interested. You can, after all, make your own ice cream or soda or bread, often at considerable initial expense and multiples of the effort and time that it would take to simply purchase these items. A small number of people will engage in these activities out of curiosity or because they possess a craftsman's zeal for assembly. But most will not. And that's the challenge for whoever takes the next run at building a liftless ski area.Still, I couldn't stop thinking about my podcast conversation the year prior with Lonie Glieberman, founder of the improbable and remote Mount Bohemia. When he opened the experts-only, no-snowmaking, no-grooming freefall zone in Michigan's Upper Peninsula in 2000, the ski industry collectively scoffed. It will never work, they promised, and for years it didn't. Boho lost money for a long time. But Glieberman persisted and, through a $99-season-pass strategy and an aggressively curated fist-bump image, Boho now sits at the aspirational pinnacle of Midwest skiing, a pilgrimage spot that is so successful it no longer sells Saturday day-time lift tickets.Could Bluebird have ascended to similar cult destination given more time? I don't know. We might never know.But shortly after Bluebird's shuttering, Erik Lambert, who co-founded Bluebird with Woodward, reached out to me. He's since helped with The Storm's digital-marketing efforts and knows the product well. With two years to process the rapid and permanent unraveling of an enterprise that had for a time consumed his life and passion, he felt ready to tell his version of the Bluebird story. And he asked if we could use The Storm to do it.What we talked aboutHow an East Coast kid developed a backcountry obsession; White Grass, West Virginia; the very long starter-kit list for backcountry skiing; Bluebird as backcountry primer; Jackson Hole as backcountry firestarter; why a nation as expansive and wild as the United States has little suitable land for ready ski area development; a 100-page form to secure a four-day Forest Service permit; early Bluebird pilots at Mosquito Pass and Winter Park; a surprising number of beginners, not just to backcountry, but to skiing; why the founders envisioned a network of Bluebirds; why Bluebird moved locations after season one; creating social scaffolding out of what is “inherently an anti-social experience”; free bacon!; 20 inches to begin operating; “we didn't know if people would actually pay to go backcountry skiing in this kind of environment”; “backcountry skiing was wild and out there, and very few people were doing it”; who Bluebird thought would show up and who actually did – “we were absolutely flummoxed by what transpired”; the good and bad of Bluebird's location; why none of the obvious abandoned Colorado ski areas worked for Bluebird; “we did everything the right way … and the right way is expensive”; “it felt like it was working”; why financing finally ran out; comparisons to Bohemia; “what we really needed was that second location”; moving on from failure – “it's been really hard to talk about for a long time”; Bluebird's legacy – “we were able to get thousands of people their best winter day”; “I think about it every day in one way or another”; the alternate universe of our own pasts; “somebody's going to make something like this work because it can and should exist”; and why I don't think this story is necessarily over just yet.What I got wrong* We mentioned a forthcoming trip to Colorado – that trip is now in the past, and I included GoPro footage of Lambert skiing with me in Loveland on a soft May day.* I heard “New Hampshire” and assigned Lambert's first backcountry outing to Mount Washington and Tuckerman Ravine, but the trek took place in Gulf of Slides.Podcast NotesOn White GrassThe Existing facility that most resembles Bluebird Backcountry is White Grass, West Virginia, ostensibly a cross-country ski area that sits on a 1,200-foot vertical drop and attracts plenty of skinners. I hosted founder Chip Chase on the pod last year:On Forest Service permit boundariesThe developed portion of a ski area is often smaller than what's designated as the “permit area” on their Forest Service masterplan. Copper Mountain's 2024 masterplan, for example, shows large parcels included in the permit that currently sit outside of lift service:On Bluebird's shifting locationsBluebird's first season was set on Whiteley Peak:The following winter, Bluebird shifted operations to Bear Mountain, which is depicted in the trailmap at the top of this article. Lambert breaks down the reasons for this move in our conversation.On breaking my leg in-boundsYeah I know, the regulars have heard me tell this story more times than a bear s***s under the bridge water, but for anyone new here, one of the reasons I am Skis Inbounds Bro is that I did my best Civil War re-enactment at Black Mountain of Maine three years ago. It's kind of a miracle that not only did patrol not have to stuff a rag in my mouth while they sawed my leg off, but that I've skied 156 days since the accident. This is a testament both to being alive