davel

On 25 February 2026, I appeared on Glenn Diesen’s podcast to talk about whether the US is likely to attack Iran, especially in light of his State of the Union address the previous evening (February 24). I made the argument that one could read Trump’s address to signal that he is moving away from attacking Iran. Of course, one cannot be confident that is the case, but his rhetoric certainly pushes in that direction.

Trump emphasized in his talk that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, but that he has yet to hear these “secret words” from Iran: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister, however, said just before Trump’s address that “Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop nuclear weapons.” That statement should satisfy Trump’s demand.

It is important to note that Trump did not demand that Iran give up its: 1) nuclear enrichment capability; 2) ballistic missiles; 3) support for Hamas. Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Those non-demands certainly facilitate a deal.

And then there is the broader context. First, every country in the world except for Israel is pushing Trump not to attack Iran, including America’s Gulf allies who usually have adversarial relations with Iran. Second General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has effectively told Trump that there is no good military option and if he attacks he runs the risk of getting into a protracted war the US cannot win. Third, his political advisors are telling him not go to war. Trump is already in deep trouble in the polls and there is a real danger that the Democrats will take both houses of Congress in the November elections. A failed war in Iran will just make a dangerous situation worse.

There are only two major actors pushing for war against Iran: Israel and its extraordinarily powerful lobby in the US. They may succeed in pushing Trump to start a war, in which case this will be another war for Israel.

Why are Norwegian political elites so overrepresented in the Epstein files? Several news outlets around the world have reported on the shock to the small Scandinavian country, which consistently demonstrates high public trust in the government. How could this have happened?

The source of the problem is a de-nationalised political elite decoupling itself from the public. The Norwegian government has the explicit ambition of being an international humanitarian superpower by spending billions on aid. The small country’s obsession with punching above its weight in international humanitarianism could be applauded. However, if one scratches the surface, it is not as benign as one would hope.

A small but wealthy country can easily give rise to an elite class with ambitions beyond national borders, and even fuel delusions that they can save the world. With enough resources, these elites form a permanent bureaucracy, develop international elite networks and in the process earn some money for themselves. Whereas monarchs of the past had a mandate from God, the new nobility claims a mandate from humanitarianism and globalism. Immunity develops because when policies are defined by virtue, opposition is deemed heretical and illegitimate. Herein lies the problem of international humanitarianism: the assumed virtue limits criticism, transparency, and accountability.

I doubt this story is real, but as a Vonnegut fan I’ve never been able to unsee the verisimilitude.

Chaser: 📺 ¡Nunca Pensé! featuring Mariachi Arcoiris

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/43097423

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/gWLDS

The Environmental Protection Agency repealed the bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human life and well being. It means the agency can no longer regulate them.

For nearly 17 years, the E.P.A. had relied on the bedrock finding to justify regulations that limit carbon dioxide, methane and other pollution from oil and gas wells, tailpipes, smokestacks and other sources that burn fossil fuels. By repealing the endangerment finding, the United States is likely to emit up to 18 billion metric tons of additional emissions into the atmosphere between now and 2055, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. That is about three times the amount of climate pollution the country emitted last year.

The added pollution could lead to as many as 58,000 premature deaths and an increase of 37 million asthma attacks between now and 2055, the group said.

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/gWLDS

The Environmental Protection Agency repealed the bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human life and well being. It means the agency can no longer regulate them.

For nearly 17 years, the E.P.A. had relied on the bedrock finding to justify regulations that limit carbon dioxide, methane and other pollution from oil and gas wells, tailpipes, smokestacks and other sources that burn fossil fuels. By repealing the endangerment finding, the United States is likely to emit up to 18 billion metric tons of additional emissions into the atmosphere between now and 2055, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. That is about three times the amount of climate pollution the country emitted last year.

The added pollution could lead to as many as 58,000 premature deaths and an increase of 37 million asthma attacks between now and 2055, the group said.