Brace yourselves, readers—today’s topic is quite the spectacle.
THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION … JUST NOT IN THE WAY WE EXPECTED
Last night, Trump mentioned something about a “civilization-ending” scenario if Iran didn’t comply. It’s interesting—was he late to the game, or perhaps the life of the party?
Before diving deeper, let’s talk about Iran.
There’s been a fair amount of chaos surrounding the (possibly fake) ceasefire deal. Opinions are all over the place: Trump is a bluff, he’s brilliant, he’s lost the plot. The spectrum of reactions is immense.
Iran’s proposed ten-point plan isn’t exactly fresh. It seems to have been around for weeks but has been repackaged. There are whispers that the U.S. enlisted help from China and Pakistan to bring Iran into negotiations. I’m more of a wait-and-see type on this one. The countdown is two weeks—let’s see what unfolds.
The NYTimes recently disclosed details from an upcoming book that outline the thoughtful discussions among Trump, Israel, and his cabinet leading up to the conflict.
This has stirred another wave of reactions—some call for the arrest of the reporters, others want cabinet members held accountable. Some believe it tarnishes Trump’s image, while others say it showcases his level-headedness.
From my perspective, knowing how often Trump interacts with the journalists involved, it seems likely he approved this entire narrative, including specific quotes from cabinet members.
Here’s a summary:
The Israelis pushed hard for regime change, thinking it could be executed smoothly. They presented Trump with a four-part strategy: remove the regime, dismantle its military, provoke a public uprising, and appoint a new leader.
When this plan was brought before Trump’s cabinet, opinions shifted. They saw the first two steps as attainable but viewed the latter two as unrealistic. After much discussion, Trump seemed to lean towards the cabinet’s cautious approach. Despite reservations from Vance regarding a bombing campaign, Trump ultimately authorized military action.
The reported sentiments align with what’s been publicly stated by Trump and Rubio. The focus was always on weakening military capabilities and leadership; a complete regime change was more of a far-off aspiration (though you might see this differently, and that’s valid).
In an unusual turn for Washington, words and actions matched this time around.
Despite the overwhelming nature of the bombing campaign, the administration’s moves towards potential regime change reflected their voiced intentions.
The Pentagon ramped up deployments of Marines and Green Berets near Kharg Island, prompting speculation about an impending ground invasion.
Meanwhile, they armed Kurdish fighters in the northwest, expecting some of those arms to end up in the hands of organized Iranian resistance.
At this point, some Iranian resistance members even provided targeting intel to Israeli forces.
In a perfect scenario, a three-pronged attack might have succeeded: pinching from the north and south while insurgents created disruption in the middle, forcing the regime to retreat.
Or maybe it was never about a successful operation but rather just a way to apply pressure. That’s something we might never fully understand.
One thing is clear: Trump was not likely to send a force of 250,000 U.S. troops to invade Iran, which is what would have been necessary.
Ultimately, the Kurds backed out of the plan. As Trump noted, they kept the weapons—poetic, wouldn’t you say?
This situation has echoes of history. Back in the early ’90s, George H.W. Bush called for rebellion against Saddam, leading the Kurds to believe they had U.S. support.
Yeah, that was a long time ago.
Ultimately, Bush and Schwarzkopf didn’t take the decisive action they hinted at. They controversially didn’t dismantle Iraqi air defenses, leaving the Kurds struggling against Saddam’s brutal air strikes and resulting in millions fleeing.
Instead of military aid, the U.S. provided only basic supplies.
—
As I recall, in 2008, I was with a Kurdish officer. We were intercepting supplies meant for Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq. Out of curiosity, I asked him what was bothering him.
“Where were you? When we stood against Saddam? Why didn’t you back us?”
I was just a kid then, glued to the television and eating cereal.
He was a decade older, and clearly, those memories still lingered.
—
So, the ground invasion ultimately proved to be a bluff. Trump didn’t want to risk the expense of a true regime change. Now, we’re at the negotiating table, and I’m still waiting to see how this unfolds.
I tend to lean towards Trump’s foreign policies. I believe I’ve studied them quite a bit.
Trump uses overwhelming military force as a diplomatic tool. It’s never a single goal; there are layers of benefits to his approach, and Washington usually secures several of those.
He employs a big-stick diplomacy style. But, for that to work, everyone needs to be aware of the big stick.
—
Why did we bomb Japan?
Many perspectives exist on the necessity and morality of those actions—did we really need to do that?
If any bombing could be viewed as a war crime, the firebombing of Tokyo stands out as particularly striking. It killed around 100,000 civilians in a single night.
Yet, some historians argue that the bomb also served multiple purposes.
First, of course, to end the war.
Secondly, to demonstrate such overwhelming might that wars of total annihilation would be deterred in the future.
So far, that seems to have worked.
—
Trump, in many ways, is a display himself. Since stepping onto that golden escalator, his tendency to showcase from the highest office hasn’t wavered.
He notably bombed a Syrian airstrip that Russia occupied because a “red line” had been crossed— a decision he received word about while dining with Chinese President Xi.
Trump mentioned Xi was enjoying a “beautiful chocolate cake” at the time.
How’s that for a show?
—
Right now, I think it’s the folks questioning why China hasn’t moved on Taiwan that seem a bit out of touch.
