Welcome to Friday, June 19, 2026, and it happens to be Juneteenth, celebrating what’s considered to be the end of slavery in the U.S.:
Planters and other slaveholders from eastern states had migrated into Texas to escape the fighting, and many brought enslaved people with them, increasing by the thousands the enslaved population in the state at the end of the Civil War. Although most lived in rural areas, more than 1,000 resided in Galveston or Houston by 1860, with several hundred in other large towns. By 1865, there were an estimated 250,000 enslaved people in Texas.
Despite the surrender of Confederate General-in-Chief Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865, the western Confederate Army of the Trans-Mississippi did not formally surrender until June 2. On the morning of June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived on the island of Galveston to take command of the more than 2,000 federal troops recently landed in the department of Texas to enforce the emancipation of its enslaved population and oversee Reconstruction, nullifying all laws passed within Texas during the war by Confederate lawmakers. The order informed all Texans that, in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all enslaved people were free.
The Emancipation Proclamation had been issued Jan. 1, 1863, and the Confederate Army surrendered on April 9, 1865, but people were still enslaved over two months later. Here’s a photo of a celebration in Texas 35 years later from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African History and Culture with the caption, “Emancipation Day celebration, June 19, 1900 held in ‘East Wood’ on East 24th Street in Austin. Credit: Austin History Center.
There’s a Google Doodle for the holiday; click the screenshot below to see where it goes:
It’s also Corpus Christi for Catholics, National Eat an Oreo Day, National Martini Day, World Tapas Day, and World Albatross Day.
Here are a variety of James Bond ordering his famous Vesper Martini. I’m not sure why shaking it is better than stirring it.
. . and an Oreo:
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the June 19 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*Footy news: Canada won its first ever World Cup match, trouncing Qatar 6-0:
Jonathan David‘s hat trick propelled Canada to a historic 6-0 rout of Qatar in Vancouver on Thursday to go to the top of their World Cup group.
It was not only Canada’s first victory at a World Cup but also equaled the record margin of victory for a tournament host, matching the six-goal wins for Italy in 1934, Brazil in 1950 and Argentina in 1978.
Canada’s tally against Qatar also doubled the number of goals they had in their World Cup history coming into the game.
“No one will forget this, and no Canadian will forget this day,” said coach Jesse Marsch, who held up six fingers as he walked off the field. “It’s an incredibly seminal moment for everyone to understand that there’s talent in this country, that there’s mentality, that there’s desire, that there’s a lot of things that make this country special.”
Here’s a 17-minute video of the highlights:
*The talks to end the war between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. have been delayed and Israel is still attacking Lebanon:
The preliminary deal to end the war between the United States and Iran faced fresh challenges on Friday after Switzerland said the next phase of talks had been postponed and Israel launched new strikes in Lebanon.
Vice President JD Vance had been expected to fly to Switzerland for talks with Iranian officials but the White House said late Thursday that his trip had been delayed. The United States was looking forward “to beginning technical talks as soon as possible,” it said in a statement.
The preliminary U.S.-Iran deal, which President Trump and President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran signed this week, has been strongly criticized by Israeli lawmakers in Israel as well as some Republicans, who argue that it gives Iran economic relief while punting more difficult negotiations, including on Tehran’s nuclear program, down the road.
*Over at It’s Noon in Israel, Amit Segal assessed the cease-fire, concludingm “Iran deal: it’s worse than we thought.” I’ll give a long excerpt:
It’s Thursday, June 18, and the official terms of the U.S. Memorandum of Understanding are out—and it’s worse than anticipated. The official signing ceremony isn’t until Friday, but the agreement was already signed digitally last night during a dinner at the Palace of Versailles. Anyone familiar with the palace’s history knows this makes the MOU the second great surrender signed at Versailles. Except this time, the U.S. is the one capitulating.
Here’s why it’s worse than we thought. As the details slowly leaked, it became clear that this agreement is not a pause—the status quo held in place while negotiations ran their course. It was a rewind, actively restoring the Islamic Republic. The only question left was how fast it would run, and according to these clauses, faster than we would like.
