Tucker’s demon goes after Chabad – and Trump finally disowns him

The New Neo Posted on by

For those of you who haven’t followed much of the Tucker Carlson story and wonder why I’m paying attention to him at all – and/or who wonder what I’m referring to by “demon” – a little intro is in order.

Tucker’s been around a long time in the news/pundit business, but he didn’t really become a phenomenon till he got his own show at Fox in November 2016. Then he became something of a star in the news commentary world and got a huge following, plus a reputation for fearless hard-hitting truth-telling. Whether or not that reputation was deserved, that was how he was perceived by millions. When Fox fired him in April of 2023 I assume he was angry at them, but also happy because he realized he could use his fame and reputation to launch his own podcast and that it would be popular and lucrative.

And he would no longer be bound by Fox’s constraints. He’d be completely his own man.

I wrote a series of posts about Carlson’s motives and evolution (devolution); you can find them here, here, and here, with more about Carlson here. So I won’t go into all of that again. The point is that, although some of Carlson’s following now is undoubtedly leftists, Islamists, and bots, there are still many people formerly on the right who follow him, and some of them believe what he says. I don’t know the numbers, but his podcasts draw a huge amount of traffic, and he is trading on his former reputation as well as the distrust of so many people towards more conventional sources of information.

Regarding the demon – Tucker himself has said he was attacked by a demon. Make of that what you will.

If you believe in demons, you might think the demon was the ghost of Goebbels, because that’s the sort of thinking Carlson has been channeling lately. His modus operandi is different – the thoughtful furrowed brow and then the maniacal laugh, and the “just asking questions” pose as he gives fawning softball interviews to those who accuse Israelis and Jews of persecuting Christians and being vicious child-killing warmongers, as well as extolling Arab countries such as Qatar and promoting conspiracy theories such as the preposterous idea that Israel assassinated JFK (see this). In contrast, he is very hard on anyone who defends Israel, such as in his recent interview with Mike Huckabee. The contrast is stark.

Now Carlson has gone after Chabad (as has Candace Owens, by the way), a group of Orthodox Jews around the world who basically provide outreach to Jewish students on college campuses, do charity work, and have a presence in many places in order to provide a safe and welcoming atmosphere for Jews. They are peaceful, they don’t proselytize, and they basically stay away from politics:

Carlson claimed that Chabad is orchestrating a religious war aimed at destroying the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’s Old City so that the Third Temple could be rebuilt in its place.

“This has been going on a long time in public through, in part, the efforts of a group called Chabad. C-H-A-B-A-D,” Carlson said.

Chabad, a sect of Hasidic Judaism known for its global religious outreach and houses on hundreds of college campuses, does not function as a political advocacy organization. Its teachings describe the rebuilding of the Third Temple as part of a future messianic redemption achieved through acts of mitzvot — not a project to be advanced through modern warfare or the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

“To blame it on a Hasidic movement based in Brooklyn that just goes around the world, spreading Judaism, spreading love, spreading kindness, it’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Yossi Farro, a member of the Chabad movement known for wrapping tefillin with celebrities, told the Forward in a phone interview. “He’s appealing to people that have never heard of Chabad and now, their first opinion is, this is horrible, these people are warmongers — which is the exact opposite of what we represent.”

The right-wing podcaster Candace Owens amplified the claim, posting to X, “Tucker is telling the truth about the Chabad Lubavitch.”

This group is intensely vulnerable because they are visible and operate – often just a married couple in each venue – all over the world. They have already experienced attacks, such as the terrible one in Bondi Beach, Australia, during a Chanuka celebration. Tucker is trying his hardest to ensure there will be more.

One interesting thing is how Tucker uses the old trick of reversal. What he says about Chabad is untrue, but strangely enough it is true of the mullahs of Iran, who really do want to spark a war in order to bring about the coming of the Mahdi (see this). What Tucker says Israelis do to Muslims and Christians is not true either, but that sort of persecution is what Muslims have done and still do to Jews and Christians.

Meanwhile, Trump has chosen to condemn Tucker outright – and adds the insult that Tucker’s not smart enough to realize how lost he is:

“Tucker has lost his way,” Trump told me. “I knew that a long time ago, and he’s not MAGA. MAGA is saving our country. MAGA is making our country great again. MAGA is America first, and Tucker is none of those things. And Tucker is really not smart enough to understand that.”