in the future and skiing within 300 yards of a Patrol hut equipped with evac sleds and radios to make sure a fentanyl drip is waiting in the base area recovery room. Here's the story: On abandoned Colorado ski areasBerthoud Pass feels like the lost Colorado ski area most likely to have have endured and found a niche had it lasted into our indie-is-cool, alt-megapass world of 2025. Dropping off US 40 11 miles south of Winter Park, the ski area delivered around 1,000 feet of vert and a pair of modern fixed-grip chairlifts. The bump ran from 1937 to 2001 - Colorado Ski History houses the full story.Geneva Basin suffered from a more remote location than Berthoud, and struggled through several owners from its 1963 opening to failed early ‘90s attempts at revitalization (the ski area last operated in 1984, according to Colorado Ski History). The mountain ran a couple of double chairs and surface lifts on 1,250 vertical feet:I also mentioned Hidden Valley, more commonly known as Ski Estes Park. This was another long-runner, hanging around from 1955 to 1991. Estes rocked an impressive 2,000-foot vertical drop, but spun just one chairlift and a bunch of surface lifts, likely making it impossible to compete as the Colorado megas modernized in the 1980s (Colorado Ski History doesn't go too deeply into the mountain's shutdown).On U.S. Forest Service permitsAn oft-cited stat is that roughly half of U.S. ski areas operate on Forest Service land. This number isn't quite right: 116 of America's 501 active ski areas are under Forest Service permits. While this is fewer than a quarter of active ski areas, those 116 collectively house 63 percentage of American ski terrain.I broke this down extensively a couple months back:The Storm explores the world of lift-served skiing (and sometimes adjacent things such as Bluebird) all year long. Join us. Get full access to The Storm Skiing Journal and Podcast at www.stormskiing.com/subscribe

Since Israel launched Operation Rising Lion—a precise and defensive military campaign aimed at preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons—Iran has responded with a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones, indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a leading expert on Iran's global terror network, explains what's at stake—and what could come next. Take Action: We must stop a regime that vows to murder millions of Israelis from gaining the weapons to do it. Urge your elected leaders to assure that Israel has all the necessary support to end Iran's nuclear threat. Resources and Analysis: Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Explained: What You Should Know AJC Advocacy Anywhere: Israel and Iran: Latest Updates, Global Responses, and the Path Ahead 5 Key Reasons Behind Israel's Defensive Strike on Iran's Imminent Nuclear Threat Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod: Latest Episodes: Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program What Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' State of the Jewish World Teaches Us Today Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Israel's shadow war with the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, erupted into open conflict last week following a stunning report from the International Atomic Energy Agency that confirmed Iran was much closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than previously known. Since Israel launched a wave of attacks on nuclear sites and facilities, Iran has fired missiles toward Israel's most populated cities. Joining us to discuss what this all means is one of the foremost experts on Iran and its global threats, and a regular guest when trouble arises with Iran. Dr. Matthew Levitt, director of the Reinhard Counterterrorism Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Matt, welcome back to People of the Pod. Matthew Levitt:   It's a pleasure to be back, but I need to come sometime when the world's okay.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   That would be nice. That'd be nice. But what will we talk about? Matthew Levitt:   Yeah, just call me one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, you are one of the foremost experts on the dangers posed by Iran, especially its terror proxies. And you've written the definitive book on Hezbollah, titled Hezbollah: the Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. And I say that whole title, I want to get in there, because we are talking about global threats here.  Can you explain the scale of Iran's global threat and the critical role that its terror proxies, like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, play in advancing that strategy? Matthew Levitt:   So I really appreciate the question, because it's really important to remind listeners that the Israel Iran war did not start Thursday night US time, Friday morning, Israel time. In fact, it's just the latest salvo where the Israelis, after years and years and years of Iranian we call it malign activity, but that's too soft a term. We're talking about Iran sending weapons and funds to proxies like Hamas to carry out October 7, like Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israel almost daily for almost a year. Like the Houthis, who were much more than a thorn in the Saudi backside until the Iranians came and gave them more sophisticated capabilities.  