U.S. officials, including the vice president, previously assured reporters that the agreement provides a “dial,” with economic and sanctions relief increasing only as Iran demonstrates good behavior and compliance. The text is less specific. The clearest financial concession involves the issuance of oil waivers in Section 10, which on their own will return monthly revenue of $5 billion; meanwhile, Section 11 seems to imply that all of the regime’s assets will be made available immediately—best case, that remains credit the Islamic Republic can use only for humanitarian purchases; worst case, it is transferred to them directly. Either way, money is fungible, and besides, I’m not sure exactly what leverage the U.S. assumes it will retain once it has surrendered Iranian assets up front.
As has been clear for the past couple of months, two of the conflict’s four goals—the funding of proxies and the ending of the ballistic missile program—have been abandoned. In fact, Trump defended the omission. “If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” Trump said in France, where he held a press conference on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit. “If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say that in relative proportion, I think it’s okay” for Iran to have ballistic missiles as well. I haven’t seen Saudi Arabia firing those missiles at the U.S. recently, but I digress. The JCPOA famously made the same omission—but at least it didn’t promise the removal of all primary and secondary sanctions on the ballistic missile program and on terror sponsorship. Section 7 provides for the removal of all sanctions pending a final deal—so even if Trump somehow clutches victory from the claws of defeat and secures a strong nuclear deal, Iran’s other malign activities can continue without sanction. Indeed, Lebanese and regional sources told Reuters that Iran has promised to increase Hezbollah’s funding “as soon as possible” once the United States unfreezes Iranian assets. Chalk up a point for the JCPOA.
The third of the original four goals fares no better: the MOU codifies the abandonment of the protesters, enshrining noninterference in Iran’s “internal affairs”—those hoping for an uprising in the next 60 days are likely to be disappointed. That leaves only the nuclear front—the last remaining goal, and one whose outcome remains entirely unclear. Zero enrichment was already abandoned by Trump last week, but the MOU goes further, defining the new U.S. minimum not as exporting its enriched uranium, but as on-site down-blending under IAEA supervision. In the case of uranium, what goes down can also go up. Without the material in friendlier, less fanatical hands, “good” is not an applicable adjective for the deal.
Not only that, Clause 5 gift-wraps the regime’s trump card—the one it has played to such great effect against the U.S. Iran’s leverage over Gulf shipping was always its readiest threat, the valve it could squeeze whenever it needed the world’s attention. A serious agreement would have taken that card out of their hands. Instead, the MOU merely gestures at “negotiating the status” of the waterway with other states in the region—language that quietly abandons the prior baseline of freedom of the seas and hands the question to bilateral talks between Tehran and its neighbors. That is not a settlement; it is leaving the shopkeepers alone with the mob and telling them to work it out among themselves. The U.S. assiduously avoided the word “tolls,” so Iran rebranded them “service fees.” The honest term is protection money—and the only thing Iran is offering protection from is itself.
Clause 6, the reconstruction fund, must come as an even more bitter pill for the Gulf allies—particularly those who took the U.S. at its word two weeks ago, when it pledged to make “Iranian assets [available] to its Gulf allies to support, repair and mitigate future damage that Iran may cause.” That promise has been inverted. Rather than Iran paying for the damage it inflicts, the MOU drafts a Marshall Plan while the Nazis are still in power—and leaves France and Britain to foot the bill for German reconstruction.
The most immediate problem for Israel is the first clause: Lebanon, whose status is left unclear by the MOU. . .
Supposedly Iran has told Hezbollah that Israel will withdraw from Lebanon within two months, but of course Israel didn’t sign the agreement. In fact, I don’t see that the U.S. is guaranteed to get anything from Iran that we didn’t have before the war. The deal stinks, and even Trump’s Republican cronies know it. He just wanted to be rid of the war so he wouldn’t have to suffer from the economic repercussions of the fight, and so he gave away the shop. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t seem to care about the terms of the deal save that a war they didn’t like will be over.
