With all due respect, Mr. Vice President, World War II is probably the worst example you could have chosen. The whole reason World War II happened in the first place was because World War I ended with a deeply flawed post-war settlement. If anything, it is a warning about what happens when you fail to properly resolve the causes of a conflict. And when World War II did happen, how did it end? Not through negotiations. It ended with a decisive military victory. In Germany, Allied forces were literally within meters of Hitler’s bunker. In Japan, it took two nuclear bombs before the Imperial leadership finally accepted reality and surrendered unconditionally. I don’t even need to go digging through distant history or obscure corners of the world to find examples. Let’s stay in your own backyard. How did the American Civil War end? It ended with a decisive Union victory, the surrender of the Confederacy, Reconstruction, and accountability for those who had taken up arms against the Union. It did not end with everyone sitting around a table and agreeing to disagree. The lesson from history isn’t that wars should end through vague compromises that leave the underlying issues unresolved. Quite often, the lesson is the exact opposite: unresolved conflicts tend to come back, usually bigger and bloodier than before.

RT @Natsecjeff: What Trump has managed to do here is truly incredible if you think about it. This guy started a war with no plan of his own…

This is the last time I’m going to comment on the Reuters story about the alleged $3 billion, $12 billion, or $20 billion supposedly transferred, made available, made accessible, or otherwise handed over by the UAE to the Iranian regime, a claim that the UAE government has categorically denied. Let me state something clearly. I’ve spent more than two decades working in intelligence, counter terror finance, and financial investigations. I’ve worked on terrorism financing cases, advised on complex IRGC finance matters, and been called as an expert witness in terrorism finance cases involving governments, major banks, and cross-border financial transactions. And one thing I learned very early is this: When a story revolves entirely around a financial transaction, you do not simply assert that Country X paid Country Y billions of dollars and then expect everyone else to prove that it didn’t happen. That’s not how evidence works. You cannot demand that people prove a negative. If nothing happened, how exactly are they supposed to prove that nothing happened? The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In finance, especially at this scale, evidence matters. Paper trails matter. Documentation matters. Banking records matter. Regulatory approvals matter. Transaction records matter. Leaked documents matter. You don’t just point to anonymous sources and declare that billions of dollars moved across borders. A transfer of $3 billion, $12 billion, or $20 billion does not simply disappear into thin air. Whether it moves as cash, gold, dollars, yuan, rupees, dirhams, or even cryptocurrency, there will be evidence. There will be records. There will be traces. There will be counterparties. There will be compliance procedures. There will be reporting obligations. There will be people involved. That’s the nature of modern finance. So my simple question is this: Apart from anonymous sources, where is the paper trail? Show us one document. One transfer instruction. One banking record. One payment confirmation. One regulatory waiver. One piece of evidence that can actually be examined, scrutinized, and verified. Because that’s how financial investigations work. Until then, we’re being asked to accept an extraordinary claim with no publicly available evidence whatsoever. And on a lighter note, two nights ago I observed a suspicious formation of flying magic carpets crossing the skies above Dubai and heading east over the Gulf toward Iran. They appeared to be carrying large wooden chests overflowing with gold coins. Based on the evidentiary standard apparently being applied here, I assume Reuters will be reporting that transaction shortly.

For God’s sake, even the Iranian government’s own media is repeating the UAE’s denial of this absurd claim. When both sides agree the story is nonsense, perhaps it’s time to stop believing it.

You clearly have no idea how sanctions, correspondent banking, or dollar clearing work. A $12 billion transfer to a heavily sanctioned state would require a mountain of legal authorizations, waivers, licenses, and compliance approvals. Show them. Otherwise, stop embarrassing yourself. 🤦🏻‍♂️

No funds transferred. No deal with terrorists. Assets still frozen. Our stance is clear.