We're talking about an Iran that a few years ago decided that instead of making sure that every gun that it sent to the West Bank had to go to Hamas or Islamic Jihad. They decided to just flood the West Bank with guns. Who cares who's shooting at the Israelis so long as somebody is. And an Iran that not only carries out human rights abuses of all kinds at home, but that threatens Israel and its neighbors with drones, low altitude cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles, and medium and long range ballistic missiles.  And so the totality of this, much like the totality of Hezbollah's striking Israel for almost a year, ultimately led Israel to do what most people thought couldn't be done, and just tear Hezbollah apart, that the Israel war on Hezbollah is the prequel to what we've been seeing over the past few days in Iran. Similarly, for the Israelis, it got to be too much. It wasn't even really that President Trump's 60 days expired and Israel attacked on day 61. It wasn't only that the IAEA came out with a report saying that the Iranians have refused to explain certain activities that can only be explained as nuclear weaponization activities.  It was that the Israelis had information that two things were happening. One, that Iran was working very, very hard to rebuild its capability to manufacture medium, long range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel. After the Israeli reprisal attack last October took out a key component of that program, the mixers that are important for the solid propellant, without which you can't make ballistic missiles. And Iran is believed to have, at least the beginning of this recent round of the conflict –Thursday, Friday–about 2000 such missiles. Far fewer now, the Israelis say they've taken out about a third of them, plus launchers, plus radars, et cetera. But that Iran had a plan within just a few years to develop as many as 8000 of these. And that simply was not tolerable for the Israelis.  And the second is that the Israelis say that they compiled evidence that Iran had a secret, secret nuclear weapons program that had been going on predating October 7, but was fast tracked after October 7, that they were planning to maintain this program, even as they were negotiating over the more overt program with the Trump administration. President Trump has even taken issue with his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US intelligence committee does not assess that Iran is weaponizing. And President says, I don't care what she says, I think they were very close to weaponizing.  The Israelis say they have shared this information at least recently with their US counterparts and that was not tolerable. So the primary goals that Israel has set out for itself with this campaign is beyond the critically important shattering the glass ceiling. Think where people in particular, in Iran thought this would never happen, was two things, one, addressing and significantly degrading and setting back the Iranian ballistic missile production program, and second, doing the same to the nuclear program. They've already carried out strikes at Isfahan, Natanz, even at the upper parts of Fordow. And there is an expectation that the Israelis are going to do something more. The Israeli national security advisor said on Israeli television today, We are not going to stop without addressing the nuclear activities at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You know, you called it a prequel, Israel's operations against Hezbollah last year. Did you know that it was a prequel at the time and to what extent did it weaken Iran and leave it more vulnerable in this particular war? Matthew Levitt:   I'm going to be the last person in Washington, D.C. who tells you when he doesn't know. And anybody who tells you they did know is lying to you. None of us saw what Israel did to Hezbollah coming. None of us saw that and said, Oh, they did it to a non-state actor right across their border. So they'll definitely be able to do it to Iran, 1000+ kilometers away, big nation state with massive arsenals and a nuclear program and lots of proxies. One plus one does not equal three in this.  