… is the new Supreme Leader of Iran.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Mojtaba Khamenei is supposedly rich, too; a not-so-austere religious scholar*:
Although it’s impossible to confirm information about him found on the internet, Mojtaba appears to be fabulously wealthy. For starters, he allegedly owns a portfolio of luxury properties in London valued at more than £100 million.
Maybe if Khamenei The Younger ever decided to flee, Keir Starmer would welcome him to London.
* Reference here.
A great many people on the right who used to mock and distrust Marco Rubio are very appreciative of his performance so far as Secretary of State.
They’re also very surprised, because they had written him off as a lightweight and even a betrayer. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump gave him a name – “Little Marco” – that seemed to sum this up. And Chris Christie mocked him for repeating himself in one of the Republican debates.
But the worm sometimes turns. Somewhere along the line, Trump decided that Little Marco was big enough to become his Secretary of State, and now he praises him to the skies. Those who think Trump never abandons a grudge forget things like this. Then again, maybe Trump never disliked Rubio at all and the name-calling was just his usual tactic of insulting his rivals.
Now we’re hearing there’s a chance that the Cuban Communist regime will fall soon. Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if a man of Cuban heritage, whose parents hated Communism, would hold the post of Secretary of State when the end of the regime came?
NOTE: Over the years, I’ve spent a lot of verbiage here defending Rubio. In this 2015 post I highlighted some suggestions for how he should deal with his earlier stance on amnesty, and in two long post I analyzed what happened in that awful exchange with Christie during the debates. Those posts are this one and especially this one. That latter post might even help you in arguments you have in your own life; it contains some information about the art of arguing.
Why did they pursue the destruction of Israel like Ahab pursued Moby Dick, from the very moment they took over Iran? What had Israel ever done to them?
Why did the fierce attacks by the US and Israel last summer not dissuade them from their destructive goals?
Why were they seemingly not listening to Trump’s warning that if they didn’t give up their nuclear weapons and stop killing their own people in droves, they would suffer more attacks from the US?
Yes, nuclear weapons would make them untouchable; this was a good part of North Korea’s motives, too, in obtaining them. But North Korea is an island of sanity compared to the mullahs in their belief system and goals.
Please read this description of what drives the mullahs. Here’s an excerpt:
… [T]he late Ayatollah Khomeini’s Twelver-influenced Shi’i revolutionary theology, promotes a worldview that elevates death, martyrdom, and chaos as instruments of divine purpose.
Most wars can be halted through political pressure, negotiation, or deterrence. But this conflict is grounded in a dogma that sanctifies destruction and bloodshed as necessary steps toward redemption. Within this framework, Israel’s destruction is not simply a strategic objective; it is portrayed as a sacred duty. Iran will therefore persist in waging this war because its leaders believe they are carrying out God’s work, and that only through Israel’s elimination will redemption arrive. Until the West grasps this theological dimension, its response to Iran will remain inadequate—and dangerously naïve. …
The Iranian regime considers their nation to be chosen by Allah to prepare the world for the coming of their messiah, the Twelfth Imam (whom they call the Mahdi) who will establish justice in the world. They believe that catastrophic world chaos and the defeat of their enemies, especially Israel, are prerequisites for this event. Their murder and mayhem is not only a means to an end; according to their religion it is an end in itself, and their foreign policy is guided by the desired impending apocalypse. This makes them a most dangerous foe, since there is no chance of negotiating with them or resolving the conflict peacefully; peace and justice will come only through their own martyrdom, in their view.
The leader for whom Iran prepares the way is the Twelfth Imam, or the Mahdi. Twelver Shia Muslims believe that the Mahdi disappeared in the 9th century and was placed into “divine occultation” (ghaybah), where he will remain until he reappears to declare victory over all the world’s Islamic infidels and establish a global Shia Islamic kingdom. Chaos and war, however, are necessary to bring his return.
If you keep that in mind when you think about the leaders of the Iranian theocracy, I think many of their actions become understandable. And the need to eliminate their rule becomes not a choice, but a necessity. The chaos and destruction they seek to cause involves not just Israel, but other Muslim nations not in accord with them (the Gulf States, for example, which they have attacked recently), Western nations and in particular the US, and ultimately the world.
Perhaps the real reason the Iranians told Witkoff and Kushner at the recent negotiations that they had retained enriched material and could easily build eleven nuclear weapons in short order (see this) was a combination of their thinking that the US didn’t have the guts to do much about it, plus a way to say, “Hey, bring it on!”
Since Neil Sedaka died recently, I’ve done a few strolls down memory lane listening to some of his songs. Of course I know many – especially “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do.” But “Solitaire” is a song I only knew very slightly, although it’s apparently quite popular and was covered by many people:
Sedaka originally was inspired by Frederic Chopin (his favorite classical composer) for the chorus and by Roberta Flack in the verses. When he presented the tune to Cody, he came up with the words based on his recent divorce; Cody had been playing solitaire frequently as a coping mechanism. Both Sedaka and Cody considered the composition to be a spiritual experience.
