Althouse: Sunrise.

September 28, 2026

Sunrise.

93 comments:

Not an oldster. said...: Be honest...
Do you recycle these?; 9/28/26, 7:42 PM
Iman said...: “Definition of Stupid:

Seeing the Truth,
Knowing the Truth
But still voting Democrat”; 9/28/26, 8:08 PM
Iman said...: It’s a beautiful world.; 9/28/26, 8:08 PM
Eva Marie said...: A few days ago I watched Closed Circuit on a recommendation here by Rhhardin. Now life imitates art, or at least Instapundit thinks it could:
“Okay, this is more like a plot for a novel than a serious theory. But imagine that elements within the British security apparatus — perhaps suborned by Iran, perhaps following an agenda of their own — set this up. Perhaps they wanted an excuse to crack down, perhaps an excuse to tell the US to leave. Then they were busted by some random farmer who called local police who didn’t know not to arrest the terrorists. Now they need to make this go away lest the real agenda leak out, so they let them out on bail and they’ll never be heard from again.”
From the Washington Examiner:
“Five suspects believed to have been planning an attack on a U.S. Air Force base in the United Kingdom have been released on bail.”; 9/28/26, 8:10 PM
narciso said...: Also cleanskin a sean bean vehicle as one with david owelowo; 9/28/26, 8:11 PM
narciso said...: No 3 narrowly; 9/28/26, 8:12 PM
narciso said...: Complicit in 2013; 9/28/26, 8:23 PM
narciso said...: Came across a memoir of marina warner set in 40 egypt that reads like a novel; 9/28/26, 8:49 PM
Eva Marie said...: Thx narciso. Watched The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Very good. Thx for that as well.; 9/28/26, 8:51 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Real Live Black Mirror : Target Tests Acuity In-Store Bluetooth Tracking; 9/28/26, 8:55 PM
Christopher B said...: Eva, per an update also from Instapundit, the farmer who called the cops claims she saw 8 to 10 men in the group, not just 5, and that no security official has contacted her to gather more information about the incident.; 9/28/26, 8:55 PM
narciso said...: Youre welcome, guy ritchie turns out some gems like ministry of ungentlemanly warfare; 9/28/26, 9:01 PM
Iman said...: COBRA meeting.

I imagine it goes something like this:

Burnham: “We’ve been fkn rumbled by Trump and a farmer.” 🤦🏻‍♂️

Cabinet: “Oh fuck. What are our options?” 😳

Burnham: “Trump has given us five ultimatums:

Ditch China.
Secure your borders.
Start deporting.
Drill for fkn oil.
Ditch Net Zero.”

Cabinet: “Fuck off. We’ll take the country down with us.” 🤨

https://x.com/boot15_vu/status/2104641643282645200?s=12; 9/28/26, 9:09 PM
Eva Marie said...: @CB:,That’s crazy; 9/28/26, 9:11 PM
Dave Begley said...: My Second Worst Concert and Meeting Luna.

Flew to Dallas for the Symphony Gala with Idina Menzel. Got some of the last tickets at the top for $180 per.

Idina says she has a cold, but the show must go on!

Way too much talking. Horrible song selection. One from “Rent” and none from “If/Then.” She covers an Annie Lenox song. Why? Just one song from “Wicked.”

“Defying Gravity” turned into a sing-a-long with the theater kids of Dallas. I was horrified. I didn’t pay for that.

The worst of it was when three different plants were called up to the stage to sing “Let it Go” with Idina. One was good but her parents probably paid $50k for this stunt. The paying audience, however, didn’t sign up for this show. That wasn’t on the marquee.

After the show we weave our way down the lobby. I ask one of the ushers where the King & Spalding party is. The usher’s name tag says “Luna.”

Luna opens her month and speaks. Even dense DDB from Omaha realizes Luna is a 13-15 year old boy in a long black dress.

How does this happen? Where are the parents?

We are at the End of Days.

And I really resent the rich Dallas swells for allowing that stunt with the three plants in the audience. More liberal corruption.

The fabulous full orchestra was great, but didn’t get to do the show that should have happened.; 9/28/26, 9:17 PM
Big Mike said...: I see hat the latest sign of White Supremacy is white paint. Oh, my poor neighbor. My poor BLACK next door neighbor. All that white siding he will need to replace!!! All the white woodwork and those white ceilings inside. Maybe he could paint the ceilings a really, really light blue? Or maybe we should start telling all the non-STEM university professors to F-O.; 9/28/26, 9:26 PM
narciso said...: This is when you bring in graham chapman it has gotten much too silly; 9/28/26, 9:28 PM
Josephbleau said...: Picture 3!