In other words, the fact that Israel developed mind boggling capabilities and incredible intelligence, dominance and then special tools, pagers and walkie talkies, in the case of Hezbollah, did not mean that they were going to be able to do the same vis a vis Iran. And they did. The same type of intelligence dominance, the same type of intelligence, knowing where somebody was at a certain time, that the protocols would be that certain leaders would get in a certain secret bunker once hostilities started, and they'd be able to take them out in that bunker. As they did to a bunch of senior Hezbollah commanders just months ago. Drone operations from within Iran, Iran being hit with missiles that were fired at Iran from within Iran, all of it. One case did not necessarily translate into the other. It is exponentially impressive. And Israel's enemies have to be saying, you know, that the Israelis are just all capable. Now you're absolutely right. You hit the nail on the head on one critical issue. For a very long time, Israel was at least somewhat deterred, I would say very deterred, from targeting Iran. Because Iran had made very, very clear if Israel or the United States or anybody else targeted Iran or its nuclear program, one of the first things that would happen would be that Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel, Iran's first, most important proxy would rain hellfire in Israel in the form of 1000s upon 1000s of rockets. Until Israel addressed the problem, Hezbollah is believed to have had 150 to 200,000 different types of projectiles, up to and including precision guided munitions.  Not only have the overwhelming majority of those been destroyed, Hezbollah still has 1000s of rockets, but Hezbollah leadership has been decimated. There's a new sheriff in town in Lebanon. There's a new government that immediately, when hostility started with Iran's, went to Hezbollah and said, You're not doing this, not dragging Lebanon back into a war that nobody wanted again. We are finally coming out of this economic crisis. And so Iran was faced with a situation where it didn't have Hezbollah to deter Israel.  Israel, you know, paved the way for a highway in the air to Iran, taking out air defense systems. It was able to fly over and through Syria. The Syrians are not shedding any tears as they see the Quds Force and the IRGC getting beaten down after what Iran did in Syria. And the Israelis have air dominance now. President Trump said, We, using the we term, air dominance now, earlier today. And they're able to slowly and methodically continue to target the ballistic missile program. Primarily, the medium and long range missiles that target Israel, but sometimes it's the same production lines that produce the short range missiles that Iran uses to target U.S. Forces in the region, and our allies in the Gulf. So Israel is not just protecting itself, it's protecting the region. And then also taking out key military security intelligence personnel, sometimes taking out one person, then a couple days later, taking out the person who succeeded that person, and then also taking out key scientists who had the know-how to potentially rebuild all the things that Israel is now destroying. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But Israel is also not hearing from the Houthis, is not hearing from Hamas. It's not hearing from other terror proxies either. Very few attacks from Iran's terror proxies in the aftermath of this wave. Why? Why do you think that is? Matthew Levitt:   The crickets are loud. The crickets are loud. Look, we've discussed Hezbollah. Hezbollah understands that if it were to do something, the Israelis will come in even harder and destroy what's left. Hamas is still holding hostages. This is still an open wound, but it doesn't have the capabilities that it once had, and so there have been a couple of short range things that they tried to shoot, but it's not anything that's going to do huge damage, and the Israeli systems can deal with those.  The Houthis did fire something, and it hurt some Palestinians near Hebron. You know, the Houthis and the Iranians in particular, in this conflict have killed Palestinians, and in one case, Syrians. They're continuing to hurt people that are not Israelis. One of the things that I think people are hopeful for is that as Iran tries to sue for peace, and it already is, it's been reaching out to Cyprus to pass messages, etcetera. The hope is that Iran will recognize that it's in a position whereby A) there has to be zero enrichment and the facilities have to be destroyed, whatever's left of them. And B) there's a hope that Israel and the United States together will be able to use this diplomatic moment to truly end the conflict in Gaza and get the hostages home. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, that was what I was going to ask. I mean, if Israel achieves its objectives in this war, primarily eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, how significant a setback would that be for Hamas and Iran's other terror proxies, and could it indeed pave the way for an end of the war in Gaza and the return of the hostages? Matthew Levitt:   Like everybody else, I'm so scarred, I don't want to get my hopes up, but I do see this as a distinct possibility, and here's why. Not Hezbollah, not the Houthis, not Hamas, none of them, and plenty of other proxies that don't start in the letter H, none of them could have been anywhere as capable as they've proven to be, were it not for Iranian money and weapons. Also some training, some intelligence, but primarily money and weapons.  