*If that weren’t depressing enough, read Douglas Murray’s first full article on the Free Press, “How Trump Fell into the Iranian trap.”
At present the Trump administration seems to have united its critics from left and right, foreign and domestic, over the deal to end current hostilities.
Three aspects of the deal symbolize the problem.
The first is that one of the initial steps in the process insists that the regime in Tehran allows the Strait of Hormuz to be open to international shipping and the free flow of oil carriers and other vessels through the region.
The trouble is that the Iranian regime has for decades used this strategic vantage point to blackmail the world.
Whenever the Iranian regime wanted to put pressure on other countries—for instance, to lift sanctions against the regime—the regime sent its vessels to go poaching in the straits. Even during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, Iranian military vessels repeatedly harassed and threatened American warships, flying drones at them and provoking them to fire warning shots at Iranian attack crafts.
. . . That’s what the Iranian regime was doing in relatively normal times. So why should anyone believe that after the past year of war they will start to be generous in their treatment of international waters?
The second aspect of the reported deal, which is surprising critics and supporters of Trump alike, is the suggestion that the agreement would allow a vast flow of cash to enter Iran. In a CBS interview on Monday morning, Vice President J.D. Vance seemed to confirm that Iran would get “access” to an inflow of funds worth somewhere in the region of $300 billion within months of the striking the deal. The vice president was at pains to say that this “reconstruction fund” would not come from American taxpayers but rather investments from various Gulf countries.
Whatever the source of the funds, payouts to Tehran have been tried before. The results were disastrous, which Trump knows very well. . .
. . . Thirdly, of course, there is the issue that kicked off this latest round of conflict in the first place: the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions.
Whatever the source of the funds, payouts to Tehran have been tried before. The results were disastrous, which Trump knows very well.
If the remainder of the Iranian regime has come to the negotiating table in order to give up their residual fissile material for good, then that would be one thing. The enriched uranium—which is believed to be buried deep underground at facilities in Isfahan, Fordow, and other sites—would need to be manually removed. If an agreement can be reached to extract that uranium in order to ensure that the sites do not leak and that the regime cannot restart its program at a later date, then Trump can boast of a victory.
But here is what is, for many observers, the most disturbing alleged part of the peace deal: the“promise” from the Iranian regime that they will not restart their nuclear weapons program. They have lied about their nuclear program for decades. And this lie started from the very top.
Those who claim that Iran has been abiding by its agreements should read about the Israeli capture of Iranian documents (another amazing feat of Israeli intelligence), which “showed beyond any doubt that Tehran had for years been hiding its nuclear weapons program and lying, dissimulating, and hiding that program from the international community.” This also covered the period when Obama was President.
. . .the issue with the present MOU is not whether the Iranians fear Trump. It is that they look set to receive the funds and freedom to survive and then weapons-develop another day. When Trump first sent the B-2 bombers to Iran, he was fulfilling a historic mission: to ensure not only that the Iranian regime could not create a nuclear weapon on his watch, but that they could not create such a weapon on any successor’s watch. After all, as the president knows, there can always be another Obama, Biden, or even Kamala Harris in the future.
That’s the good thing about agreements that aren’t worth the paper they’re not even written on. The Iranians won’t take it seriously. Neither should we. There is still time to correct this looming mistake.
Of course to “correct” this we have to start attacking Iran again, and does anybody but zealots like me have the stomach for anything like that? Finally, any Democratic administration could (and probably would) allow Iran to violate a nuclear agreement. (Note that Murray says “even Kamala Harris,” suggesting she would be the least likely to be a hard-liner on Iran, which is true.)
*Antisemitic (and anti-Iranian) Corner: According to the Jerusalem Post, during a World Cup match between Iran and New Zealand, the authorities ordered the removal of an Israeli flag “for safety reasons” while Palestinian flags nearby were allowed. But after that match, the Iranian team was ordered back to its training camp in Mexico, presumably for safety reasons as well.