And this:

Chabad’s spokesman reponded:

Carlson’s @TuckerCarlson claim about Chabad and the Temple Mount is a slanderous lie. His implication that Chabad is behind the war in Iran is a dangerous blood libel.

Chabad’s focus is on encouraging mitzvos—good deeds—to bring more goodness into the world and hasten the coming of the Messiah, while living responsibly in the present. The Messianic vision is one of peace and harmony for all.

He is also wrong about the Temple patches. They did not come from Chabad. Had he done even basic research, that would be clear. It would also show that many who wear the Temple patches see them as symbols of faith and hope for peace, and a yearning for the day when there will be no more war.

Carlson doesn’t care about truth, so doing research will not change anything. He is putting a target on Chabad’s backs all over the world, a message to leftists, Islamists, white supremacists, and odd assorted lunatics.

Yes, it would be nice to ignore Tucker and the other people spreading these vicious lies. I hope their followers become fewer and fewer. But they do have followers. There are a lot of young people with few anchors and a lot of anger combined with a great deal of distrust of conventional sources of information, and they are ripe for believing the sort of vileness Carlson and his fellow-travelers spew out.

Venezuela update

The New Neo Posted on by

Meanwhile, there’s other news in the world besides Iran.

There’s Venezuela:

The United States and Venezuela agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations, two months after President Trump launched a military operation that resulted in the capture of the country’s president and U.S. control of its oil industry.

The State Department said Thursday the agreement with Venezuela’s interim authorities is an effort to “promote stability, support economic recovery, and advance political reconciliation in Venezuela.”

The government of Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez said in a statement that the repaired relations “will contribute to strengthening understanding and opening opportunities for a positive and mutually beneficial relationship.”

“These relations ought to result in the social and economic happiness of the Venezuelan people,” she said.

Maduro had cut off ties during Trump’s previous presidency, in 2019.

The State Department said in its statement that the restoration of diplomatic ties is focused on helping the Venezuelan people move through a “phased process” that leads to a peaceful transition to a democratically elected government.

Rodríguez has been recognized for taking proactive steps to anticipate U.S. democratic demands, including passing legislation to release political prisoners.

Moving right along.

It seems that the capture of Maduro was the first move in an elaborate geopolitical chess game. Iran is another, and there is a connection. The connections involve China as well:

In quick succession, US President Donald Trump has taken out two of Beijing’s closest allies: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. …

China has long been Iran’s most important source of diplomatic and economic support. In addition to purchasing the bulk of Iran’s oil exports, Beijing has denounced what it calls “unilateral” US sanctions imposed on Iran, and supported Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful.

In recent years, China has elevated Iran’s global standing by bringing it into Beijing-backed groupings such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, widening Tehran’s diplomatic space at a time of Western isolation.

Chinese firms have also supplied chemicals used in Iran’s missile program and helped build out its domestic surveillance infrastructure, CNN has reported. Beijing maintains that its trade with Iran complies with international law.

But China has consistently steered clear of direct involvement in its partners’ conflicts, showing little appetite for wading into Middle Eastern security matters beyond protecting its own assets.

China says sorry, Iran, it’s been nice knowing you.

NOTE: Since it’s all somewhat related, I may as well put this here: the Senate voted down a bill to demand the cessation of operations against Iran. From Jonathan Turley:

The Senate rejected the war powers resolution to force the U.S. to cease operations in Iran in the middle of active combat. Only one Democrat, Sen. Fetterman, voted against the resolution despite some of these same senators supporting Obama in unilateral attacks on Libya…

…In the end, the Kaine resolution succeeded in having the opposite effect of voting against limiting the prosecution of the war. The Senate has now been consulted and voted against limits…

…Notably, the resolution was more feckless given the exception for “imminent threats.” With full combat operations on both sides, all threats are now imminent and all attacks responsive. …

..What is interesting is that, ever after the Senate was notified, consulted, and voted, Democrats are still calling the war “illegal.”