And so Hamas is already on its back foot in this regard. It can still get some money in. It's still being able to make money off of humanitarian aid. Iran is still sending money in through money exchange houses and hawaladars, but not weapons. Their ability to manufacture weapons, their military industrial complex within Gaza, this is destroyed. Hezbollah, we've discussed, discussed, and a lot of their capabilities have been destroyed. And those that remain are largely deterred. The Houthis did shoot up some rockets, and the Israelis did carry out one significant retaliatory attack. But I think people are beginning to see the writing on the wall. The Israelis are kicking the stuffing out of Iran with pinprick attacks that are targeting the worst of the bad guys, including people who have carried out some of the worst human rights transgressions against Iranians. Let's not pretend that this is not affecting the average Iranian. It is. The president says, Everybody get out of Tehran. That's just not possible. People, average Iranians, good people. It must be just an absolute terror.  But Israel's not bombing, you know, apartment buildings, as Iran is doing in Israel, or as Russia is doing in Ukraine. And so it really is a different type of thing. And when the Houthis, when Hamas, when Hezbollah, look at this, you don't you don't poke the tiger when it's angry. I think they also understand now's the time to get into survival mode. What you want is for the regime in Iran not to be destroyed. This is no longer a moment, as it's been since long before October 7, but certainly since then, of how Iran as proxies, export Iran's revolution. This is now a question of how they maintain and preserve the revolution at home. And it's extremely important to the proxies that Iran remain, so that even if it's knocked down over time, hopefully, theoretically, from their perspective, it can regain its footing. It will still have, they hope, its oil and gas, etcetera, and they will get back to a point where they can continue to fund and arm the proxies in. Maybe even prioritize them as it takes them longer to rebuild their ballistic missile, drone, and nuclear programs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Which is a scary prospect as well to know that terror proxies could be spread throughout the world and empowered even a little bit more. President Trump left the G7 summit a day early to meet with security advisors, and just a few hours ago, prior to this interview, President Trump called for Iran's, quote, unconditional surrender, saying that the US knows where the Supreme Leader is, and some other threatening language. But I mean, this appears to be a kind of a clear commitment to Israel. So I'm curious how you assess his administration's actions before and during the war thus far, and do you see the United States edging toward direct involvement? Matthew Levitt:   All politics is local, and there is a tug of war within the MAGA movement over whether or not the US should be getting involved. Not only in supporting an important ally, but in removing a critical threat. The President is clearly frustrated that Iran was not being more forthcoming in the negotiations. He said many times, we'd offered you a great deal, you should have taken the deal. He's very aware that his deadline ended, and they didn't particularly seem to care. There's also the background that once upon a time, they tried to assassinate him, I think, after the Israelis did what they did, the President appreciates capabilities. He appreciates success. He likes backing the winning horse. And so the New York Times is reporting that after getting off the phone with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump reportedly turned to some aides and said, maybe we need to help him. Now it's not clear that's what's going to happen, and my understanding is that the Israelis have plans of their own for things like the heavily fortified facility at Fordow, which is the most important and highly fortified, protected of the nuclear installations. The Israeli National Security Advisor spoke today and said, you know, we're not going to be done until we do something with Fordow.  The United States can do multiple things only the United States has the MOP: the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, and the airplanes to deliver it, and they could end Fordow if they wanted. Short of that, they could do other things to support Israel. There's been defensive support for the State of Israel already, but there's other things they could do, refueling and other things if they wanted to. And at a minimum, I don't see the president restraining Israel at all. Now, I've heard some people say that so far, the President has fired nothing more than some social media postings, some of them even in all caps.  