“This is the day the Lord has made.
Let us rejoice, and be happy in it.”; 9/28/26, 9:29 PM
Christopher B said...: Eva, I find the more fanciful scenarios a bit implausible. The discrepancy in numbers could easily be the difficulty of viewing shadowy figures moving in the dark, it's pretty easy to believe a 'sting' given what we know about the actions of our own security forces, and releasing them on bail could be just the normal operation of a 'woke' criminal justice system.; 9/28/26, 9:30 PM
Big Mike said...: Something we need to remember is that one US dollar in 2025 is worth 80 cents in 2020 dollars. I paid 4.19 per gallon to fill up
Over the weekend. In 2020 dollars that would have been $3.20.; 9/28/26, 9:31 PM
Original Mike said...: Scott Jennings:

"As you struggle to pay your own bills, are you prepared to pay the bills for millions of non-citizens, too? That’s what Democrats are proposing - and every GOP campaign ought to be all over it."; 9/28/26, 9:50 PM
TickTock said...: Spent 30 minutes this morning watching Starship 14 deploy starlink satellites like it was sending out seed pods. What a great way to start the day.; 9/28/26, 9:55 PM
Curious George said...: Bears put an ass whoopin' on Philly. Great game by back-up QB Case Keenum.; 9/28/26, 10:14 PM
Big Mike said...: An observation from someone I know. As the government of the UK government continues to support Islamification, will we have to invade them to keep Brirish nukes from radical Muslim hands? She asked in all seriousness, but a chill went down my spine when I heard the question.; 9/28/26, 10:17 PM
Eva Marie said...: Well, it’s complicated. A Washington Examiner opinion piece notes the quick release leaves room for 13 more days of detention if more evidence turns up, and names Iran as the primary suspect. It also raises the possibility the explosives were neutralized at some point by counterterrorism police. With all that in mind, I don’t think the woman mistook 5 men for 10. Maybe some got away, or maybe the others were undercover operatives.
Are British security forces losing control? Maybe not, but they look stretched. Either MI5 was watching and the local police got there first, or nobody was watching and a farmer saved the day. Neither is reassuring. Meanwhile the BBC says it wasn’t intelligence-led, and Trump says “we had them under view for a long time.” And if the men who ran are never mentioned again, that won’t be reassuring either. It’ll look like a cover-up.
What’s clear is that nothing is clear. Great fodder for conspiracy theories, and I suppose all part of the Great Game.; 9/28/26, 10:20 PM
Jim at said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/28/26, 10:27 PM
hanuman_prodigious_leaper said...: @Big Mike said...

Don't forget: Pakistan is Muslim and Radical and Ambitious for Empire - have almost conquered UK; 9/29/26, 12:29 AM
john mosby said...: We won't have to invade the UK to stop radical muzzie nukes.

Just drop guns to Tommy Robinson et al. 80% of the population can make short work of the rest.

Really more than 80%, because most Black Brits won't put up with a muzzie takeover either. And half the Asian Belts aren't Muslim.