Sedaka was a Julliard-trained classical pianist.
Here Sedaka is singing the song himself, live, and playing the piano. He could do both very very well.
Oopsies about those attacks:
Regime president Masoud Pezeshkian issued the apology to other Gulf states in a rushed video message, but it won’t come with a change of policy. Apparently, no one’s taking orders from the mullahs’ side of the regime any longer:
“Iran’s president apologized Saturday for attacks on regional countries even as its missiles and drones flew toward Gulf Arab states, indicating that Tehran’s political leadership could not exercise full command over Iran’s armed forces. He also rejected US President Donald Trump’s repeated demands for surrender.
President Masoud Pezeshkian, one member of a tripartite leadership council overseeing Iran since a Feb. 28 airstrike started the war and killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered the defiant message exactly one week into a conflict that has spread across the region, rattled global markets and air travel and left Iran’s own leadership greatly weakened by hundreds of Israeli and American airstrikes.
The message, seemingly filmed in a hurry without professional broadcast equipment, again underlined the limited powers being exercised by the theocracy’s leaders over its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which controls the ballistic missiles targeting Israel and others. It answered only to Khamenei and now appears to be picking its own targets as the conflict widens.
And yet the attacks continue. Either he has no control over them or he’s pretending to have no control over them. I think probably the former. I read quite a while ago – don’t recall where – that Khameini had de-centralized command and control of the ballistic missiles, giving instructions to the people in charge of each station as to what to do in the event of his death. So I don’t think these attacks are uncoordinated. I think they were pre-coordinated by Khameini.
And now, reading further down in that article I quoted for this post, I see that’s what’s being said there, too:
It’s not even clear how much control the IRGC has at this moment either, but they have enough to defy Pezeshkian’s orders. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has claimed that Ali Khamenei prepared for the war by ordering the all-out attack on Iran’s neighbors and implementing a “mosaic” strategy, in which decentralized units would be empowered to carry out their last orders independently until … something happened. In the last eight days, the US and Israel has done tremendous damage to command, control, and communication functions within Iran, so we are likely seeing the mosaic strategy playing out without any central control to reverse it and halt action – a risk in every war in which leadership gets destroyed.
So will the attacks on the Arab states and others continue unabated until there are no more missiles to fire?
Trump has this to say:
Iran, which is being beat to HELL, has apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbors, and promised that it will not shoot at them anymore. This promise was only made because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack. They were looking to take over and rule the Middle East. It is the first time that Iran has ever lost, in thousands of years, to surrounding Middle Eastern Countries. They have said, “Thank you President Trump.” I have said, “You’re welcome!” Iran is no longer the “Bully of the Middle East,” they are, instead, “THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,” and will be for many decades until they surrender or, more likely, completely collapse! Today Iran will be hit very hard!
He understands this strong horse versus weak horse thing.
Azerbaijan has also been attacked by Iran in the last week, and has mobilized its military. They may even be ready to put a few boots on the ground in Iran themselves.
And the IRGC has basically said they aren’t paying a particle of attention to Pezeshkian:
President Pezeshkian made a mistake [saying they won’t attack neighboring countries], and our forces demonstrated his mistake. His comments were 5 hours ago, and since then Dubai and Abu Dhabi are being struck. Ignore Pezeshkian’s words during the war.
Pay no attention to the man in front of the curtain.
These are indeed interesting times.
What is the endgame in Iran? It would be wonderful if it was some sort of stable and liberty-loving republic. But if that can’t happen – and perhaps it can’t or won’t – perhaps taking away its weapons and ability to make more weapons, as well as getting rid of the worst elements of its leadership, would be good enough.
The launch of the CPI brings to the fore something often forgotten when discussing Iran: the Islamic Republic has suppressed political parties so completely that an entire generation of Iranians has never experienced genuine political pluralism.
If the regime collapses, the absence of organized political institutions could leave a vacuum. Groups like CPI are attempting to prepare for that possibility. …
“The Conservative Party of Iran stands firmly upon the enduring pillars of Iran’s historical and political truth,” the declaration states. “Its national identity, its sovereignty, and the continuity of Iran’s native polity – the monarchical institution.” …
Amiri argues that the resurgence of monarchist sentiment in recent years has been visible across Iranian society. …
Still, Amiri emphasized that the ultimate decision must come from the Iranian people.
“The legitimate determination of Iran’s political system must come through a free national referendum held under democratic conditions,” he said. “We do not prejudge the sovereign will of the people.”
Even if the outcome were to differ from current expectations, he added, the party would adapt. …
[The CPI’s] draft constitution outlines a political organization that resembles parties operating in established democracies. …
“To restore Iran’s economy we would begin with disciplined monetary policy aimed at stabilizing the rial,” he said.
Much more at the link.
They’ve certainly had a while to think about all of this.
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.
[ADDENDUM: A more detailed description of what Carlson has been doing lately and how truly pernicious it is can be found here (hat tip: commenter “om”). It is long, but excellent.]
Meanwhile, there’s other news in the world besides Iran.
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.”
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.”]
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.”