But the truth is, those do have an effect, and so long as Israel is not restrained. I think the Israelis went into this with a plan. That plan is not necessarily to entirely destroy the entire nuclear program, but if the ballistic missile program and the nuclear program are sufficiently degraded so that it will take them years and a tremendous amount of time and money to rebuild, knowing that Israel has broken the glass ceiling on this idea of targeting Iran, that if the Israelis feel they need to, they will come back. If the Iranians rebuild their air defense systems, the Israelis will address them and create a new highway going if they need to. I think the Israelis are making that clear. Knowing that it's going to be a little bit of a road for Iran, especially when it will have to deal with some domestic issues coming out of this.  Finally, the Israelis have started signaling there's other things they could do. The Israelis have not yet fully targeted oil and gas fields and facilities. For example, they had one set of attacks where they basically knocked at the front door of some of these facilities without walking in the house. That's signaling, and I think it's one of the reasons you're seeing Iran quietly trying to reach out for some type of a ceasefire. Other signaling, for example, is the Israelis deciding to fly all the way to Mashhad, which is in far eastern Iran, to take out an airplane. That airplane was not particularly important. It was the message. There is nowhere in Iran we can't go. It's not a question of distance, it's not a question of refueling, it's not a question of air defense systems. We can do what we need to do. And I think the Iranians understand that now. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So we talked about the commitment to Israel, and how clear, how important it is to clarify that commitment to Israel. How important is it to clarify the United States commitment to Arab partners in the Middle East to help defend them in other words, if this conflict escalates? Matthew Levitt:   This is critically important. You know, one of the individuals who was taken out, for example, was the person who was in charge of the drone attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia. If you look, for example, at the Saudi statement condemning the Israeli actions, it was issued by the Foreign Ministry without a single name attached to it. Wasn't issued by the Crown Prince, wasn't issued by the foreign minister. So I think you should expect a whole lot of public criticism. I imagine there's a different conversation going on behind closed doors. It's not necessarily, you know, pom-poming. This makes the Gulf states very, very nervous, in part because they understand that one way Iran could try and get out of this is to expand the conflict.  And that the reason they haven't is because, short of trying to prevent Iranians from taking to the streets and potentially doing something to maybe overthrow the regime, short of that, the number one thing that the Iranian regime is most desperate to avoid is getting the United States involved militarily. And I think the Iranians really understand and the messaging's been clear. If you target US Forces in the region, if you target our allies in the region, we'll get involved. If you don't, then we might not.  Now the President now is talking about potentially doing that, and as a lot of maybe this, maybe that, nothing very clear. I think what is clear is that the Israelis are going to continue doing what they need to do for another one to two weeks. Even going so far as doing something, though they haven't made clear what to address the really complicated problem of the fortified facility at Fordow. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So how important is it for global security if Israel is successful in eliminating the nuclear threat in Iran? Matthew Levitt:   Look, Iran has been the single most destabilizing factor in the region for a long time now. Imagine a region without a destabilizing revolutionary regime in Iran without a regime that is supporting Shia militants in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.  Imagine the Shia militias in Iraq suddenly without a funder and a patron, enabling the Shia government in Iraq to actually be able to take control of the country and establish a monopoly over the use of force. At a time when the Shia militias, because of Iran's backing, are becoming more dangerous and more powerful in Iraq.  Imagine the Lebanese government being able to be more forward leaning in their effort to establish a monopoly over the use of force in that country, reclaim bases that Hezbollah has used for all this time, and establish a new Lebanon that is not beholden to Iran and Hezbollah.  And imagine an Israeli-Palestinian situation where you didn't have Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as spoilers. Recall that October 7 happened in large part because Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran could not tolerate the prospect of Israeli-Saudi normalization. For most Palestinians, this was great news. The Saudis were demanding real dividends for the Palestinians from the Netanyahu government, which was likely going to do them. This was great for Palestinians, bad for Hamas.  