The art of the “Epic Fury” deal: unconditional surrender

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the principles Trump outlined in The Art of the Deal was the willingness to walk away from the negotiations when appropriate. And recently, when it became crystal clear that Iran was not negotiating in good faith and there was no hope of their meeting his terms or anything resembling them, the talks ended and the attacks began.

You can’t say he didn’t warn them.

The Iranian leaders were accustomed to deal-making, too – with Obama, for example. If they thought Trump would ultimately be like Obama, they read the room wrong. But you almost can’t blame them for making that error; after all, Trump had said many times he didn’t want to start wars. What they forgot was that it was their predecessor Khomeini who had started this war nearly 50 years ago, and they themselves had followed in his footsteps.

I don’t usually pay much attention to the names given to military operations. But when I heard that this one was called “Epic Fury,” it struck me as especially apt. Maybe it takes having been old enough in 1979 and 1980 to remember how this war began. For example, the fact that the left seems to be allied with the mullahs would be no surprise to anyone who remembers how the Iranian Revolution went down. It seemed improbable to me back then, but the left thought they could use the mullahs to overthrow the Shah and then be the ones to emerge victorious and run the country. It didn’t quite work out that way, did it?

We who are old enough remember. But even more vividly, we remember when Nightline began, with its count of the days of “America Held Hostage.” Many of us felt angry then; why weren’t we doing enough to free our people? And a baby-faced man named Donald Trump – already famous for other things – was furious about it.

That’s certainly not the only reason we attacked Iran. Iran has done a great many bad things since, to us and to our allies. And Iran had no intention of stopping – in fact, it was upping the ante. So Trump’s motive was not solely this sort of thing, but it was part of it:

An epic is a long saga. This one is not over. But according to Trump, the deal-making is over for the duration of the conflict:

President Trump told Axios Friday that his demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” could mean the complete destruction of the regime’s military capabilities — not necessarily a formal surrender.

“Unconditional surrender could be that [the Iranians] announce it. But it could also be when they can’t fight any longer because they don’t have anyone or anything to fight with,” he said in a phone interview.

Leaving anything resembling the current power structure in place would almost certainly be a recipe for disaster. However, it may be that there have been moles in the Iranian government right along, feeding the US and/or Israel intelligence that has helped us. So it may be that a person like that – if such a person exists – could continue on in a new government. But first, we have to win militarily.

[NOTE: Israel doesn’t call its operation “Epic Fury.” It calls it “Lion’s Roar.” But Iran was involved in the preparation for 10/7, although Iran wanted a more coordinated attack that included Hezbollah forces, and instead Sinwar went ahead alone. And Iran has made it clear for decades that its goal is to destroy Israel. So Israel’s fury is epic, too. In fact, Netanyahu has said that this operation, “allows us to do what I have been hoping to do for 40 years — to deliver a crushing blow to the terror regime.”]

Trump is also making war on the “multilateral myth”

The New Neo Posted on by

From “Data Republican”:

Every act that reasserts American sovereignty—on Iran, on trade, on immigration, on energy—is an act of regime change against the supranational order that has governed American life, foreign and domestic, for at least 70 years. The strikes on Khamenei’s compound are a demonstration that a sovereign nation, acting in its own interest, does not need institutional permission. The Trump Administration just showed that the veto that the multilateral order spent decades embedding into American foreign policy—through think tanks, through NGOs, through carefully managed BRICS adversaries—can simply be ignored.

I assume she has a reason for saying that this viewpoint “has governed American life … for at least 70 years,” but I think that time frame isn’t correct. I think “governing” American life came considerably later, although the idea or the effort to do it probably predates 70 years.

I agree, however, that Trump’s policies are absolutely the antithesis of those goals and that this is one very good reason why the Western European elites oppose nearly everything he does and everything he says. He is the epitome of American bluster and power and is much less afraid than previous American presidents in recent years to use both, if necessary, to advance the interests of this nation. Sometimes those interests actually benefit other nations, as well – as presently is true for the Iranian people and even for the safety of Europe. But Western Europe’s leftist leaders don’t want to admit it.

In law school long ago, I studied international law. I was a Democrat back then, but I quickly decided that international law was a very limited instrument, good for deciding certain relatively minor disputes between nations that had already decided to submit to its rulings, and good for little else.

