Thoughts As of June 23, 2025
Dear Friends,
In keeping with my recent monographs that followed Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear and missile sites, I want to continue to focus on future implications and possible paths forward.
Please note that unfortunately on Substack.com, the footnotes – which I think add a great deal of background information and depth – can only be found at the end of the monograph. On the PDF version, the footnotes are shown on the page upon which they first appear, making them easier to access and integrate while reading the monograph. Please also note I have attached a PDF version at the end for those of you who prefer to print it out and read it in that format.
Let me begin with a rapid recap of Saturday night’s U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear installations:
A strike package of American B-2 bombers took off from Whitman Airbase in Missouri, flying west. Ostensibly, their destination was a U.S. airbase in Diego Garcia, located in the Indian Ocean.
The flight was consistent with President Trump’s public statements that he would decide within two weeks whether or not to attack Iran, with the B-2s apparently being pre-positioned at Diego Garcia in advance of a potential attack, and/or to increase pressure on Iranian negotiators.
Seven B-2 bombers broke away from the strike package that was heading west and commenced a flight eastward toward Iran, flying in stealth mode with minimal communications.
The bombers were refueled twice during the flight by aerial refueling planes and entered Iranian airspace at around 1:30am Sunday morning (Tehran time).
At the same time that the B-2 bombers entered Iranian airspace, a U.S submarine launched more than 24 Tomahawk missiles at the Isfahan nuclear enrichment site.
Six of the seven B-2s targeted the Fordo nuclear site buried deeply under a mountain in Northern Iran, each dropping two GBU-57s (aka MOABs).
The remaining B-2 bomber dropped two GBU-57s on Natanz, a nuclear enrichment site that had been 75% destroyed by the Israeli air force.
All three targets (Forgo, Natanz and Isfahan) were struck between 2:40am and 3:05am Tehran time.
The United States Air Force was not aware of any shots fired on U.S. aircraft on the way in or out… Iran’s remaining surface-to-air systems did not appear to even see them.
Initial battle damage assessments show all sites sustained “extremely severe damage and destruction,” but it is premature to conclude the actual extent of the damage.
In subsequent statements, President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth made clear that:
The operation was a limited one, consistent with President Trump’s statement that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon.
The U.S. was not at war with Iran or the Iranian people and was not seeking regime change, only the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability.
The U.S. urged Iran to return to nuclear negotiations and agree to fully dismantle its nuclear program under international supervision.
The U.S. would respond aggressively should Iran attack U.S. bases or U.S. allies (ostensibly the Gulf states)… but was vague as to how the U.S. would react to continued strikes against Israel.[1]
Not surprisingly, the same voices in the United States, Europe, and the United Nations that had been frantically warning the U.S. not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, expressing concerns that a United States attack would lead to a wider war, large numbers of American casualties, and extensive destruction of oil installations in Saudi Arabi and the Gulf States. All of them called for an immediate ceasefire, with many of them also condemning the attack as reckless.
Russia issued two statements, one by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the other by Russian Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev. Both were ludicrous! In response to the question why he was not assisting Iran, Putin answered, “Israel today is almost a Russian-speaking country, two million people from the Soviet Union and Russia live here. We take that into account.” Meanwhile, Medvedev said in a post on social media, “Many countries [are] READY to supply nuclear warheads to Iran.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, calling them “irresponsible” and a “gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter, and U.N. Security Council resolutions.” This is rich coming from Russia, given Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and their total disregard for international law.
Meanwhile, China rushed to Iran’s side. China’s foreign ministry issued the following statement, “Use of force is unacceptable – we call for an immediate ceasefire. Attacks on nuclear facilities pose a serious threat to regional and global peace.” Not surprisingly, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres denounced the U.S. action as “a dangerous escalation in a region already precarious,” warning of catastrophic consequences for civilians and urging de-escalation. I would expect nothing less of Guterres, a true enemy of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.[2]
Not surprisingly, mainstream Western media, before the attack, breathlessly urged President Trump not to attack Iranian nuclear installations, stressing the high probability of mission failure, the risk of a wider war, the threat to key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and to U.S. personnel and military bases throughout the Middle East, and the danger of initiating World War III. After Saturday’s attack, mainstream Western media doubled down and continued to fan people’s fears. Western media downplayed the success of the attack and emphasized the uncertain success of the attack in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program over both the short-term and long-term, despite clear evidence to the contrary.[3]
In addition, mainstream Western media decided to amplify the public statements by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman, which all called for “restraint, de-escalation, and a return to diplomacy” and “condemned actions that threaten regional stability.”[4]
The ball is now in the Iranian’s court as to how to respond. Iran has four possible paths it could take (and by the time this monograph is published, may have chosen one of the four):
Agree to enter peace negotiations with the U.S. and dismantle its nuclear program under international and U.S. supervision, in an effort to protect the Iranian Islamic Republic regime and prevent potential regime collapse.