An Israeli flag was removed from a fan at a FIFA World Cup match between Iran and New Zealand while Palestinian flags nearby were reportedly left untouched, Hebrew media reported Wednesday. The incident, filmed inside the stadium and circulated on social media, showed stewards asking a fan to hand over an Israeli flag during Iran’s opening match of the 2026 World Cup, Israel Hayom reported. The fan pointed to Palestinian flags being held a few rows away and accused the stewards of applying the rules unevenly. “Why don’t you tell them to take down their flag?” the fan said, according to Israel Hayom. “This feels like antisemitism. When you take that flag down, I’ll take mine down.”
The stewards reportedly told the fan the Israeli flag had to be removed for safety reasons and said the order did not come from them personally. Israel Hayom reported that the fan eventually handed over the flag after being told he would receive it back later. In another part of the video, a steward reportedly told him flags of teams playing in the match were allowed, a rule that would not explain why Palestinian flags were left visible.
I suppose that the Israeli flags were there displaying Israel’s solidarity with the people of Iran, though I don’t know for sure. It’s okay to ban all flags, or even to allow the flags of the two teams in the match, be selective enforcement of flags in this way is a no-no, “security” conditions or otherwise.
The coach of Iran’s World Cup team said it was ordered to leave the U.S. and return to its training base in Mexico only a few hours after opening its politically charged tournament by playing to a 2-2 draw with New Zealand on Monday night.
Coach Amir Ghalenoei didn’t say who ordered the Iranians to leave earlier than planned. The team had expected to spend the night in California to maximize the normal recovery process after its opening game, only to be told after the match that everyone must immediately get on a plane for the 140-mile trip back to Tijuana.
“They didn’t even give us time to recover,” Ghalenoei said through an interpreter. “After the game today, they said to us, ‘You have to leave immediately.’ It’s very important for us to have time for recovery, (but) we are asked to get on a plane and return to our camp in Tijuana, and we are really troubled by that.”
Speaking to CBS News on Monday, Andrew Giuliani, the executive director of the White House’s World Cup task force, said that Iran’s team would be allowed to enter the U.S. one day before each match, but would be required to leave on the evening of their matches.
I presume Iran agreed to go across the border for safety reasons; after all, we’re at war with them. But if they didn’t agree, then it’s American responsibility to keep its team safe in the U.S.. And ordering the Iranian team back to Tijuana prematurely is a no-no.
*The Obama Center (his equivalent of the Presidential Library),officially opened yesterday just a few blocks from me, and a pantheon of stars and bigwigs showed up to perform or to watch:
Former President Barack Obama, joined by three former presidents, celebrated the opening of his presidential museum in Chicago in an extraordinary event Thursday that brought together world leaders, A-list celebrities, athletes and other internationally known figures.
Bono, John Legend, Christina Aguilera, Marc Anthony and Eddie Vedder took turns on the stage ahead of planned performances by Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Wonder.
Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters were seated on stage with former presidents Joe Biden, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton along with former first ladies Jill Biden, Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was also in attendance.
President Donald Trump was not in attendance. He called the $850 million center a “total disaster” in a social media post in February.
. . . . Jennifer Hudson sang the national anthem and Aguilera delivered a rousing rendition of “What a Wonderful World.” Pearl Jam’s Vedder, joined by Chicago teenagers in the nonprofit Guitars Over Guns program, sang an original song called “Better Believe,” written just for the dedication.
Legend sang “Someday We’ll All Be Free” and was joined by the rapper Common and Uniting Voices Chicago for their Academy Award-winning song “Glory.”
Bono, who said he was there representing the Irish, joined with The Edge in singing the U2 song “City of Blinding Lights.” The Roots served as the house band.
The invite-only celebration was livestreamed and kicks off a weekend of events centered around the Obama Presidential Center, which opens to the general public on Juneteenth. Thousands more watched from a nearby park.
Those at the event included California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate; civil rights leaders Andrew Young and Al Sharpton; Oprah Winfrey; comedians David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and Stephen Colbert; actor Tom Hanks; tennis legend Billie Jean King and Chicago Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts.