Imagine Hamas no longer getting that support from Iran. Imagine Iran no longer able to send or being interested in sending millions upon millions of dollars to its proxies, and instead spending what money it has on helping its population, instead of cracking down on it with human rights violations. You could have a very, very different region, let alone imagine Iran no longer carrying out acts of terrorism, kidnapping plots, abduction plots of dissidents and Jews and Israelis and others around the world of the type that we've seen throughout Europe and throughout the Middle East and even in the United States over the past few years. Manya Brachear Pashman:   That's quite an imagination you have. But I take your point. Let me ask you this then. Did you ever imagine that Israel would take this dramatic step?  Matthew Levitt:   What the Israelis have achieved, when you are so against the wall and you're forced to come up with solutions, because it's a matter of life or death – you make the impossible possible. And I think that perhaps the Iranians assumed that the Israeli post-October 7 doctrine applied to non-state actors only. And that doctrine is very simple. Israel will no longer allow adversaries who are openly committed to its destruction to build up weapons, arsenals that they can then use at some point to actually try and destroy Israel. They will not allow that to happen.  They allowed it to happen with Hamas. It was a mistake. They allowed it to happen with Hezbollah. It was a mistake that they corrected. And Iran is the biggest, arguably, really, the only existential threat as huge, as a tasking as that was, clearly they invested in doing it. And the question became, not, why can't it be done? What is it that has to be overcome? And I don't think sitting here with you right now, you know, what is it, 3:30 on Tuesday, the 17th, that we've seen the last of the tricks up Israel's sleeve.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   I only have one last question for you, and that is about the United States. The importance of the United States getting directly involved. I mean, we've talked about previously undisclosed nuclear sites, and who knows how many there could be. We're talking about more than what, 600,000 square miles of Iran. If the goal is a non nuclear Iran, can Israel finish this war without the United States, or does it even matter? I mean, is this just a step to force Iran back to the negotiating table with virtually zero leverage? Matthew Levitt:   So look, I don't think the goal here is completely destroying the Iranian nuclear program, or even completely destroying the Iranian ballistic missile program. The goal is to so degrade it that it is set back many, many years, and break that ceiling. People now understand if Israelis need to come back, they're coming back. I think they would like to do as much damage to these destructive programs as possible, of course, and I don't think we've seen the end of it. I think there are more tricks up Israel's sleeve when it comes to some of these complicated problems.  Judged by this yardstick, by the way, the Israeli operation is a tremendous success, tremendous success, even though there have been some significant casualties back in Israel, and even though this has caused tremendous trauma for innocent Iranians who have no love for the regime. This is a situation that the Iranian regime has brought down on all of us.  I do think that the Israelis have made very, very clear that this doesn't end until something is done to further disrupt and dismantle Fordow, which is the most important and the most heavily fortified, underground, under a mountain facility. It's not clear what the Israelis have in mind. It seems they have something in mind of their own. It's clear they would love for the United States to get involved, because the United States could do real damage to that facility and potentially end the Iranian nuclear program. But at the end of the day, if it can't be completely destroyed, I anticipate it's going to be damaged enough to significantly set it back. This phase of the Israel-Iran war, which didn't start last week, is not about pushing them back a week or a month or two months. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Well, Matt, thank you so much for your wise counsel and perspective on this matter, and yes, hopefully we can have you back another time to talk about peace and love and things that have nothing to do with war and conflict with Iran or its terror proxies. Matthew Levitt:   I would really look forward to prepping for that interview. In the meantime, I want to thank AJC for all the important work it does, and thank you guys for having me on the podcast. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episodes, be sure to tune in for our crossover episode with Books and Beyond: The Rabbi Sacks Podcast, a podcast of the Rabbi Sacks Legacy, and my conversation with AJC's Jerusalem Director Avital Liebovich. During a special breaking news episode the day after Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, the latest in Israel's ongoing war of self-defense against the Iranian regime.  

