Foreign Affairs What Next? The Trump administration should take the money and run. Credit: Stringer/Getty Images The Trump administration’s decision to drop bombs on Iranian nuclear sites appears to be an exercise in trying to have your cake and eat it too—an attitude I heartily support in general, so long as it doesn’t lead to obviously untenable absurdities. I hope the administration’s analysis, that this can be a clean one-off and the Iranians will return to the negotiating table, is correct, although I have reservations, as documented. The ceasefire Trump announced Monday night is promising, but it has been a bad year for ceasefires. Let’s look at the possible downsides without the histrionics that some of my fellow travelers have indulged. First, the actual damage to Iran’s nuclear program remains unclear; one of the difficulties from the beginning has been that we can’t confirm the destruction of these sites without someone on the ground checking it out. How we do that is a good question, since our HUMINT capacities, like those of many Western countries (Israel is somewhat but not entirely an exception), have been in severe decline for decades. The vice president himself says we don’t actually know where the Iranians’ enriched uranium is.  So further strikes or some sort of limited ground operations are not yet off the table, even based on the premise that this all is just about ending the nuclear program. The same risks that attended the initial strikes will attend new action, and with greater force, as the Iranian regime is compelled to look like it’s doing something in response. The results of the one-off strike may per se offer the sort of open-ended justification for more involvement that it would be nice to avoid. This will provide much grist for the mills of those ideologically inclined to further action, a crowd that has been out in force. The second cause for concern is the effect the strike will have on American diplomatic credibility; that’s weenie-talk for “nobody will take what we say seriously.” If you accept the administration’s assertion that it was on board with the initial Israeli strikes even as it was organizing a meeting with Iranian negotiators the following weekend, no foreign power will believe that the U.S. is engaging in diplomacy in good faith. If you think those assertions were CYA, as this author is inclined to do, it means the U.S. cannot control its unruly clients and junior allies. (Especially as there have been two such episodes in as many months—the Ukrainian strike on Russia’s strategic bomber fleet exposed the U.S. to similar criticisms.) The U.S. is beginning to look untrustworthy and unreliable as a negotiating partner. In a period of military overextension, it was to be hoped that more could be accomplished by diplomacy than with hard power. These two concerns feed the third concern: What is the day-after plan here? Israel’s Osirak bombing in 1981 did not in fact end Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs; dismantlement came only with the Gulf War and the UN monitoring program implemented in the aftermath. Some sort of monitoring program will be needed by hook or by crook. It is not obvious that the Iranians will be more amenable to such monitoring now; it also seems more likely that they will try to cheat on such a monitoring program. (One of the lessons to small and middle powers this week: If you think you have a chance at a bomb, take it.) If you think the Iranians are going to cheat on any deal we cut anyway, this may not be a compelling argument—but that raises the question of why we were trying to cut a deal in the first place, and whether there is any stable solution short of forceful regime change, which most people do not at this point want. Splitting the difference by a middle-term “mowing the grass” approach has its own risks, and belies the argument that this was a one-off. No wonder the administration’s rhetoric has been all over the place. The president’s comments on “REGIME CHANGE” and “MIGA” are doubtless a smackdown directed at the more prominent critics of the bombing, but they’re still not terribly comforting. The State Department’s spokeswoman saying that the United States is the second-greatest nation on earth after Israel may be an effort to butter up the Israelis to go it alone, but it’s not a great soundbite for the “America First” administration. Vance’s comment to NBC’s Meet the Press—“We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program”—is an amusing casuistry whose progress we will watch with great interest. “We are not at war with Iran, we are war with its army”; “we are not dropping an atomic bomb on Iran, we’re dropping it on its government at Tehran”; “I am not stabbing you with a broken beer bottle, I’m stabbing your spleen”; this line of rhetoric lends itself to interesting but unconvincing future expansions.  I’ll go out on a limb and say that this is bad politics. Unclear messaging about what we’re doing—indeed, unclear messaging about whether we’re even at war or not—does not tend to sit well with the public. Polling on these issues is difficult, but it seems the country is broadly positive on the strikes and negative on future involvement. Both to reduce the invitations to future entanglements abroad and to consolidate political capital at home, it seems the best course is some version of declaring victory and reducing our exposure in the region. The upside is that we have in fact set back Iran’s nuclear program; let’s try to avoid the downsides. The post What Next? appeared first on The American Conservative.

UTL COMMENT:- Not a fan of AI (for its potential to destroy us) but this video is brilliant I have to admit... With thanks to:- https://x.com/JakeG_Official/status/1936130593605271603?t=mmN5HQuhIzd7tD7ovyK-uQ&s=08

Anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil returned to Columbia University on Sunday to lead another protest march just days after his release from an immigration detention facility on a judge’s orders. Khalil was seen being honored in New York City and gave a speech referencing the Trump administration detaining and attempting to deport him. "Well, who is Mahmoud Khalil?" Khlalil said. "That's what the administration has tried its best to portray me as someone who's violent. Mahmoud...

After 104 days in a Louisiana immigration detention center, Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil has been released on bail. Khalil, a legal permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, has become the face of the Trump administration's crackdown on student protesters opposing Israel's war in Gaza. He was the first of several students across the U.S. who were detained and threatened with deportation. Khalil was taken by immigration agents outside his New York City home in early...

There comes a time in every young person's life where you find yourself facing down the path laid out for you. All the things you're "supposed" to do: get a college education, land a good job, make enough money so you can save up and eventually reach the mountaintop of buying your own home.The problem is that settling down and buying property has become ridiculously, ludicrously out of reach for a lot of young people. Price-to-income ratios are the highest they've ever been in the history of the United States, and many of the new generation of adults who have achieved the dream of owning their own home have found it to be... a trap! Yes, there are a lot of amazing benefits to being a homeowner, but it can also be a massive drain on your finances, your time, and your freedom.One Gen Z man is documenting his attempt at doing things a little differently. Instead of investing in his first house, he spent his life savings on 7.5 acres of undeveloped jungle in Colombia.Twenty-two year old Robert Lennox-Hvenekilde from Denmark has always been an adventurer. He's been filming his outdoorsy-escapades on TikTok for years. But a recent trip to Colombia left the Gen Z-er inspired to take his interest in nature to the next level."[I] realized that there were a lot of people living in these areas of the world who were maybe not rich in an economic sense, but they just seemed extremely free and to have an extremely high quality of life," he told Newsweek.He decided to do something a lot of people only dream or fantasize about: he wanted to live in Colombia, among nature, and create a sustainable homestead for himself. So, after months of researching, networking, and negotiations, he was able to purchase three hectares of undeveloped land for about $40,000. That equates to roughly five or six football fields, for reference.The jungle land Lennox-Hvenekilde now calls home features a fresh water stream, avocado and other fruit trees, and sugar cane.He's currently building a small structure on the land to live in, and he plans to be a good caretaker of the land. Outside of harvesting fruit and avocado to eat and sell, he says he'll continue to plant and nurture native plant species to provide a habitat for the several species of endangered monkeys living there. Lennox-Hvenekilde also says his property came with special trees planted specifically for wood production, which he's using to create his dwelling."I would not cut down any of the native jungle," he says.Watch him give an amazing tour of his new home here: @roba_tron Property break down #4you #foru #danmark #wildlife #nature #dk #offgrid Nearly two million people were fascinated by the wild video. Many were inspired by a way of life they'd previously thought completely unattainable."Dream life""can i come join you... sounds amazing""Bro made the best decision of his live"It looks incredible on camera: the vibrant greens of the rainforest, working with your hands instead of staring at a computer all day, never having to commute or deal with rude strangers out in public. Where do I sign up!?Still, others had mixed feelings:"Please take care of the land and his water. Is our job to protect our nature. Plant trees and native flowers," one user implored.More than a few commenters were uncomfortable with an outsider buying up endangered jungle land in a foreign country, likening it to gentrification.Lennox-Hvenekilde's response has been that it's better for someone like him to take a small piece of the land for living, and harvest and care for the rest. In comparison, mass farmers burn down hundreds of thousands of acres of rainforest every single year in Colombia to make room for their crops. In comparison, the 22-year-old's impact will be extremely minimal. @roba_tron Project Property #4you #foru #wildlife #nature #offgrid #cabin #adventure #danmark #dk We've all had the fantasy at one time or another. Disappear, leave our entire life and Earthly possessions behind, and flee deep into nature. Live off the land. Create a simpler life for ourselves. Be happy.In fact, interest in off-grid living has been steadily growing in popularity due to factors like rising costs, fierce political division, and an increasingly hectic and stressful modern lifestyle.For most of us, though, the thought remains a fantasy. As appealing as it sounds, the idea of actually saying goodbye to our career, friends, family, and human pleasures is a little frightening. Worse is when we realize that living off the grid is a ridiculous amount of work. Sourcing our own food and fresh water? Having little to no access to medical care if we were to get injured or sick? @roba_tron Day 36 #4you #foru #wildlife #nature #offgrid #cabin #danmark It took a lot of bravery for Lennox-Hvenekilde to take such a big leap the way he did. But his journey is not without its dangers. His viewers worry he might have run ins with the infamous Colombian drug cartels, which operate in the rainforest growing coca, which is used to make cocaine. And then there are all the bears, jaguars, and creepy crawlies."But how are the spiders?" one commenter asked Lennox-Hvenekilde. "Big," he said.Yeah, on second thought, maybe that commute doesn't sound quite so bad.

The American West was not tamed overnight. It was carved by courageous pioneers, driven by dreams and determination, who braved vast wilderness along legendary trails. These routes—etched into history by wagons, horses, and weary boots—became lifelines for migration, commerce, and the relentless spirit of expansion. From bustling trade to epic journeys for new beginnings, each ...

From the lightbulb to the internet, American inventors and visionaries have left an indelible mark on global progress. Their relentless drive to solve problems and push boundaries has transformed industries, revolutionized medicine, and changed how we live, work, and connect. The spirit of innovation and determination that characterizes the American experience continues to shape our ...

Colonial America was a landscape of constant uncertainty—marked by shifting alliances, territorial disputes, and the ever-present threat of attack. While towering citadels like Fort Ticonderoga or Fort Pitt capture headlines, smaller, often overlooked forts quietly played vital roles in safeguarding settlements and trade routes. These outposts, scattered from New England to the southern frontier, served ...