In 2006 I wrote on the topic and reposted it in 2024. Here are some excerpts:

Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:

To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.

The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.

And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.

It’s all empty posturing, although many people accept it as valid because they want it to be valid. I also would like for nations to beat their swords into ploughshares, as in Isaiah. But meanwhile, there is “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”

Another roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been doing more roundups lately – there’s so much news sometimes that it seems like the best way to deal with it:

(1) Kristi Noem is being pushed aside:

Trump announced on Truth Social that he will nominate Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., to replace Noem, effective March 31.

“The current Secretary, Kristi Noem, who has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!), will be moving to be Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere we are announcing on Saturday in Doral, Florida. I thank Kristi for her service at ‘Homeland.’”

Seems to be a new position, so it’s hard to know whether this is a demotion. I certainly don’t think Noem has been a good head of Homeland Security, particularly her comments about Alex Pretti “brandishing” a weapon. But this is apparently why Trump got angry with her:

Meanwhile, reports surfaced Thursday that Trump is “furious” with Noem over her performance in bicameral Judiciary Committee hearings this week, particularly over a contract for an advertisement that Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., and others grilled her on.

Trump reportedly took issue with her suggesting to Kennedy that he approved a taxpayer-funded ad subcontracted to a firm connected with her inner circle, according to National Review, which also reported that Mullin was being considered a top candidate for her replacement.

Mullin, her replacement, is a Native American, so it puts the “homeland” in homeland.

(2) SCOTUS ruled unanimously that “the standard for reviewing asylum cases [is to keep] it in the hands of immigration agencies” except in the most egregious situations:

… [T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.

Immigration courts are not part of the regular court system; they are under the executive branch rather than separate from it.

(3) It wouldn’t seem possible, but Gavin Newsom has gotten more vile:

Asked about the military action against Iran that Israel and the United States are jointly waging, Newsom had nothing at all positive to say about it. Instead of saying a single critical word about Iran—the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, which has killed 35,000 pro-democracy protesters this year, which oppresses women and gays, and which has launched assassination attempts and cyberattacks against America while stoking unrest on U.S. college campuses—Newsom denounced Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for dragging America into war.

“The issue of Bibi is interesting because he’s got his own domestic issues. He’s trying to stay out of jail,” Newsom said. “He’s got an election coming up. He’s potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks, the hard line, that want to annex the West Bank. I mean, [Thomas] Friedman and others are talking about it, appropriately, as sort of an apartheid state. They couldn’t even—I mean, we’re talking about regime change?—for two years, they haven’t even been able to solve the Hamas question in Israel. So this is, I mean, you know, I want to be careful here, but you know, in so many ways, that influence in the context of the conversation of where Trump ultimately landed on this is pretty damn self-evident.”

Newsom said the United States should “reconsider” its military support for Israel. “You just got to reconsider the whole thing,” he said, claiming, not particularly credibly, “it breaks my heart.”

Boo hoo.

(4) A man in NY with 131 prior arrests and many convictions has been arrested for setting a homeless man on fire in Penn Station. He puts new meaning into the phrase “habitual criminal.”

(5) Murals of Iryna Zarutska are being defaced. This reminds me of what happened to many of the posters of the Israeli hostages. The left only allows certain victims to be considered victims.

Rubio the seer, circa 2015

The New Neo Posted on by

I remember how upset I was with Obama’s Iran deal; I wrote quite a bit about it at the time. But one thing I didn’t notice back then was Marco Rubio’s speech on the occasion. It’s worth looking at now – short but impressively prescient:

Rubio said he was speaking for history. Well, it’s over ten years later, and now he’s in a position to do something about it.

Our intrepid allies: Spain, Britain, Germany, and France

The New Neo Posted on by

Spain, an ally? Well, it is in NATO, and it does let us have some bases within its borders. But in terms of history – during WWI it was neutral and during WWII it became a “non-belligerent” Axis affiliate while providing the Axis powers with important material such as tungsten. Spain also was under Muslim domination from 711 to 1492, and in recent years, the Muslim population of Spain has been growing:

According to an unofficial estimation of 2020 by the Union of Islamic Communities of Spain (UCIDE) the Muslim population in Spain represents 4.45% of the total Spanish population as of 2019, of whom 42% were Spanish citizens (most of them with foreign family origins), 38% Moroccans, and 20% of other nationalities.