Launch a major missile attack against Israel alone, enabling Iran to demonstrate its remaining military capacity without bringing about further U.S. attacks against it.
Launch a limited reprisal against the U.S. and its Gulf State allies in order to discourage the U.S. from escalating its military campaign to targets beyond Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Attack a broad range of U.S. military targets, key oil infrastructure and civilian population centers in Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States, and amplify their attacks on Israel’s civilian population centers and military locations.
Along with any of these possible paths, Iran could also launch a campaign of domestic terrorism at “soft sites”[5] around the world, using embedded Quds Forces personnel and their domestic recruits to conduct the operations.
In addition, Iran could act to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil flows. While this would likely inflict a significant economic cost on the world, I think that Iran would be reluctant to take this action, for two reasons. First, the United States would be largely unaffected by this action, while China would be severely hurt. Only 5% of the United States’ oil consumption flows through the Straits of Hormuz, while approximately 50% of China’s flows through it. It would be foolish for Iran to inflict severe pain on China, an important ally, while only minimally impacting the United States. In addition, should Iran take this action, its Navy would be destroyed by the United States overnight, representing yet another blow to the Iranian Islamic Republic.
How to make sense of all this? Let me first provide my opinion on what path Iran is likely to pursue, followed by a discussion of the international implications of the United States’ Sunday morning attack.
Regardless of the path Iran chooses, I think it is highly likely that we see a surge in Iran-backed, domestic terrorism throughout the Middle East, Europe, the UK, Canada and, in particular, the United States. After all, this is a regime that has assassinated Iranian dissidents around the world, attempted to assassinate President Trump and other senior members of Trump’s first Administration, and blown up Jewish community centers and businesses simply because they were Jewish organizations.
The rational path for the Iranian regime is to avoid further escalation by the United States. This would suggest it pursue one of the first three options listed above. Of the three, I think the least likely is that Iran decides to enter into peace negotiations, even though this path would minimize the risk of further destruction in Iran. Like Hamas and Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic regime is not overly concerned with the well-being of its citizens. I think that the Iran regime is deathly afraid of looking weak domestically. Entering into negotiations to dismantle its nuclear program would essentially amount to an “unconditional surrender,” and therefore is something that I think is unlikely to be acceptable to it.
A major attack on Israel would entail the second lowest risk for Iran of American escalation. A major attack on Israel, even if more than 90% of its ballistic missiles are shot down, would still enable Iran to claim a victory against the “Zionist entity”, which for the Islamic Republic regime includes the United States as well as Israel. However, I think this is also not the likely path because: 1) it does not represent a strong Iranian response, given that Iran has already been conducting these attacks prior to the U.S. bombing, and 2) it does not directly respond to U.S. aggression.
That leaves the latter two options: a limited reprisal against the U.S. and its Gulf state allies or a broad-based attack against them. A limited reprisal would carry far less risk to the regime’s survival and be the rational course of action for them to take, given America’s vastly superior military capabilities. As the joke goes, “Iran is willing to fight to the last [Hamas / Hezbollah / Houthi] combatant.” While this is very possibly the path that Iran will choose to take, I believe that Iran is more likely to go for a broad-based attack against the U.S. and its allies.
Like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Iran is ultimately a regime run by Jihadist extremists. For the Jihadist, death in a fight against “the Infidels” is not a tragedy, but a blessing. If successful, the Jihadist is cloaked with honor and ultimately welcomed in Paradise upon their demise. If they die in action, they are immediately received in Paradise surrounded by the proverbial 40 virgins. In a choice between “death” and “dishonor”, there is only one acceptable path, “death.” I believe that this will prove just as true for the Iranian regime as it does for an individual Jihadist.
As a result, I believe that the most likely outcome is not going to be a “one and done” campaign, but a more extended military action. However, it is also clear that Iran’s military capability has been severely degraded. At this point, Israel estimates that more than half of Iran’s missile launchers have been destroyed. Moreover, those that remain are being taken out by Israeli airstrikes, often before they can even launch a missile. It is not clear whether Iran has the capacity to launch broad-based attacks, even if they want to do so. In my opinion, this makes terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli facilities and citizens around the world all but a certainty.
Choosing broad-based attacks would likely precipitate a dramatic U.S. military response, as would widespread terrorist attacks. Should either happen, the United States would likely target the organs of power of the regime, and probably its leadership as well. Should this happen, the American attacks could very well lead to a regime that is so weakened that the Iranian people rise up and are successful in overthrowing the Iranian Islamic Republic regime.
Fear of what will come next, should the regime collapse, are legitimate. Even though 80% of the Iranian people are believed to despise the Islamic Republic regime, that still leaves up to 15% to 20% of the population who support it. Religious zealots are unfortunately not limited to government leaders and the Iranian clerics. A prolonged civil war and a state of chaos are breeding grounds for radicalism, as Libya and Iraq have both proven, and regime change, by its very definition, is fraught with risk.
However, I think Iran is very different from both Libya and Iraq, and that the fears over what might happen next are overblown. The Iranian people are well-educated. The country has a long culture and national identity. Moreover, Iranian society is not one dimensional. Only 61% of Iranians are ethnic Persians. Azerbaijanis represent 16% of Iranian society, while Kurds represent 10%, and Lurs another 6%. The remaining 7% is split among other ethnic groups.
Unlike Iraq, Libya, and many other Middle Eastern countries, Iran was not arbitrarily created by European colonial powers after World War II. Iran has a strong national identity. The Persian empire has a long and storied history, dating back to Cyrus the Great in the 6th century BCE, that has for the most part tolerated and accepted cultural diversity. I see no reason why this won’t again prove to be the case.
The Iranian people have lived in a state of misery for the past decade-plus, with hyper-inflation running rampant, constant power outages, and inadequate running water, even though Iran is one of the wealthiest countries in the Middle East with vast reserves of both oil and natural gas. On top of this is the brutality of the Islamic Republic regime, zealously enforcing its fundamentalist ideology and stripping the Iranian people of their rights and freedom. It is hard to overestimate the degree of hatred for the regime that permeates Iranian society.
Making matters worse for the regime, the promised “benefits” of the Iranian people’s sacrifices have proven to be vacuous. The wealth of the country has been largely diverted to the achievement of two goals: 1) the destruction of the state of Israel, and 2) the spread of Iranian Islamofascism. Iran has spent over $500 billion on its nuclear program only to find that program now largely in ashes. How do you think the Iranian people feel about that expenditure after they have seen it go for naught, and their suffering pay no dividend? Similarly, Iran’s vaunted Ring of Fire surrounding Israel has largely been decimated, and the goal of destroying Israel has proven to be a pipedream, representing another profound waste of Iranian national resources.
The underlying hatred of the regime, coupled with its complete failure to achieve its vaunted goals despite huge investments, may prove fatal to the regime.
Making matters worse for the Islamic Republic regime and its future survival, its leading proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Iranian militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen – all appear to have no interest in coming to Iran’s protection since Israel’s attack on Iran 10 days ago. With the U.S. now involved, I think they are even less likely to want to do so. No one wants to back a loser! How discouraging this must be for Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic regime!
The Iranian people don’t lack for bravery. In the past, they have taken to the streets by the millions, only to find that the West abandoned them and provided no support. Not surprisingly, the Iranian people are cautious about doing so again.
Despite this history, I believe that when the Iranian people see a clear path to overthrow the regime, they will, in fact, take to the streets and do so in vast numbers. Many pundits and elected officials claim this won’t happen because there have not been mass protests yet in Iran. I think this conclusion is far too simplistic and more reflective of someone’s ideological bent rather than a deep analysis of the situation. To expect mass protests to happen when Israel and the U.S. are actively bombing Iran, and the Iranian people are focused on sheltering in place and avoiding the attention of the regime and its thugs, is unrealistic.
The rational thing for the Iranian people is to allow Israel (and potentially the United States) to further degrade the IRGC and the regime’s sources of power and control before rising up against it. As the Islamic Republic regime looks weaker and more impotent, key military officers are increasingly going to focus on their own survival and turn against the regime, while individual soldiers and other regime armed thugs are less likely to fire upon their compatriots, for fear of what might happen to them in the future should the regime be overthrown. The Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, has the national stature to galvanize this uprising, and provide the transitional leadership to Iran post-collapse of the Islamic Republic. He is already calling for the Iranian people to seize this opportunity to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Let me now turn to the likely regional and global implications of Saturday night’s U.S. attack. I’ll begin with a statement that is true not only in business, but in life more broadly, “Without risk, there is no reward.” Change, by its very nature, has risk but also offers the opportunity for significant reward, if well-executed. The possibility of a broader regional conflict and/or a wider war dragging in the Superpowers (Russia, China, and the U.S.) cannot be dismissed out of hand. Doing so would be reckless! However, how likely is this, and is the potential benefit worth the risk?
Let me first address the regional question, “How likely is a broader regional conflict?” I think the mainstream Western media completely mis-frames this question, focusing solely on the risks associated with Iran escalating and attacking the Gulf States. While this is an important part of the equation, the more appropriate question to ask is, “Is the risk of a potential regional conflict today graver than the future risk posed by a nuclear-armed Iran with a vast ballistic missile program many times its current size?”
To me, this is a no-brainer! The risk posed by nuclear-armed Iran with a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe and the United States, that has also made its intentions clear (with the potential to engage in nuclear blackmail even if Iran never actually uses these weapons), is a far greater risk than the risk posed by a regional conflict today. Moreover, if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE have all made clear that they would see no other choice but to have nuclear weapons of their own. How could multiple nuclear states in the most conflict-ridden part of the world possibly be a good thing? When you throw the nihilistic, Islamofascist ideology into the mix, anyone who is not terrified by the prospect is either blind, ignorant or profoundly misguided!
For those people who claim that Israel has dragged the United States into a war with Iran, I have one thing to say to you. “You are wrong!” As President Trump himself said, “No one can drag the United States into anything.” President Trump and other senior U.S. officials have repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. acted in its own national interests in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. For over a decade, Trump has made clear that Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. In fact, in 15 separate public statements over the past decade, President Trump has stated this clearly and in no uncertain terms.
Why is it that the media cannot accept this statement? After all, how could it possibly make sense to have a nuclear-armed Iran with a vast and sophisticated ballistic missile system that has said since 1979, “Death to America” and repeatedly made clear that Israel is the “Little Satan” which needs to be dealt with first, but America always remains for them the “Great Satan.”
Yet, the mainstream media glosses over these facts that don’t coincide with their simple construct that the root cause of all instability in the Middle East stems from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This completely ignores, as I have written extensively about in prior monographs, that far more Jihadi actions have been targeted against other Muslims than against Jews or Israelis. The root cause of the turmoil, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and even the United States is the Islamofascist ideology that has found roots in each of these countries and regions.
As for the statements by Saudia Arabia and the Gulf States denouncing the U.S. attack, expressing concern about a broader regional conflict, and calling for de-escalation, I am amazed that Western media immediately seizes upon these statements without even the slightest introspection or thought. Again, it is driven by the media’s underlying narrative that a wider conflict is always something to be avoided at all costs.[6] Do you think that the Western media would have called for a ceasefire toward the end of World War II in order to stop the loss of innocent life? It would have been unthinkable. Yet, it is exactly what the mainstream media is calling for now.
There is a complete absence of critical thinking on the part of the media. Of course, the Saudis, Qataris, and Emiratis are issuing public statements denouncing the attack and calling for a cease fire. What would you expect them to say… come bomb us, Iran?
Obviously, these countries want to send the message to Iran that we had nothing to do with this and are on Iran’s side, in an effort to forestall a possible Iranian attack on their territory and critical infrastructure. Do you think this comes as a surprise to the U.S. government? Or do you think that the United States is more likely to have consented to these statements in advance, with a wink and a nod? On top of their effort to divert Iran from attacking, the Saudis and Emiratis want to placate the “Arab Street” in their countries where emotions have been inflamed by Qatari state-owned Al Jazeera that has published a distorted and one-sided depiction of events.[7]
What really matters is what the Saudis and the Emiratis are saying in private. Do you have any doubt that they are thrilled with the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and the severe damage to both Iran’s ballistic missile program and its proxy networks? Yet somehow the media can never even contemplate this possibility! It tells you much about the systemic media bias in the West, something that I have written extensively about in past monographs.[8]
Finally, let me address the geopolitical implications of the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities ordered by President Trump. An even greater danger to world peace than an isolationist America is a weak and indecisive America. The global perception is that America is a “toothless, paper tiger” despite America’s unparalleled military capabilities, due to its unwillingness to use it. This perception began after the United States did nothing in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008.
This belief became widespread following President Obama’s failure in 2012 to enforce his “red- line” should the Assad regime use chemical weapons against its own people. Needless to say, President Obama’s threat proved to be totally hollow and without substance. Is it shocking to believe that Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China did not take note of the United States failure to act? Once again, the United States did nothing after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and again didn’t react to Russia’s invasion of the Donbass region of Ukraine months later. Time and time again, there were calls from America, as well as from Europe, to de-escalate and for an immediate ceasefire.
Making matters far worse was America’s shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan under President Biden, and the haunting images from Bagram airbase when the U.S. pulled out of that country. If there were any remaining questions as to whether America was a “toothless, paper tiger”, they were put to bed by the images of America retreating from Afghanistan with our tails between our legs, leaving our Afghan staff and supporters to fend for themselves against the Taliban.
It is hard to believe that American weakness and lack of will did not play a direct role in Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Putin clearly was not particularly concerned about America’s reaction and resolve. From the date of the invasion to the end of the Biden Administration’s term in office, the common American refrain was once again to de-escalate the conflict, accompanied by a reticence and fear of giving offensive weapons to Ukraine that might inflame Russia and expand the conflict.
Even as supposed Russian red-line after red-line was breached by Ukraine and its allies, Russia never responded and escalated. Tanks were given, no Russian reaction. Long-range missiles were given, no reaction. Fighter jets were given, no reaction. Missiles were used to target locations in Russia, no reaction. Putin had vowed action should any of these happen. Yet, nothing.
What should have been concluded from this? I think it is pretty obvious. Russia was having a hard time overwhelming Ukraine, a country less than one-third its size. The last thing Russia wanted was to confront NATO and the United States in addition to Ukraine. Yet, America and Europe slow-walked its support of Ukraine, only giving the Ukrainians enough not to lose, or at least not to lose quickly, but never enough to win.
Is it a surprise that Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime paid little heed to the statements by American and European leaders that Iran could never have nuclear weapons? These were hollow statements without substance, as Iran crossed nuclear threshold after nuclear threshold. Iran was a master at endless negotiations that accomplished nothing but allowed them to get ever closer to having a nuclear weapon. I think that Iran was truly shocked that President Trump meant what he said and was prepared to act on is threats.
Despite the Western media’s repeated hand-wringing about a wider war with Russia and China, as I wrote in Part I of the Wake Up! series published on Substack.com on February 20, 2025, we are already in a wider war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Somehow this fact seemed to escape Western media’s radar screen!
Winston Churchill’s sage comments warning against the appeasement of dictators was ignored by successive American administrations as they closed their eyes to what was happening. As Churchill famously said in a 1937 speech, “Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.” Churchill is said to have also commented, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” Avoiding escalation was the constant mantra under the Biden Administration, as it was under the Obama administration, but the tigers were getting hungrier and bolder.
Despite the concerns about a wider war, every indication to date is that neither China nor Russia has any desire to enter into conflict with the United States. Other than opposing American interests, neither of them is likely overly enthusiastic at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, led by fundamentalist Mullahs who embraced Islamofascism. The only thing that tied them together ideologically was their shared hatred for the United States and the post-World War II order that America had established.[9]
Even more significantly, Russia and China can no longer ignore the words uttered by American Presidents, and particularly those of Donald J. Trump. Should Trump say, “If Russia fails to enter into serious peace negotiations with Ukraine, the U.S. will provide Ukraine with the weapons necessary to defeat Russia,” can Putin afford to ignore that threat in the future? I think not! Similarly, do you think that China will now think twice before invading Taiwan? It is hard to believe that the answer is anything but a resounding, “Without a doubt!”
I believe strongly that the world is a far safer place due to President Trump’s decisive actions on Saturday night and that American deterrence has been restored. “Peace through strength” was the guiding principle under President Ronald Reagan, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and an unparalleled period of world peace and prosperity.
Sadly, successive American Presidents have forgotten this maxim or have alternatively entered into foolhardy, ideological wars in countries like Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan without clearly defined and attainable objectives. It is therefore not surprising that there has been a significant rise in American isolationism and a growing antipathy from both the left and the right to foreign engagements.
I think the depiction of President Trump as a war-monger is a gross distortion. Trump repeatedly said that negotiation was his preferred path with Iran and military action his last choice. He gave Iran 60 days to come to an agreement, which Iran failed to do, believing that they could delay an American action indefinitely. Even after Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic facilities 10 days ago, Trump again offered Iran the option to return to the negotiating table and agree to dismantle its nuclear program, only to be rebuffed once again by the Iranians.
I truly believe that President Trump wants to avoid military action whenever possible but is undeterred in using military force when negotiations breakdown. He has attempted to stop the bloodshed and destruction in the Ukraine by reaching a lasting ceasefire, even though one might disagree with President Trump (as I do) on what a reasonable agreement might look like. Similarly, Trump has been instrumental in brokering an accord between India and Pakistan, which somewhat shockingly led Pakistan last week to nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I believe that President Trump’s actions on Saturday night have made the world a far safer place, rather than a more dangerous one. In reading this, please note that I am not, by any means, a dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter and have serious concerns about many of President Trump’s actions. However, this does not mean I automatically condemn every action that he takes. Nor do I automatically support them. I pride myself on my ability to examine each action objectively and on its own merits, rather than through an ideological prism. Sadly, this perspective is very much absent in America today.
*****************************
I hope that you enjoyed reading my earlier two monographs covering events in Iran, and have found today’s monograph of interest and value. As always, please feel free to distribute this email as broadly as you would like. My goal in writing these emails is to educate as many people as I can.
If you received this email from a friend and would like to be added to the distribution going forward as well as read past monographs, they are all posted on Substack.com and can be accessed using the following link: tonybrenner.substack.com. Conversely, should you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know and I will stop sending them to you.
Finally, should you wish to email me directly, I can be reached at tony@pivotpointcap.com.
Take care,
Tony
[1] I think it unlikely that the U.S. would respond aggressively to Iranian attacks on Israel, as the U.S. did not preclude the Houthis from attacking Israel in its agreement with them. I think President Trump probably believes that the Israelis are capable of dealing with both the Houthis and the Iranians on their own, providing Israel with only defensive assistance and not offensive aid.
[2] In Part 4 of the Wake Up! series, I wrote a monograph about the United Nations that was published on March 31, 2025. It described in great detail the ways in which the United Nations is deeply biased, antisemitic, and profoundly broken. In the monograph, I discussed UN Secretary-General Guterres’ personal role in supporting and encouraging this behavior.
[3] One can argue about the extent of the damage to the Iranian nuclear program and disagree, at this point, whether it has been completely destroyed. But it is hard to argue that Iran’s nuclear program has not been dealt a significant blow and set back, at a minimum, by many years, between the destruction of much of its nuclear infrastructure and the killing of more than ten of its most important nuclear scientists.
[4] It is worth noting that none of these countries explicitly criticized the United States for the attack, something that Western media decided wasn’t even worth mentioning.
[5] “Soft sites” are non-military locations that are hard to defend and are therefore very vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
[6] Note that this media narrative is consistent with the world view espoused by both the Obama and Biden Administrations, which is not overly surprising given the same people largely staffed both Administrations.
[7] In Part 7 of the Wake Up! series, I wrote extensively about the role of Qatar and Al Jazeera in spreading Islamofascism in a monograph published on Substack.com on April 8, 2025.
[8] I devoted an entire monograph to the subject of media bias, that was published on Substack.com on January 26, 2024.
[9] The alliance between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is one of expediency and convenience, much like Hitler’s alliance with Russia at the start of World War II. Each has benefited economically or militarily from its relationship with the other members of the Axis of Evil, but that does not mean that there is great trust or allegiance amongst them.
