RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21505/iran-plans-outwit-outwait-trump

“Something’s going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran — and I’ve written him a letter, saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate.’ Because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing — for them.” — US President Donald J. Trump, interview with Fox News, March 7, 2025.

So long as the Islamic Republic of Iran indulges in its usual tactic of prevarication in the hope that, by engaging in delaying tactics, it can buy more time to achieve its nuclear ambitions, the credibility of the Trump administration taking direct action against Tehran needs to increase.

Iran’s demand, for example, that it might consider opening negotiations with Washington if the Trump administration first agreed to lift punitive economic sanctions, is a classic exercise in the regime’s attempts to play for time.

Iran’s refusal to accept US President Donald Trump’s demand that it completely dismantle its controversial nuclear programme, which Western intelligence officials are convinced is ultimately designed to build nuclear weapons, raises the very real risk of the US launching direct military action to destroy the programme.

Trump’s initial offer to negotiate an end to Iran’s nuclear programme was contained in a letter he wrote to the ayatollahs on March 7, in which he indicated he was willing to engage in talks concerning Iran’s nuclear activities. But the letter also contained an explicit warning that any failure by Tehran to respond positively to his overture could lead to direct military action.

The Trump administration’s determination to end the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all was confirmed by the recent revelation by the Axios news website which, quoting a US official and other sources, said the American president had set a “two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.”

The new administration’s focus on Iran was confirmed by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, who confirmed in an interview with Fox News that Trump’s personal approach to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was aimed at avoiding direct military action.

“We don’t need to solve everything militarily… Our signal… to Iran is ‘Let’s sit down and see if we can, through dialogue, through diplomacy, get to the right place’. If we can, we are prepared to do that. And if we can’t, the alternative is not a great alternative.”

Meanwhile, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has warned that Iran needs to “hand over and give up” all elements of its nuclear programme including missiles, weaponization and enrichment of uranium “or they can face a whole series of other consequences,” adding that “Iran has been offered a way out of this.”

The latest comments made by Witkoff and Waltz reflect a deepening resolve with the Trump administration to end Iran’s long-running nuclear plans. As Trump himself remarked after announcing his initial overture to Iran, “You can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

“The time is coming up. Something’s going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran — and I’ve written him a letter, saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate.’ Because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing — for them.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/trump-the-mullahs-and-skin-in-the-game/

Trump took out Qassem Soleimani for attacking the US Embassy. Who wants to be next?

You could call it the Donald Trump theory of international relations: getting skin in the game without sending US troops.

That’s what you saw when President Trump offered Zelenskyy the deal to exploit Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. The Z-man was obsessed with getting US “security guaranties” – a promise to send US troops should Russia attack again in the future.

Trump rightly said, no. Instead, he offered to put US companies on the front lines, essentially making those civilians a tripwire should Russia dare attack.

Similarly, last week Trump convinced both Putin and Zelenskyy to engage in a limited ceasefire by ending strikes on energy and other civilian infrastructure, and then floated the idea that Ukraine should sell its power plants to U.S. companies as a deterrent to Russian attacks.

Now as a shareholder, I’m not sure I would want my company owning such a high risk asset. But still. The intent was clear: skin in the game.

Without skin in the game, we see what happens. On Friday, Russia launched waves of armed drones against the Black Sea port city of Odessa, sparking power outages, and the Ukes responded by allegedly blowing up a gas metering station near Kursk, Russia.

Both seemed to be pretty clear ceasefire violations. But with no skin in the game, neither attack has led to consequences, yet.

With NATO, President Trump is using a similar strategy.

Last week, he floated the idea of allowing a French (or other non-American) general to become the Supreme Allied Commander, the first time ever a non-American would command NATO. Some Republicans on the Hill were unhappy with that, but that’s because they don’t understand the notion of skin in the game.