So Spain has no particular inclination to be helpful to us in our attack on Iran, and has refused to do so:

Spain has denied the US permission to use jointly operated military bases on its territory to attack Iran as Madrid stepped up its criticism of the “unjustified and dangerous military intervention”.

Spain’s socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has explicitly condemned the US and Israel’s “unilateral military action” against Iran, warning that it is contributing to “a more hostile and uncertain international order”. The rebukes have been reinforced by his government’s refusal to allow the US to use bases in Rota and Morón for the continuing strikes against Iran.

José Manuel Albares, Spain’s foreign minister, said on Monday that while the government wanted “democracy, freedom and fundamental rights for the Iranian people”, it would on no account allow its bases to be used in the ongoing military action.

No doubt the Iranian people are hugely grateful for his good wishes for their freedom without any desire to give them the bare minimum of actual help.

Spain says the reason for its refusal is that the operation against Iran doesn’t have the blessing of the international community. I say it’s because Spain is run by leftists who hate Israel and don’t want their own Muslim population to give them any trouble.

Trump issued the following threat to Spain, and wasn’t too happy with Starmer either (another leftist head of state worried about the substantial Muslim population in his country):

President Trump railed Tuesday against NATO allies that refused to allow the US to use their bases to attack Iran, declaring he was going to “cut off all trade with Spain” and denouncing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “no Winston Churchill.”

Trump became visibly angry during his sitdown with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, spending several minutes blasting America’s European allies and arguing that they don’t spend enough on defense.

He also had harsh words for Starmer, showing a strain in his relationship with the United Kingdom.

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said of the Labour prime minister.

The two leaders have been exchanging harsh words since Starmer denied Trump permission to use UK military bases in the first wave of attacks on Iran Saturday. …

“This government does not believe in regime change from the skies,” Starmer declared. “It is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done. And I stand by it.”

Starmer doesn’t believe in “regime change from the skies”? I guess the RAF in WWII wouldn’t have flown to Germany if Starmer had been in charge; Trump is certainly right about the “no Churchill” remark. Would Starmer prefer to wait until the mullahs in Iran decide to lob a long-range ballistic missile Britain’s way?

Then again, there’s this:

The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, did not initially allow US forces to use Diego Garcia or any UK airbases because of doubts about the legality of the strikes. But he changed his position on Sunday after Iran launched a wave of retaliatory missile and drone attacks on targets across the Middle East – one of which hit a UK airbase in Cyprus.

Oopsies. Trump responded by saying that Starmer had taken “far too long” to make the concession.

Germany has been somewhat less critical about the US on Iran, with Merz saying: “we’re not going to be lecturing our partners on their military strikes against Iran … Despite all the doubts, we share many of their aims.” Nevertheless, no action is forthcoming from Germany:

Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Berlin is closely coordinating its position with European partners, the UK and France, though each country will decide independently what military defensive measures to take.

“The UK has concluded that it will make military bases available to the Americans. We don’t have any bases there, we also don’t have the corresponding military resources,” he told public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. “And the German government definitely has no intention of participating in any way,” he said.

And what of France?

French President Emmanuel Macron said the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran that began Saturday and killed the country’s supreme leader were conducted “outside of international law” and that Paris “cannot approve of them.”

What a guy. Then again, it was General Norman Schwarzkopf who said: “Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion.”

And yet Macron has offered a modest accordion:

To protect French interests in the Middle East, Macron said that the Charles de Gaulle, the country’s only aircraft carrier, was being deployed to the Mediterranean alongside fighter jets and air defense systems.

“We will continue this effort as long as it is needed,” he said.

Macron also confirmed that France had sent anti-missile systems to Cyprus …

Iran’s strikes on Cyprus seem to have engendered a certain amount of fear in Europe, it seems. That’s slightly similar to the Gulf States’ angry response to Iran’s attack on them. Seems those attacks were unforced errors by Iran, somewhat like Hitler’s decision – often considered “puzzling” – to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, which resulted in the US declaring war on Germany:

The only person who did not vote for war was pacifist Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin who had also voted against war with Japan.