Today, Martha, Les, and Morgan discuss the rapidly escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, now entering its sixth day with historic implications. The immediate trigger was a rare IAEA censure of Iran for non-compliance with nuclear safeguards—the first since 2005—but Iran and its proxy groups like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis have been attacking Israel for years leading up to this point. President Trump has ordered a large-scale U.S. military buildup in the region and demanded Iran's unconditional surrender, even as Tehran warns of severe retaliation.Is this the beginning of a full-scale regional war—and will U.S. forces inevitably be drawn in? How will Tehran respond to the unprecedented damage to its nuclear program and military infrastructure? Will this mark a turning point in re-establishing American deterrence?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Follow our experts on Twitter: @marthamillerdc@lestermunson @morganlroachLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @faultlines_pod and @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/2k7BlOYABh4 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The NFU has confirmed it sent a private letter to the Prime Minister, raising concerns over a prospective trade deal with the Gulf States. It said the deal could open the UK up to imports of low-welfare meat from the Gulf, and more importantly, many other countries around the world. Although meat from the Gulf States might come up to UK hygiene standards, some welfare groups are concerned about the conditions animals are kept in, and the intensive nature of production, especially poultry.Annual payments farmers in England receive based on the amount of land they have will be capped at just £600 next year. New details have emerged after last week's Spending Review.And there's evidence that humans have been using seaweed as a fertiliser for thousands of years. When chemical fertilisers were developed a century ago, that use of seaweed largely died out, but for some, it's making a comeback.Presented by Anna Hill Produced by Heather Simons

The Trump Organization took the wraps off a golden smartphone it says will be made in the U.S. and sell for just under $500. WSJ deputy tech and media editor Wilson Rothman walks us through the promised specs and why it isn't possible to make it in America by August. Plus, Gulf states are spending billions of dollars to develop their own artificial-intelligence industries. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist Asa Fitch explains why U.S. companies benefitting from the windfall should be wary. Sign up for the WSJ's free Technology newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 2574 - Gator Feeding time? Gulf war update! Top gun 3 on the way! General Clark 7 countries ? How do the evil ones eat? Is there really a sex death cult running the world? Show gets hacked today? Tucker gets hammered! Great show ! 

//The Wire//2300Z June 17, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: STRATEGIC BUILDUP CONTINUES AS USA CONTINUES PLANS FOR WAR WITH IRAN.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Middle East: The previously observed strategic buildup of tanker aircraft continues, as over a dozen KC-135's moved from Europe to the Middle East overnight. Most of these tankers were flying under the "GOLD" callsign, indicating that they were flying in formation with fighter aircraft in tow. This morning, satellite imagery confirmed that almost every US Navy warship stationed in Bahrain has departed port, to include one Littoral Combat Ship, a few minesweepers, and over a dozen support vessels.This morning President Trump stated that the United States has achieved aerial superiority in the skies over Iran. President Trump also has taken to social media to demand the "unconditional surrender" of Iran, and has threatened to assassinate the Ayatollah if demands are not met.Strait of Hormuz: Overnight, two ships collided in the Gulf of Oman. The M/T FRONT EAGLE collided with the M/T ADALYNN, causing a large fire. Rescue operations are ongoing.AC: Despite early reports, this incident is not the result of combat action. It is not clear why, however the FRONT EAGLE executed a turn hard to starboard, which resulted in her collision with the ADALYNN.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: At this point, it is challenging to interpret the recent statements by the White House in any other manner than that a formal declaration of war with Iran is merely a formality. The decision to go to war may have already been signed and sealed as theorized months ago, or the die might not have been cast just yet. Either way, there's absolutely nothing that the American people can do about it at this point, other than improve personal readiness as best one can. Though tensions are palpably high right now, the real challenges will come many months after the US enters into a war with Iran, should that be the chosen course of action.More tactically, the threats to the average citizen living in the American homeland remain, though with debatable levels of severity due to the sheer uncertainty of what the threat really is. Anytime the United States targets anything in the Middle East, the potential for lone-wolf-style attacks here in the homeland increases. At the moment, however, the risks of a false-flag incident occurring to drag the United States into a war is also very high. Protests with varying levels of severity continue more or less persistently in many major US cities, which will present risks regardless of what's happening in the international space.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//