For the millionth time: if you know nothing about how money moves in a heavily sanctioned environment - the openly publicised waivers, compliance requirements, legal approvals, and regulatory hurdles needed to send even a single dollar - then I politely ask you to 🤐

The UAE Foreign Ministry could not have been more explicit. What is truly astonishing is the number of people on this platform who are completely illiterate when it comes to global finance, sanctions, and sanctions waivers. Despite having zero expertise or experience in the field, they still insist on arguing the contrary with unwavering confidence. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Totally and utterly false. The UAE is a close ally of both the United States and Israel. Thank God I spent a decade working in the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of a major global bank, so I know a thing or two about how money moves. There is absolutely no way the UAE could release even a fraction of the amounts being claimed to Iran without the US Treasury knowing about it. Anyone familiar with international banking, sanctions compliance, correspondent banking, and financial surveillance knows this story simply does not pass the most basic global finance reality check.

Jonathan, this is not analysis; it is copy-paste with a question mark. The claim that a Boeing 737 carried $3 billion in cash collapses before takeoff. $3B in $100 bills = 30 million notes. At roughly 1 gram per note, that is 30 metric tonnes before packaging, pallets, crew, fuel, or security. Even Boeing’s 737-800 converted freighter carries up to 23.9 tonnes. So unless the IRGC has discovered a magical 737 that flies on propaganda and bad arithmetic, this story is physically absurd. Repeating hostile-source claims as “I have questions” does not make you an analyst. It makes you a distribution channel.

Let me state this categorically: this story is false. It originated with pro IRGC propaganda outlets, and there is zero evidence that the UAE sent the Iranian regime a single dollar, whether in cash or by any other means. Publicly and privately, the UAE views the Iranian regime as an adversary, not a partner. And for once, can people please use basic logic?! 🙄 The claim that a Boeing 737 carried $3 billion in cash is physically absurd. Three billion dollars in $100 bills weighs roughly 30 metric tons. A 737 simply cannot carry that payload once you account for fuel, crew, and operational requirements. Stop recycling obvious propaganda. Every time you repeat these stories without thinking, you become a secondary distribution channel for the very disinformation operation that created them🤦🏻‍♂️

Conflicted returns to Triggernometry TONIGHT! In Conflicted’s last trip to @triggerpod , @AimenDean revealed how he predicted the Iran War. Make sure to watch @ConflictedThom on Triggernometry tonight!

Myself and @ConflictedThom return to bring you up to date on all the latest manoeuvrings in the Middle East. Aimen and Thomas discuss: •Trump’s chaotic, micromanaged Iran diplomacy and reliance on inexperienced “real estate” advisers. •Pakistan, Qatar, Oman, Turkey, and Egypt as flawed or compromised mediators with “skin in the game.” •Why Aimen thinks Switzerland would be the proper neutral US–Iran mediator. •Oman’s tilt toward Iran amid assumptions of American decline and future Iranian regional weight. •The UAE–Saudi split over Iran: Emirati hawkishness versus Saudi caution and strategic bruising. •Saudi resentment over Yemen, Houthi attacks, Israel’s freer hand, and lack of US security guarantees. •Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Iran: efforts to decouple the Lebanon front from the US–Iran track. podcasts.apple.com/ae/podcas…

Considering he is alive, I agree that Mojtaba is more dangerous in the short term than Ali, who was the greater strategic threat. With the elimination of Ali, Iran not only lost its experienced commander-in-chief, but also its main source of strategic patience. Absent of a moderating factor, the Iranian regime is much more willing to embark on military adventures, regardless of the damage it suffers in response. What we are witnessing now is an emboldened, overly confident, risk-taking and radicalized Iranian regime, which is exhibiting a dramatic transformation in its deterrence doctrine. In the past, any attack on Iran or its interests was met by strategic patience, with Iran taking its time to thoroughly calculate its response at a time and place of its choosing. Now, under its current hardline leadership, it is displaying a strong sense of self-confidence and willingness to engage its advisories directly, and swiftly. In the short term, Iran has become a more immediate tactical threat to Israel, showing a willingness to engage it directly, contrary to decades of restraint and strategic patience. Recognizing this, Israelis need to prepare to a new dynamic of rounds of escalation with Iran moving forward. But strategically, Iran has no direct levers of pressure over Israel, short of attempting to pressure US President Trump into curbing Israeli military action. It tried to create one last night by imposing a ‘Lebanon for Israel’ equation, but didn't succeed. This was likely not the last word from Iran, but the more it engages Israel directly, the more it exposes its weakness in the long-run.