In the Senate the vote was unanimous.

Both Democrats and Republicans have agreed to “adjourn politics” for the duration of the war and focus on national defence.

Greatest Generation.

If it bleeds, it leads – especially if it makes the US or Israel look bad

The New Neo Posted on by

Truth is unimportant to the left or the MSM because the leftist MSM serves a higher truth. This is the general approach, but it’s especially evident in coverage about Israel, which is presented in a way that is usually negative for that country.

I discovered the pattern long ago; it was part of my change story. I later discovered that lying for a “higher truth” was the template of the al Durah story, in which the French media which initially reported that Israelis had killed a young Palestinian boy had the raw footage that proved the killing was staged by Palestinians and the boy was almost certainly alive, but ignored that fact because they were so convinced that Israel was evil and Palestinians good. So a little detail like the truth or falsehood of that particular story didn’t matter.

Here’s an excellent discussion of how it played out in the Gaza war and how it’s playing out already in Iran and our press. Hint: it’s the same playbook as before.

Iran knows a report like this will fire up the Tucker Carlson woke right, and the left. They know that the MSM will report it uncritically, and that the little disclaimer won’t matter. They know that if Iran’s own ordinance fell short and hit a school full of children (or if they did it purposely; they certainly could not care less about killing their own people), it may never be known by the wider world:

On February 28th, 2026, Iranian state media reported that American strikes had hit an elementary school in Minab, a port city in Hormozgan Province. The school was named: Shajareh Tayyebeh. The casualties were implied: children. Within hours, Reuters had the story. So did the AP. So did the BBC. The phrase “could not independently verify” appeared in every version, tucked into the middle of the paragraph like a disclaimer on a cigarette packet. Present. Acknowledged. Functionally irrelevant.

The story ran anyway.

Here is what was publicly available before a single editor hit publish. The Shajareh Tayyebeh school sits adjacent to, or within the perimeter of, an IRGC Asef Brigade naval installation. This is not classified intelligence. Pre-conflict reports from open-source defense analysts had mapped the facility. It had been identified in war-gaming scenarios published by Middle Eastern security forums. A reporter with a laptop and fifteen minutes could have found it.

Nobody looked. Just like nobody looked at the at the blast crater in the Al-Ahli parking lot before running Hamas’s version.

The same local governor whose statement provided Western outlets with their casualty framing also referenced, in that very statement, American strikes on IRGC medical facilities in the area. That context did not make the international version of the story. The dead IRGC personnel mentioned in Farsi-language social media posts from apparent Minab residents did not make it either. What made the story was the word “school” and the implication of dead children, sourced entirely to the public relations apparatus of a regime that has spent four decades perfecting the art of strategic mourning.

We don’t know the facts for sure yet, but there’s every reason to doubt the Iranian report:

And yet this story has spread around the world.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) From yesterday’s primaries: Crenhaw is out, Jasmine Crockett (whom the GOP wanted because she would probably be easiest to beat) is out and declaring her opponent cheated, and Cornyn and Paxton will have a runoff.

(2) The US has torpedoed an Iranian warship:

An American submarine sank an Iranian warship named the Soleimani in the Indian Ocean overnight — the first such US attack on a member of an enemy fleet since World War II, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday.

The “quiet death” strike on Iran’s prized vessel, the IRIS Shahid Soleimani, unfolded late Tuesday off the southern coast of Sri Lanka, Hegseth said, telling reporters during a Pentagon briefing that the ship “thought it was safe in international waters.”

“Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II,” Hegseth added. “Like in that war, back when we were still the War Department, we are fighting to win.”

I watched a great many WWII movies on TV as a child, and torpedoes were heavily featured – and frightening.

(3) In that friendly fire incident in Kuwait in which three US planes were shot down – with all six crew members safe – the fire came from Kuwaiti forces.

(4) Those three policemen who shot the killer in Austin will not be referred to a grand jury. That’s certainly the right call.

(5) Steve Witcoff talks about the negotiations with Iran. The gist of it is that Iran never was willing to make concessions and was openly and unashamedly determined to enrich uranium to weapons-grade: