Welcome to The Now

 According to Larry Johnson, the US has until 7/11/26 before the reserves run out and the real pressure starts. That's the same date as Pakistani-orchestrated talks between the United States and Iran are supposed to resume.  Will the US actually act in good faith? Can Iran really trust the West? What is Pakistan (and China, for that matter) willing to risk to see this through? How does Lebanon and Palestine factor in? What about Israel?  Hopefully these questions will be addressed/answered in the next few weeks. 

 

 

First, Transition Protocol has new information about the venue change for the signing...and a warning to those who would try to sabotage the process:    Dialogue Works goes over the 14-Points illustrated in the now infamous MOU: Carl Zha has Warwick Powell on Silk & Steel to talk about the economic/financial impact: Finally, Due Dissidence on how Israel has reacted:

  Notable Points: The United States has apparently already (electronically) signed the MOU. Iran is more cohesive since in the wake of the US/Israeli strikes. Iran (via Pakistan) has made it clear to the US that violating the MOU will have serious consequences. China was not actually pressuring Iran to make a deal. The goal was to get America to agree to certain terms/assurances, so that when the US (or Israel) inevitably violate them, the world will understand that Iran was trying to find a peaceful resolution.  That said: in terms of revealing motivations, China plays things closer to the vest than Russia, Iran and Pakistan.  So it sounds like the major three parties (China, Russia and Iran, the three countries the US is determined to wage war against sooner or later) are aware of the United States proclivity towards duplicitous diplomacy. Also, it sounds like Iran has at least one ace that's threatening enough to give the United States pause; whether it's something nuc...

 Transition Protocol discusses the conversations and agreements that apparently happened behind the scenes that led up to this past weekend's big announcement: Before getting to the first question, let's address the second: Apparently everyone "knows" that Israel is the spoiler here. While the US is willing to exclude Israel from whatever deal they are making with Iran, it's clear that (1) Iran still consider the two linked, and (2) no one in their right mind expects the United States to stand by and allow Iran to attack Israel, regardless of what Israel does. I agree that Iran's biggest mistake here is lack of specifics: There should be hard dates, dollar amounts, boundaries and consequences for violations. Vagueness with a country (the US) who's government is practically full of lawyers looking for every loophole and angle and advantage is only asking for trouble.  As for China and Iran: It's valid to say that Iran was fighting for it's life thes...

 

 As Nima and Rachel explain in their respective videos, "peace" was not genuine. More to the point: President Trump wasn't looking for an off-ramp (even if they were, they've tasked Israel to sabotage it); he and the Administration was looking for an excuse to claim victory before planning another attempt to disrupt Iran.

Growing up, I was led to believe that the one thing stopping the entire planet from suffering a nuclear winter was that those in charge (aka the world leaders) cared too much about themselves or those close to them to ever put us all in that situation. Now (especially in light of what's happened over the last few months), I am not too sure. Back in January 2023, the US Navy Commander David Post for the US Naval Institute attempted to address the " value and limits " of deterrence. First he sought out a definition: Two leading deterrence scholars, Alex George and Richard Smoke, define deterrence as “simply the persuasion of one’s opponent that the costs and/or risks of a given course of action he might take outweigh its benefits.” Deterrence, therefore, hinges on a rational process of calculating costs and benefits and will succeed when the opponent concludes that the considered activity will not be worth the effort. Honestly, I like this definition, even though it implies...

  Of course, there may be another reason people, groups and institutions haven't been so vocal:

 Looks like (as I feared) what was reported in a previous post was merely a smokescreen use to continue genocide:

 Hakim has something to say about this:

 

 

" Polio ?" Yes; polio : Pakistan is one of only two countries in the world where poliovirus is still endemic – the other being neighbours Afghanistan. To counter the spread of the disease, Pakistan launched an eradication campaign in 1994. The country used to report 20,000 cases annually, according to government health officials. While the figure has come down significantly (five so far this year), the spread continues. Pakistan administers more than 300 million doses of oral vaccine annually with the help of at least 350,000 vaccinators, according to the Pakistan Polio Eradication Programme. Health workers, as well as accompanying security officials, are often harassed, ridiculed, taunted, threatened and targeted physically. At least 102 have been killed in the field, government officials say, including during campaigns carried out this year. In addition to these attacks and refusals of vaccination, health workers also face other issues, including low pay, salary delays, an...

 Sharmine Narwani and Rachel Blevins discuss:

 Graham Elwood talks about it, and what it hints at for the future:

400,000 people being asked to get out of dodge ? Yikes.

Pakistan and Taliban make truce; stop fighting ! ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The government announced Monday that it would accept a system of Islamic law in the Swat valley and agreed to a truce, effectively conceding the area as a Taliban sanctuary and suspending a faltering effort by the army to crush the insurgents. The concessions to the militants, who now control about 70 percent of the region just 100 miles from the capital, were criticized by Pakistani analysts as a capitulation by a government desperate to stop Taliban abuses and a military embarrassed at losing ground after more than a year of intermittent fighting. About 3,000 Taliban militants have kept 12,000 government troops at bay and terrorized the local population with floggings and the burning of schools. The accord came less than a week before the first official visit to Washington of the Pakistani army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to meet Obama administration officials and discuss how Pakistan could improve its tacti...