Maybe Harry and Andrew can lead the counterrevolution, kind of like the Pahlavi Prince in Iran. CC, JSM; 9/29/26, 2:46 AM
john mosby said...: Would make a great Guy Ritchie x Bollywood mashup: British Hindus and Sikhs free London from a jihadi takeover. Slo-mo explosion walkaways combined with big head-waggling production numbers! CC, JSM; 9/29/26, 2:55 AM
john mosby said...: At the film's climax, a fleet of suburban tradesmen's white vans flying St George flags makes the final breakthrough into the Low Emissions Zone (trailed by frantic PCSOs with their ticket books streaming behind them for comic relief) to link up with the Hindu/Sikh resistance. White, black and brown Brits dance and sing around Churchill's statue outside Parliament to a bhangra beat. CC, JSM; 9/29/26, 3:08 AM
rehajm said...: …it is tens of millions and by pay the bills it doesn’t mean just a middle class lifestyle. Some of them need Maybachs here and have kingdoms to support back home. I have a problem with saying just the Democrats are responsible but they deserve to go first with all the thumb in the scale bullshit that sucks resources.; 9/29/26, 5:18 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Monthly jobless claims continued to decline for the ninth consecutive month, now reaching a level not seen since the 1960s. Tariffs did not “destroy the economy” despite approximately 1,000 posts by the Interminably Emotional Excreter warning of impending doom, much like the ubiquitous cartoon images of the old man with “The end is near” sign.; 9/29/26, 5:44 AM
rehajm said...: and yes Big Mike the propaganda obsessed over price at the pump because someone on their side has heard of inflation. Which is not go give them credit for economic or financial literacy- these are the same people who scream GE doesn’t pay taxes because they don’t know what a tax loss carryforward is, who call for combined tax burdens over 100 percent a tax rate that moves from four to five percent as ‘only a one percent increase’…; 9/29/26, 5:49 AM
rehajm said...: and yes Big Mike the propaganda obsessed over price at the pump because someone on their side has heard of inflation. Which is not go give them credit for economic or financial literacy- these are the same people who scream GE doesn’t pay taxes because they don’t know what a tax loss carryforward is, who call for combined tax burdens over 100 percent a tax rate that moves from four to five percent as ‘only a one percent increase’…; 9/29/26, 5:49 AM
rehajm said...: …one more tidbit this morning- major American bank memo talking about midterms and while they never make election predictions I know they get non public polling data and they’re suggesting financial plans based on Republicans maintaining control of Washington. If nothing else a sharp contrast from the usual propaganda media drivel…; 9/29/26, 6:06 AM
rehajm said...: …also mentioned that 5.1 percent real gdp growth from Atlanta fed and while Q1 and Q2 numbers were 2.1 and 1.5 percent, excluding trade domestic demand running at 4.2 percent q2. Great numbers for everyone except lefties desperately trying to tank the economy…; 9/29/26, 6:12 AM
Humperdink said...: Remember man-caused global warming … er … Climate Climate. We were doomed. Gonna all die in 5 years, or 10 or 12 years.

Then came Covid. Unless you received the clot shot, you were dead. 10 foot separation or you were dead. Biden called it the winter of death for the unvaccinated.

Now we are all going to be cooked, fried or exterminated from AI. Noticing a trend from the Commie left?; 9/29/26, 6:35 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: “Tariffs didn’t destroy the economy” is a pretty impressive straw man. Nobody has to predict economic Armageddon to point out that tariffs raise prices and impose economic costs. The CBO and IMF both project lower GDP from the tariffs, and the New York Fed finds substantial pass-through into consumer prices.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105

An economy surviving a policy isn’t proof that the policy was cost-free. That’s not how economics—or evidence—works.; 9/29/26, 7:47 AM
Leland said...: Something that was not destroyed did not have a destroyer.; 9/29/26, 8:15 AM
Humperdink said...: Funny blurb from PJ Media:

“Ocasio-Cortez has to be struggling with the knowledge that she might not be the prettiest mean girl in the Dem commie clown car. She's pretty much just been able to giggle her way through everything since she got to Congress,”

Giggle her way through? That’s hilarious and fitting. That’s different than Kamala who reclined her way upward.; 9/29/26, 8:22 AM
Josephbleau said...: The CBO and IMF both project lower GDP from the tariffs, and “the New York Fed finds substantial pass-through into consumer prices.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105”

An economy surviving a policy isn’t proof that the policy was cost-free. That’s not how economics—or evidence—works.”

How economics works , Mr IEE, is that there is a competitive balance in all choices. US growth is among the highest of any nation, so Trump is wisely using that leverage to make sure that future Americans see the benefit, like bringing back industry so American young people can have jobs in 10 years.

I know it’s hard for democrats to understand that as it is democrat policy to slurp everything up today for themselves and ignore preparation for the future. To a Democrat, you are a sucker unless you grab the cash for yourself and screw the future.; 9/29/26, 8:36 AM
rehajm said...: …yes the point there is the new tariffs are ALREADY baked in to the strong economic numbers. CBO and IMF and whoever else can try and jawbone economic misery if they choose but the economy is gonna do what it do baby…; 9/29/26, 8:44 AM
Iman said...: Spot on, Josephbleau @8:36am!; 9/29/26, 8:50 AM
Josephbleau said...: This election season many have tried to make the point that Trump is bad because the deficit is high. The annual deficit for the last 20 years has averaged 5.7% of gdp, and in FY 25 26 it was 5.8% of gdp so Trump is no more guilty than the great democrat heros that AOC and Schumer love.