Here’s a long video of the Grand Opening. Michelle Obama’s talk praising her husband starts at 2:25:40, and Barack wiped away a tear. I should add that the Center has a full-sized basketball court in honor of the ex-President’s favorite sport.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej again discuss the Meaning of Life:
Hili: Everything has already happened.
Andrzej: In a way, you’re right, but these are repetitions with variations.
In Polish:
Hili: Wszystko już było.
Ja: W pewnym sensie masz rację, ale to są powtórzenia z wariacjami.
*******************
From Meow Incorporated:
From The Dodo Pet:
Another great medieval letter from TherionArms:
As I expected, Masih doesn’t like the U.S./Iran “peace deal” very much.
President Biden replaced the Taliban with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now President Trump is replacing the Islamic Republic with… the Islamic Republic.
Real peace doesn’t come from empowering tyrants.
My take on MOU. @marthamaccallum pic.twitter.com/kNulJiWcrQ— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) June 17, 2026
From Luana. Eman Abdelhadi is an assistant professor in Chicago’s Department of Comparative Human Development, and appears to be here solely so she can indoctrinate our students. “F- the University of Chicago; it’s evil,” she starts. I don’t know squat about El-Sayed, but I see that he’s a “progressive” and shares some of his half-sister’s views. That doesn’t bode well for Democrats.
When @TradeUnionJake told me Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was the half-brother of the infamous Eman Abdelhadi, my jaw hit the floor.
I am so glad this article is finally live because this has been a wild secret to sit on.
Please enjoy my favorite Eman moment! https://t.co/iSKLvhMO3P pic.twitter.com/nrIpr4LEFM
— Stu Smith (@thestustustudio) June 15, 2026
The Number Ten Cat reposts a 13-year-old tweet from Donald Trump:
Trump was right all along: https://t.co/joCEQRp5MT
— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) June 18, 2026
Two from my feed. First the “new regime” in Iran is worse than the old regime, since it’s made up of hard-line Revolutionary Guards. And it’s still arresting women for singing:
The “new regime” in Iran that Trump claims is so much better than its predecessors just sentenced singer Parastoo Ahmadi and eight musicians to 74 lashes, a two-year travel ban, and a two-year ban on artistic activity.
Her crime? Daring to record a private performance. Women’s… pic.twitter.com/msJjrQx9is
— Navid Mohebbi نوید محبی (@navidmohebbi) June 17, 2026
I’ve seen this in Botany Pond. Note that the female is larger:
This turtle behavior, often called “claw fluttering,” is a courtship ritual where a male rapidly vibrates or waves his long front claws near a female’s face to attract her pic.twitter.com/1K8MGxHSQh
— Nature Unedited (@NatureUnedited) June 18, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
x
And two from Dr. Cobb, now in southern France. The first is salacious:
Good news for anybody in a very specific part of Northern Ireland.
— Angry People in Local Newspapers (@apiln.bsky.social) 2026-06-18T10:29:03.568Z
Plenty weird!
As you can see, Newtonian Mechanics is very simple…
— Peter Coles 🏳️🌈 🏳️⚧️ 🇮🇪 (@telescoper.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T10:20:18.334Z
Not to single out Obama (whom I voted for twice), but these “presidential libraries” are ridiculously ostentatious shrines. Surely there was a more noble use for the $850 million that was just spent on Obama’s shrine.
Probably true, but humans seem to require great stories and monuments and acclaim to motivate other good actions, so it’s possibly worth the money. It would be nice if that were not necessary, but that would require some other species, I think.
Seems like you could build a perfectly nice monument for, say, $250 million. Now, of course, our current egomaniacal president will need to substantially outdo Obama.
Regrettably so. And you’re probably right.
But he won’t have anything to put in it!
I propose a large neoclassical building modelled on Rome’s Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus¹; with the central colossal gold statue being Trump standing, wielding a dunderbolt. No need to clutter up the building with anything else; but for history purists the rest of the Capitoline Triad can be present as smaller statues of wife Melania on one side and daughter Ivanka on the other.