Iran’s IRGC raises the 🏳️ The regime understands only one language: brut force! A language Israel was loudly speaking the past 12 hours! Trump should re-learn such language!

My Two Cents/Shekels/Rials: Some senior GCC figures believe the public disagreements between Trump and Netanyahu are largely political theater rather than evidence of a genuine strategic split. According to this view, Trump became trapped during earlier negotiations when Iranian negotiators, with support from Pakistani mediators, insisted that any broader agreement include a ceasefire involving Hezbollah. This effectively linked the Iranian nuclear and regional negotiations to Hezbollah’s status and role in Lebanon. From the Israeli and many GCC perspectives, this was problematic because it risked granting Hezbollah a degree of political and diplomatic legitimacy. The central argument is that Hezbollah is not a sovereign state actor but an armed non-state organization that operates outside the authority of the Lebanese state. Trump’s primary objectives were reportedly focused on issues such as: Iran’s nuclear program Security in the Strait of Hormuz Regional stability Sanctions and frozen assets As negotiations progressed, Hezbollah increasingly became intertwined with the broader Iran discussions, creating frustration among those who wanted the two tracks separated. The emerging strategy, according to this interpretation, is to force a clear distinction between: The “Iran track” (nuclear, sanctions, regional security) The “Lebanon/Hezbollah track” (Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah) Under this logic, Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah should be viewed as part of its conflict with Hezbollah rather than part of any broader U.S.-Iran negotiation. If Iran chooses to intervene militarily in defense of Hezbollah, it does so by choice rather than necessity, thereby assuming responsibility for any escalation. This approach allows Washington to argue: “We are negotiating with Iran regarding Iran.” “Israel is dealing with Hezbollah.” “The two issues should not automatically be linked.” Trump could then maintain that he attempted to restrain Israel but cannot dictate every Israeli military decision, particularly when Hezbollah remains engaged in hostilities. In this interpretation, the recent escalation is not necessarily a collapse of diplomacy but rather part of a pressure campaign intended to force Tehran to accept the separation of the Iranian and Lebanese files. The underlying message to Iran would be: Accept that Hezbollah is a separate issue from negotiations over Iran itself; or Continue linking the two and risk further military escalation. The ultimate objective is to prevent any diplomatic outcome that implicitly recognizes or legitimizes Hezbollah’s military role as an extension of Iranian regional influence. Bottom line: This interpretation views the current tensions not as a breakdown in negotiations, but as a deliberate effort to decouple the Iran dossier from the Hezbollah dossier, forcing Tehran to choose whether it wants to negotiate on Iran’s interests alone or continue tying its position to Hezbollah’s fate.

Set aside whether a deal with Iran is close (I doubt it). POTUS just handed the Iranian regime & Hezbollah a gift. They can now constrain Israel by threatening diplomatic progress. Can Israel strike Hezbollah again after more rocket fire? Can it attack Iran after more missiles?

RT @Natsecjeff: Never seen a President throw away his entire legacy quite in this fashion. Truly incredible.

That’s an invitation for more IRGC aggression!!🤦🏻‍♂️

⭕️ I've said it many times here: this is what happens when you transmit to the Iranians that you're obsessed with a deal. They become emboldened and hope that Trump will restrain Israel from retaliating because he wants to secure "a deal." The million-dollar question tonight, both in the US and Israel, is whether Trump will finally wake up and green-light Israel to retaliate. Otherwise, this will only get much worse from here.