The fact is, that with the senate filibuster Congress always overspends because spending bills are done by reconciliation in darkness and no one can be blamed. No one rain drop is responsible for the flood. So if you want a President to cure the deficit, you need to elect an undivided Congress, good luck. The Deficit is structural. It’s not the President’s doing.; 9/29/26, 8:54 AM
rehajm said...: …and just to repeat the usual note about experts- government forecasters are usually wrong but add ‘spectacularly’ to wrong over the last 24 months…I’m not as surprised with the resiliency though I am surprised the government forecaster’s private counterparts were just as wrong…; 9/29/26, 8:55 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Still waiting to hear how the Democrats plan to address all the economic issues they’ve never been interested in addressing before.; 9/29/26, 8:59 AM
Rustygrommet said...: Here ya go, little richie.
"Broad U.S. tariffs have raised prices, but they have not produced a self-feeding inflation spiral. The reason is not that foreign countries quietly paid every bill."
Attributed to AI
Must be tough being a socialist in a capitalistic country.; 9/29/26, 9:18 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: JB writes: 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 , 𝘔𝘳 𝘐𝘌𝘌, 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴.

America is growing, and the deficit is structural—but neither fact supports the conclusions drawn here.

GDP growth doesn’t prove tariffs are good policy. CBO says tariffs may increase production in some protected industries, but also raise prices, reduce investment, and lower GDP and employment relative to what otherwise would have occurred. BLS projects manufacturing employment to remain little changed over the next decade, so “bringing back industry” does not automatically mean millions of new jobs for young Americans.

The deficit is structural, but that doesn’t mean the president is irrelevant. Presidents don’t control the budget alone, but they influence taxes, spending, and legislation. CBO estimated that the 2025 reconciliation law increased projected deficits by $4.7 trillion over 2026–35.

Comparing Trump’s deficit with Democrats’ proves neither party is fiscally responsible. If the deficit is unsustainable, the real question is which policies are increasing or reducing it.; 9/29/26, 10:45 AM
Original Mike said...: "so “bringing back industry” does not *automatically* mean millions of new jobs for young Americans."

"cost-free"
"automatically"

Your paymaster's drivel is so transparent.

I'll add one more item to Josephbleau's excellent 8:36 post. Protection of critical industries. That we are dependent on our adversaries for critical defense materials is brain-dead stupid.; 9/29/26, 10:56 AM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: Furthermore, what has the current administration actually done to improve the federal debt and deficit outlook this term? The deterioration shouldn’t come as a surprise the administration’s signature fiscal legislation was projected to increase deficits substantially, and the deficit is now running close to $2 trillion. Whatever one thinks of the policy merits, it’s difficult to characterize the administration’s fiscal record so far as putting the country on a path toward lower deficits or debt.; 9/29/26, 10:56 AM
Peaceful warrior said...: Tariffs appear to have imposed real costs, while those costs haven't prevented the overall economy from performing reasonably strongly. Both things can be true.; 9/29/26, 10:58 AM
Peaceful warrior said...: Iman, I think that one may come in a Republican edition too:

“Seeing the facts,
Knowing the facts,
But still defending Republicans.” :-); 9/29/26, 11:00 AM
bagoh20 said...: I expect policy aimed at accomplishing difficult and necessary things to have some cost, because I'm all grown up now.; 9/29/26, 12:30 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: U.S. Stocks Decline as Relentless Rise in Treasury Yields Continues ~ WSJ
30-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘺𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 2002; 𝘋𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘴

How’s “the house” doing, Scott? Only at a Trump casino do you bet against the house and win.; 9/29/26, 12:35 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: the Fuel Clock shows Americans have paid $74.4 billion more on gasoline & $47.5 billion more on diesel since March 1 compared to a year ago. Total cost will hit $122 billion today. also updated the state map where you can find out how much more you're paying. link in my profile. https://x.com/GasBuddyGuy/status/2104925248022106156?s=20; 9/29/26, 12:48 PM
Original Mike said...: "I expect policy aimed at accomplishing difficult and necessary things to have some cost, because I'm all grown up now."

Yep.

Can't wait for Rich to deliver his cost-free plan (because that appears to be his metric) for balancing the federal budget.; 9/29/26, 12:54 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: The immediate task is to get inflation under control without undermining growth. The harder task is fixing the structural deficit—particularly the long-term growth of Social Security, Medicare and interest costs. That will require some combination of entitlement reform, additional revenue, slower spending growth and faster economic growth.; 9/29/26, 1:17 PM
Aggie said...: Huh, that's funny. Oil futures place crude below $90, below $80 going out a year. huh. SpaceX is hovering around $150. Huh. I wonder how that happened. But I'm watching a handful of stocks that I've thought were over-valued for a very long time indeed, now inching down towards a good entry / adding point. Just markets being markets, I guess.; 9/29/26, 1:19 PM
Peaceful warrior said...: Tariffs have real costs, so the useful question is what we’re buying with them. For national security, paying more may be worth it if it gives us reliable access to something critical. Broad tariffs can be useful, but they're a blunt tool, so it makes sense to compare them with stockpiles, allied sourcing, subsidies, or narrower tariffs and use whichever approach buys the needed resilience most efficiently. For jobs, count the net durable jobs created or preserved after higher input costs, retaliation, automation, and losses elsewhere. Set the objective and benchmarks first, then judge whether the policy actually met them.; 9/29/26, 2:45 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: "𝘛𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴"

So the central question is: What specific objective are they meant to achieve, and have they achieved it at an acceptable cost?

That is a reasonable standard for evaluating Trump’s trade policies. Which measures have demonstrably advanced goals such as national security, resilient supply chains, domestic production, or durable job creation and what did those gains cost?

If measurable benchmarks show a policy worked, that evidence should matter. But when objectives shift, costs are unclear, and policies are repeatedly announced, revised, exempted, delayed, or reversed without a consistent framework, the issue is not just uncertain results but the absence of a coherent strategy. The trade policies should be judged against explicit objectives and measurable benchmarks rather than broad claims of success.; 9/29/26, 3:01 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: So what’s the Democrat plan to make gas cheap for the American public? New pipelines, refineries, increased offshore drilling, expanding fracking and opening up new land for exploration/development? Still waiting.; 9/29/26, 3:04 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/29/26, 3:24 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: 𝘚𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤?

Why start with new pipelines, refineries and drilling without addressing the most immediate source of the problem?

If the objective is cheaper gasoline, ending Trump’s war with Iran would be a pretty obvious place to start. Epic Fury has already required a supplemental funding request from Congress, and Congress has constitutional leverage over military operations because it controls the money needed to sustain them.

“Congress can’t stop wars” isn’t history. Vietnam didn’t end at the Paris peace table. Congress used its control over appropriations to end direct U.S. involvement and later refused President Ford’s requests for additional military aid as South Vietnam collapsed.

So before asking what Democrats would drill or build, perhaps ask whether continuing an expensive war that is contributing to energy-market uncertainty is actually the best way to make gasoline cheaper.; 9/29/26, 3:37 PM
Original Mike said...: Then what's your plan for assuring Iran doesn't become a nuclear state?; 9/29/26, 3:44 PM
Mason G said...: "So what’s the Democrat plan to make gas cheap for the American public?"

Democrats in California are attempting to make the price of gas irrelevant by banning ICE vehicles.; 9/29/26, 3:47 PM
Original Mike said...: Gas is expensive, so I'm going to vote for the party that closed down the Keystone pipeline and banned fracking.; 9/29/26, 3:55 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: So we surrender to Iran and the price miraculously falls. This despite the fact that Iran will no doubt capitalize on the Democrats weakness by charging tolls and threatening to reimpose the blockade whenever they don’t get their way. Your answer sounds like a simplistic fantasy.; 9/29/26, 4:36 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: But thanks for confirming their actually is no Democrat plan to reduce the cost of energy.; 9/29/26, 4:39 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: A verifiable nuclear agreement with intrusive IAEA inspections. We already had one that substantially lengthened Iran’s breakout timeline.

The question isn’t “war or a nuclear Iran?” It’s whether war is actually the best way to prevent one.

North Korea already has dozens of nuclear weapons, yet the administration’s strategy is deterrence, sanctions and diplomacy with Kim. So why is Iran uniquely a case where war is supposedly the only viable option?

There are legitimate strategic differences between Iran and North Korea. But there’s also no denying that Israel has strongly advocated military action against Iran and that pro-Israel lobbying groups have pushed the administration and Congress toward eliminating Iran’s nuclear capability. So it’s reasonable to ask how much those interests influenced the very different approaches.; 9/29/26, 4:41 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: Iran wasn’t charging tolls before the war. The toll threat emerged during Trump's Indefinitely Extended Excursion, after Iran began asserting control over the Strait. So “Iran will keep charging tolls whenever it doesn’t get its way” isn’t a description of the prewar status quo, it’s a potential consequence of the war and the new precedent it created.

If the concern is Iran acquiring permanent leverage over Hormuz, it’s worth asking whether continuing a war that disrupted the previous free-passage regime is necessarily the best way to restore that regime.; 9/29/26, 4:48 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: It’s increasingly difficult to argue that Trump's war was guided by a coherent strategy. The administration has repeatedly shifted its stated objectives, timelines and negotiating positions, while the war created a major new problem, the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz that it is now trying to solve. Whatever one thinks of the original objectives, the policy has produced enough contradictory signals and unintended consequences to raise serious questions about whether there was a viable end-state and exit strategy from the beginning.; 9/29/26, 4:52 PM
Original Mike said...: "We already had one that substantially lengthened Iran’s breakout timeline."
We're already past the point that it would have expired. Can kicking.; 9/29/26, 5:08 PM
Original Mike said...: "We already had one that substantially lengthened Iran’s breakout timeline."
We're already past the point that it would have expired. Can kicking.; 9/29/26, 5:08 PM
Original Mike said...: "There are legitimate strategic differences between Iran and North Korea."

Ya, like North Korea already has nuclear weapons.

The fact of the matter is Iran could end this today if they agreed to not have a nuclear program. They won't. That's all one needs to know regarding their intent.; 9/29/26, 5:11 PM
Josephbleau said...: “ A verifiable nuclear agreement with intrusive IAEA inspections. We already had one that substantially lengthened Iran’s breakout timeline.”

It will be necessary to have a well regulated nuclear inspection program in Iran after the war is resolved. Where we probably disagree is that the previous program was effective. The fact that Iran had 450 kg of 60% heu makes it apparent we were not delaying them well or for much longer.

I prefer antibiotics to a running sore, so I’m in agreement that it was time to act (based on what the public can know) even though war is never good it is often the lesser of evils, and economic pain is one of the costs of war that you endure for greater good.

So when we have a stable situation we will go back to agreements and inspections.; 9/29/26, 5:16 PM
Iman said...: IndescribableEnemaExhibitions™️ for the loss.; 9/29/26, 5:18 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: What was happening before in Iran is of no consequence in determining the best steps forward. If Democrats are to be ushered in based on the price of oil, I want to hear what they are planning to do to bring down that cost. Simply pretending that surrendering to Iran will bring about that result is not a realistic solution. In my eyes, the only way to ensure lower costs for American Consumers is to increase supply. How will Democrats do that?; 9/29/26, 5:22 PM
narciso said...: They want to shut down .oil driling refining et al; 9/29/26, 5:31 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: You’re presenting a false choice: more domestic production or “surrender to Iran.” Oil is a global commodity, and gasoline prices respond to global supply, demand and geopolitical risk not simply how much oil the U.S. produces.

Increasing domestic production can be part of an energy strategy, but it doesn’t make us immune to a war disrupting a major oil-transit route. If the war itself is contributing to supply disruption and a geopolitical risk premium, reducing that disruption is also an energy-policy question.

But let’s also ask the more basic question: if a war is contributing to higher energy costs, why is ending or de-escalating that war automatically characterized as “surrender” rather than as one possible way to reduce the disruption?; 9/29/26, 5:35 PM
Mason G said...: "In my eyes, the only way to ensure lower costs for American Consumers is to increase supply. How will Democrats do that?"

They won't, because Climate Change.; 9/29/26, 5:35 PM
Josephbleau said...: “ So “Iran will keep charging tolls whenever it doesn’t get its way” isn’t a description of the prewar status quo, it’s a potential consequence of the war and the new precedent it created.”

I would disagree, a blockade of Hormuz was always on the table as a well verbalized strategic threat from Iran or the Houthis. And of course a nation has to respect the threat, if it is plausible. There have been three major oil embargoes under Johnson, Nixon, and Carter that severely damaged the economy. These were shocks that all took us by surprise, a bad thing to allow. I admire pre-planning, so what the US did in June of this year was in my view getting ahead of the threat and will remove it as an issue for a decade.

Permanent removal of the issue will be when Hormuz is bypassed by multiple pipelines made by Arab states who now know that they can be attacked by their Islamic neighbors.; 9/29/26, 5:36 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: Hormuz was a known strategic vulnerability before the war, but that doesn’t prove war was the best way to manage it. The oil shocks support resilience measures—strategic reserves, diversified supplies, bypass pipelines, naval protection and diplomacy not necessarily military action.

Nor is it established that the June operation will eliminate the risk for a decade. Gulf states are investing in bypass pipelines because Hormuz remains vulnerable, while existing alternatives handle only a fraction of normal flows.

Iran also wasn’t charging transit tolls before the war; the International Maritime Organization says there is no legal basis for imposing them on an international strait.

Hormuz warrants contingency planning, but its vulnerability doesn’t prove war was the best or only solution.; 9/29/26, 6:15 PM
Original Mike said...: Blah, blah, blah.
Iran is a belligerent state attempting to build a nuclear arsenal and funding terrorist proxies. Now they are not, though they will resume if we take our foot off their neck. All for the cost of a modest, temporary rise in the price of oil. Could it all go south? It's possible, but it has yet to do so.

If you’d told me a few years ago this is where we’d be on Iran, I’d have said you were high:; 9/29/26, 6:30 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: It’s a surrender because you’re handing Iran a strategic victory. They will be emboldened by the notion they are untouchable because US politicians cannot risk even a minor increase in the price of oil. Only a fool would believe that Iran wouldn’t press this advantage.; 9/29/26, 6:48 PM
Mason G said...: "Blah, blah, blah."

Exactly. It doesn't matter what Trump decides to do, there'd be complaints.; 9/29/26, 6:57 PM
Leland said...: Just a reminder the Houthis were hijacking ships in Bab-el-Mandeb and holding the crew hostage for ransom in 2023, when Biden was President. Trump attacking Iran didn’t start this.; 9/29/26, 7:13 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: RealClearPolitics average of polls specifically asking about Trump’s handling of the military action against Iran:
• Approve: 32.6%
• Disapprove: 62.5%
• Net: −29.9 points
• Polls included: August 10–September 20, 2026. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/issues/military-action-iran

Opposition to the Iran war itself, rather than disapproval of Trump’s handling of it, the latest available Economist/YouGov polling I found puts it at 57% saying going to war was the wrong decision, versus 23% saying it was the right decision. The poll was conducted September 18–21, 2026. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/55606-half-of-americans-expect-iran-war-to-continue-at-least-another-year-september-18-21-2026-economist-yougov-poll

Even a Fox News poll found 56% of voters opposed U.S. military action against Iran.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-oppose-iran-war-see-prolonged-commitment; 9/29/26, 8:56 PM
Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...: MAGA neocons: 'America First'… right after we finish this little regime-change errand in Iran. Loyalty to Trump is eternal; public opinion is just background noise on Althouse.; 9/29/26, 9:05 PM
Original Mike said...: Leaders have to do unpopular things.; 9/29/26, 9:12 PM
Josephbleau said...: A stitch made in time, saves nine.

FDR waited for Pearl Harbor to shift the pols before he acted. But in those days war was really a risk to citizens. I think that Trump made a courageous decision, but Churchill was defeated by UK socialists after he wrought victory and freedom for them. So I don’t discount that he may suffer for the good he did.

Cest la vie.; 9/29/26, 10:04 PM
Josephbleau said...: No good deed goes unpunished.; 9/29/26, 10:13 PM
Josephbleau said...: And I don’t appreciate your “maga” insult IEE, but I won’t answer with another, because I am a better person.; 9/29/26, 10:18 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Over the last few years, election results (primary and regular) have demonstrated that polling is utterly worthless in predicting who will win the actual vote, and by how much. Yet some people believe, or pretend to believe, that polling can give us an accurate picture of public sentiment on Iran. Those pollsters can be even bolder in making up numbers: as long as no one schedules an actual referendum on Iran, there is no danger of ever being proven wrong, as election pollsters so often are.

Of course, even if the polls were somehow reliable, they wouldn't matter. The whole point of having a constitutional republic, instead of a direct democracy, is so the president can do the right and necessary thing, even if it is unpopular.; 9/29/26, 11:13 PM