…………
¹ Literally, “most greatest”.
with one ex-wife buried under the temple.
Sort of agree there, Robert, but I share JohnE’s distain at the size, cost and grandeur.
People have egos, and great people have larger ones, but there’s an aesthetic and moral appeal to expressing them with less than 800+Million clams.
Reasonably people can differ on this of course, and I was thinking…. is there a possibility it will actually make a profit? That accounting is above my pay grade.
Good point about what Trump will have to pay for his. In fact I wrote a funny parody on this topic -newly elected Trump’s eventual library in 2016 in my column. (syndicated, unpaywalled here)
https://democracychronicles.org/trump-presidential-library/
D.A.
NYC
I agree with you both on the scale/cost. The profit question is interesting…
Love your riff on the Volkshalle.
Who pays for such things? And why is this one so ugly?
“I suppose that the Israeli flags were there displaying Israel’s solidarity with the people of Iran, though I don’t know for sure.”
I agree: since Israel isn’t in the world cup, this is the only reason that makes sense to me, and it’s a shame the people in Iran didn’t get to see this display of solidarity on their TV screen.
As a Scotch drinker, I never made an effort to understand it, but my (now late) wine and cheese guy told me many years ago that “shaken not stirred” was a real thing and based on the chemistry of the aromatics, a key component of martinis…FWIW.
There are a few difference between shaken and stirred. First, a stirred drink is clear, while a shaken drink gets lots of tiny bubbles that makes it look cloudy. Shaken mixes things much much better, and releases more flavour in some cases. The bubble thing is the more easily noticed thing unless you have a “super nose”.
Traditionally, a martin is stirred to keep it clear, so Bond was displaying a bit of idiosyncratic behavior. Some less charitable people may even say it was déclassé.
Here’s a different view of the MOU on RealClearPolitics: “New Iran MOU Leaves Tehran Weaker and U.S. Stronger”. I’d just say that while I would like to see the Islamic Regime out, and that they represent a continuing danger to world peace, public opinion on both sides of the spectrum made it clear that there was no stomach for the casualties that would result from a land campaign, which would have been required.
Trump never even tried to make the case for a land campaign.
What do you mean by “land campaign?” If you mean a full-scale invasion of Tehran, particularly with the intent to topple the regime, then I would welcome you forwarding me planning details proposed by any serious analysts or retired military officers with significant experience in the region.
I’ve said it several times before, but I’ll repeat it: some tasks are not feasible no matter one’s wealth, will, or might. Constraints of geography, population size, logistics, and an adversary’s asymmetric capabilities and experience cannot be wished away or overcome by political rah-rah speeches and runaway desires. The military challenges are immense and likely insurmountable—no matter the political implications or our country’s enthusiasm. But given that my military and policy experience is elsewhere, I am more than willing to entertain detailed proposals from others. I have been unable to find any.
Limited operations in and near the Strait of Hormuz, while still high-risk and difficult to sustain, fall within U.S. military capability. But as Dr. B points out, the country does not have a stomach for the casualties we would likely incur. Might a president be able to sway public opinion given rampant political tribalism and long memories about extensive deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe, but I doubt it.
But then Trump shouldn’t have attacked them the way he did for the reasons he cited – because it wasn’t possible or feasible. He went ahead with his doomed-to-fail plan without even attempting to persuade the public to support it or anything more ambitious, because he’s a bad president.
While you are welcome to those opinions, your conclusion about a “doomed-to-fail plan” doesn’t follow from what I said. Both Rubio and Hegseth were clear from the start that regime change was not a military objective—and they stressed that repeatedly. While I would have refrained from doing so, there is nothing inconsistent in also voicing hopes that U.S. and Israeli military action might set favorable conditions for the Iranian population to overthrow the regime. Nor does the fact that a militarily-imposed regime change was not on the table mean that the military strikes were pointless. The degree to which they mattered will depend on what happens now and over the coming years. I’ll leave it to others to declare early victory or defeat for a contest in progress.