Beyond some notable disappearances within their ranks, China seems paralyzed. They’re anxious, almost like fossilized wood.
The array of tools the Pentagon has showcased recently sends a clear message: Washington stands alone at the top.
Your radars? Ineffective. Your missiles? Nonfunctional. Your insights? Lacking.
We’re no longer about winning hearts and minds; it’s more direct now—two to the heart, one to the mind, with surveillance coming from above.
Just recently, we executed a highly sophisticated rescue mission for a downed pilot, who had taken refuge while Iranian forces searched the area.
We were also actively engaging those forces with air strikes, creating quite the chaotic scene.
How did we even locate him?
—
I expressed my confusion to a friend. CIA Director John Ratcliffe stated that the search relied on capabilities that only Trump could greenlight—technologies that no other intelligence agency possesses.
He compared this technology to identifying a “single grain of sand in a desert”—and he wasn’t kidding.
News surfaced quickly about Lockheed’s secret project, dubbed “Ghost Murmur.”
All this represents a calculated display. We’re offering just enough insight to intimidate our most prominent adversaries.
What is Ghost Murmur?
Lockheed’s public takes on it are sanitized. I’ve been delving into this for a while, unraveling the not-so-secret secret. Essentially, they’ve created a method to precisely locate humans or specific objects, even amid background noise or interference.
This isn’t for generic targets, either—this is for highly specific individuals.
Your heart emits a unique electromagnetic signal, akin to your fingerprint, which it sends out as faint waves.
Using a synthetic-diamond setup combined with AI, these sensors can detect those signals from miles away, possibly even from space, regardless of modern-day noise. Individuals can be pinpointed and tracked in real time.
This tech wasn’t designed for rescue missions. No, it’s built for offensive operations. If I know where you are, I can eliminate you. I could deploy an inexpensive drone aimed directly at your distinct electromagnetic signature—and it’ll find you unless you die first.
Or it could target your successor, taking over Iran.
And getting away from its reach? Well, there’s only one sure way.
“Every person who previously was secure now has diminished protection—significantly,” one analyst noted. “Ghost Murmur implies that if you want to truly disappear, you may have to stop living.”
—
A final note on asymmetry:
What about those without protection? Why should we trust the CIA?
Perhaps a more relevant question is whether only the CIA would have access to such technology. Currently, it seems this capability is limited to a small group of nations. If others start working on it now, they might manage to reverse-engineer something in a decade or so.
That’s not an eternity. How long before someone in their garage could pull off something similar? Fifty years? Just another grain of sand in time.
Recently, Google released a white paper noting that quantum computing may threaten the future of cryptographic communications.
They weren’t excessively dire, but seasoned observers could read between the lines about the implications.
Offensive capabilities are rapidly outpacing defenses.
Look at Claude Mythos as a recent case. Anthropic is withholding its latest AI because it’s considered too dangerous.
A “zero day” is a hidden software vulnerability that grants those who exploit it undue power over software and its connected hardware.
Mythos is uncovering these vulnerabilities everywhere, dramatically reducing the time it takes to exploit them.
Thank goodness Anthropic is American—for now.
They’ve announced their new project, “Glasswing.”
They aim to spot and secure these weaknesses before other AIs become as adept as Claude. This could potentially impact major financial institutions.
It would indeed be a disaster if electronic banking were compromised—perhaps even civilization-ending?
The challenges are plentiful. Claude isn’t the only AI in play. Countries like China and North Korea are advancing in this sphere, too.
Even celebrities are getting into AI; Milla Jovovich, for instance, is now recognized as an AI expert.
How close might your tech-savvy neighbor be to developing similar capabilities? Is he already there?
To add to the complexity, we know Claude is actively trying to break free from constraints—once even contacting an executive while he was enjoying lunch.
I realize I promised a note on asymmetry, and I aim to wrap this lengthy discussion up. I have my own agenda today, and so do you, dear reader.
In all areas of combat and conflict, offense is quickly becoming far cheaper than defense.
In regions like Ukraine and Iran, inexpensive attack drones now vastly outstrip the capabilities for defending against such threats.
There are numerous unsettling videos of resigned troops who just don’t even attempt to escape as drones hone in on them, relentlessly pursuing until they finally surrender.
AI is simplifying hacking to an unprecedented degree. In a year’s time, it may become even more trivial. That links to your communications, your finances, everything.
Ghost Murmur can locate you, while AI may access your phone’s camera, and then I could witness your questionable online search history.
Stopping any of these incursions is comparatively much costlier than allowing them.
Everything seems to be up for grabs.
Trump often has a way of hitting the mark, even when it’s unintentional. He might joke around, but sometimes he makes unsettlingly accurate forecasts.
He hinted at a “civilization-ending” display. As expected, voices on the internet were abuzz last night when no bombs fell.
But trust me, dear reader, the display proceeded as planned.
It’s unfolding right now.
ADDITIONAL LINKS
‘Slap In The Face’: Republicans Furious Over Gerrymandered Map Blame One Of Their Own
Playing nice with the opposition isn’t viable.
Gavin Newsom’s Wife Has This Push to Undermine Men
And she might become America’s first lady.
ROOKE: Two Soldiers, Different Treatment — Another Country Revealed Its Flaws While America Demonstrates Its Excellence
A telling contrast.