So what WAS the point of the whole exercise? Nothing seems to have been achieved.
Meh. Truman solved his land-campaign problem rather efficiently. What would stop Trump from doing the same? His morals ??
There was really never any case to make, as Doug explains. The fantasy was that the Munchkins would emerge from the forest to form a democracy after the tornado liberated them by precision-guiding Dorothy’s house to fall on the Wicked Witch. No cause for Dorothy to stick around as Queen to rule them. Sadly, some of the Munchkins were the Witch’s armed minions who saw an opportunity. And presto! regime change, just not what we wanted.
Invading Iran without the approval of the UN Security Council*, merely as a Plan B to impose regime change against the bad Munchkins would have been the war crime, under international law, of waging aggressive war, the chief indictment at Nuremberg (along with crimes against humanity.) There is a serious possibility that a vindictive Resistance-Party Administration that took office in 2029 would have prosecuted the former President and a judge might have hanged him on conviction, especially if the war had gone badly. (Losing is the unforgivable crime because soldiers ought not to die for nothing.) Unless pardoned in anticipation, President Trump isn’t off the hook for the acts of war — bombing and blockade — that he did commit against Iran already. The Jan 6 indictment process provides a template.
Was there a casus belli that gave or would have given the President justification to launch a pre-emptive aggressive war +/- conquest as an emergency to protect Americans from imminent threat? If so (such as?), then for surprise and secrecy he couldn’t have publicized his case beforehand.
(Because the United States won’t render U.S. citizens to a foreign Court in The Hague, it is incumbent on America to prosecute international crimes committed by its citizens itself, domestically. No foreigner can force it to undertake a prosecution it deems not in the public interest but it can if it chooses to.)
(* If Congress had issued a declaration of war, the legislators might have been implicated in the war crime personally. Authority carries responsibility.)
“Unless pardoned in anticipation, President Trump isn’t off the hook for the acts of war — bombing and blockade — that he did commit against Iran already. The Jan 6 indictment process provides a template.”
I don’t know if you’re up on semi-recent (post Jan 6) SCOTUS rulings, but the highest court in the land deams the President above the law while in office (at least this particular POTUS, who knows what happens if a Dem becomes POTUS). So Trump can’t break any laws and can’t be prosecuted, domestically or otherwise (you explained why a foreign court can’t prosecute him).
I question whether “not getting approval by the UN Security Council” has any bearing on Trump’s decisions.
But not getting approval from the Security Council does have bearing on his decisions if that were to be the basis for a domestic criminal indictment brought by his political opponents. That would be the very basis for the charge.
My understanding is that there is absolute immunity only for official acts under his exclusive Constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for all other official acts. The question would be: Were his acts of war (not necessarily invasion) outside his Constitutional authority because they weren’t endorsed by Congress and therefore not covered by his immunity?
This would get murky and contentious. My point is that even if he could beat the criminal aggressive war rap, does he really want to spend the rest of his days like Hitler’s henchmen in and out of courtrooms with a lethal injection in the back of his mind if against the odds he got convicted? All for “finishing the job” winning a war that, in his mind, a nation full of ingrates was determined to spite him out of any credit for? I’d chicken out there, too. To get back to the original point, he couldn’t make the case for invading Iran because even if he had excellent reasons that most people might have come around to accepting, his opponents would know he was violating international law against war…..and they could whack him for it.
Would any physics people care to assess this AI interpretation of the Newtonian mechanics video?
——‘
It is a computer simulation, which means it is a digital model, not a physical object filmed with a camera.
Why It Looks Frictionless
You noticed a very important detail.
Perfect vacuum: The simulation calculates the movement inside a perfect, idealized digital environment.
Zero friction: The creator intentionally programmed the simulation with zero air resistance and zero joint friction.
Energy conservation: Because there is no friction to steal energy from the system, the pendulum will never slow down or stop.
In the real, physical world, a double pendulum slows down quickly due to friction. In a “real simulation,” scientists and programmers often remove friction to study pure, uninterrupted chaotic motion.
I was wondering about the apparent lack of friction. Thanks for the explanation.
A real double pendulum of this design can oscillate for several minutes if properly constructed. The velocity is low here, and, if the joints use good low drag ball bearings (rather than bushings or high draw ball bearings), the behaviour is consistent with expected air drag.
The system does “slow down” (lose kinetic energy via friction and aerodynamic drag), or it would not have changed phase state from both pendulums orbiting the same direction with little energy transfer between them to the more visually chaotic state
I wonder if Hili subscribes to the “block spacetime” idea based on special and general relativity, in which all events in the past, present, and future already and still, in a sense, exist permanently.
Cheese Report: As recommended in the Thursday, June 4, 2026 Hili dialogue, I found an 18 month old Comté cheese from Murray’s at my local Kroger’s. It was very enjoyable. I appreciated the strong taste that made a little go a long way for me. I’ve had zero luck finding Saint-Marcellin in the Central Ohio area.
Book Report: I just finished Masih Alinejad’s memoir, The Wind in My Hair and really enjoyed it. It was a quick and easy read. I can’t imagine living in Iran and putting up with what they do. It makes me thankful for our freedoms we have in the West even though I think some would like to see them eroded. Her stances may have changed, but she was clear at the end of her book, she was not anti-hijab, but anti-compulsory hijab. I share her views but think that even if given the choice, most would still wear some kind of covering because religious, cultural, familial pressure. She’s a nascent freethinker who while in high school asked the old question “If everything that displays order had a creator, who or what created the creator?” Because her book was published in 2018, I hope she has another in the works to hear all about her troubles since then.
IMHO, It’s sad, but they’re never going to see improvement in Iran while their religion rules the day.
Regarding Eman Abdelhadi. I’m close to a free speech absolutist. No lashings, beatings, imprisonment, etc… but we should instead politely yet forcibly show people like her the door. We’re very far from perfect, but if you’re only role is to complain and not work to make it a “more perfect union” while enjoying our freedoms, then find someplace else to live.
Free speech is one thing. Employing people who support terrorism, or openly proclaiming that they want to breing down the institution that supports them, or the other institutions of society, is quite another.
The only hopeful sign regarding the MOU is that everyone hates it—except for J.D. Vance, apparently, who was dispatched to sell it to an unreceptive audience. Whatever its true intent, the MOU does allow the administration to test the waters before proceeding with the meat of the deal. If the uproar is loud enough that Trump thinks the path he’s set out could jeopardize his “legacy,” maybe he’ll divert from the path during the real negotiations. That is one razor-thin sliver of hope.
But events are unpredictable. I’m expecting Iran to behave itself over the next 60 days, as it has so much to gain just by doing nothing. But maybe an over-eager Hezbollah leader will get out over his skis and trigger enough chaos in Lebanon to throw the whole thing up into the air. Or maybe an ambitious IRGC leader will get greedy enough to make an outrageous demand that Trump can’t countenance. Am I reaching for something that could scuttle the deal? I don’t even know.
If Hezbollah improbably manages to not do something egregiously provocative, I expect Israel has backup plans for a false-flag operation. They would be negligent not to have any.
Did you GO to the Obama Library opening PCC(E)? – given its right next to you?
And I understand there’s not a lot of fun things to do in Chicago, sadly. Unlike say, NYC. 😉
I voted for Obama twice AND I’m a big fan of Brutalist architecture. Add another unpopular opinion to my scandal portfolio (sigh), but I’m not impressed by the design of Obama’s edifice, nor the cost. Paid for by friends and donors presumably, a $800+M eternal structure to one’s own ego and legacy isn’t a good look. It looks a bit corrupt TBH. Of course, insignificant next to today’s next level presidential corruption, but still.
I’ll observe here, I hadn’t thought Michelle was so woke as she is?/has become? which is disappointing.
D.A.
NYC
ps if anybody likes travel youtubers, I wrote a review of the best ones for my column:
https://themoderatevoice.com/a-review-of-the-best-three-travel-youtubers/