When war and politics mixes

That is the setting that I see initially, but there is a lot more. So lets go back to the message CNN hands us roughly 95.432 minutes ago. CNN (at https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/22/politics/trump-iran-national-security-meeting) gives us ‘Trump meets with national security officials as he weighs next steps on Iran’ where we are told “President Donald Trump met Friday with top US national security officials as he weighs a path forward on the war with Iran, a person familiar with the meeting said. The White House session — which Trump holds routinely — came as diplomacy grinds ahead in an attempt to secure a deal to end the war. It ended without a decision on what will happen next, though Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Saturday there “might be some news a little later today.” “Even as I speak to you now, there’s some work being done,” Rubio said, talking to reporters on a trip to India. “There is a chance that, whether it’s later today, tomorrow, in a couple days, we may have something to say.”” So, am I getting that “Between now and whenever he will tell us that Coffee is better with cream?” Because that is something to say. As I see it, the American war room is filled with committed non-intelligent people. And when we see “According to Iranian state media accounts, Ghalibaf said Iran “will not back down from the rights of our nation and country – especially when dealing with a party that has never shown sincerity and in which no trust exists.”” And it is here that for the first time (ever) people are not seeing Iran as the big bad. How do you think anyone sees the United States as a friendly nation when people start believing Iranian media? But that is not all (at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-says-hes-called-off-iran-strike-planned-for-tuesday-at-request-of-gulf-allies) we are given ‘Trump says he’s called off Iran strike planned for Tuesday at request of Gulf allies’ and we are seemingly asking the question “Which Gulf allies?”, so this article was given to us on May 18th, 2026 4:27 PM EDT. It is important to show the time given the timeline. And the article also gives us “Trump has been threatening for weeks that the ceasefire struck in mid-April could end if Iran did not strike a deal, with shifting parameters for striking such an agreement. Over the weekend he warned, “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.” Trump said he was calling off the planned strike at the request of allies in the Middle East, including the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.” So we see the names, but personally I reckon that we need to see that same message in places like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and Arab News. We have seen to much Tom Foolery by the digital dollar driven media and most of us seek verification. Yet Al Jazeera gives us ‘Iran war updates: Trump warns of attacks in ‘two or three days’ if no deal’ on May 19th 2026, so the three days have passed. Whilst only 20 minutes ago (aka 1200 seconds) CBS gives us ‘Trump says U.S. is “getting a lot closer” to agreement with Iran’ (at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-war-negotiations-draft-agreement-strait-of-hormuz/) With the quotes “Sources familiar with the negotiations told CBS News that the latest proposal includes a process to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of some Iranian assets held in foreign banks, and a continuation of negotiations. Mr. Trump declined to provide specifics about the agreement, but said that “every day it gets better and better. I can’t tell you before I tell them, right?” Mr. Trump told CBS News in a phone interview. Mr. Trump did say that he believes the final agreement will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, adding that he “wouldn’t even be talking about it” otherwise. Mr. Trump added that the agreement would also result in Iran’s enriched uranium being “satisfactorily handled.”” But the CBS article gives me pause, you see words are everything and they give us the mention of ‘Mr. Trump’, but he is president. He is not my president, I don’t like him much, but he was elected and CBS should know this. So why the wording? As I see it, whatever delay we see would be working in favour of Iran, the more the words of President Trump are doubted, the more power Iran gains from all this, the weaker the United States looks to the world. I am getting the feeling (or perhaps illusion/delusion) that the Sun Tzu setting from the Art of War could use another chapter. In Chapter 13 we are given the 5 states of spies. Local Spies, Inward Spies, Converted Spies, Dead Spies, Living Spies. So what would be the case if we imply this to politicians. We always thought they were the ‘asset’ of that nation, but what happens when that is no longer the case? Because a politician serves up to three masters, Their nation, themselves, big corporations or their party. But what happens when their nation is replaced in the first instance towards one of these goals. What happens when they stop seeing their nation and their voters towards whatever happens to take the primary place in goals? What happens then? And as I see it, the media is too involved in servicing their need for the digital dollar to care on what seems to be happening.

So agree or disagree, it is fine with me. But when you look at it and consider that fuel now is at an average of $4.529, which is a little more than the $3.10 to was on 2025. So, what else are you paying through the nose for now and aren’t politicians meant to keep these costs of living down? The so called war on Iran didn’t really set that out did it? And still the nuclear setting has been “Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, but it has a long history of engaging in secret nuclear weapons research in violation of its international commitments. Western analysts say the country has the knowledge and infrastructure to produce a nuclear weapon in fairly short order should its leaders decide to do so.” As such the world was driven into some perspective war because ‘produce a nuclear weapon in fairly short order should its leaders decide to do so’ I am not saying that this reasoning is short, but the deception around all this has become debilitating. No one wants to see Iran with nuclear weapons, but we should all be told the exact truth (as I see it) and there is way too much deception in all of this. Deception in war is OK, it is the part of Chapter 13 that makes sense, because disinformation towards enemies is a employable weapon, but this disinformation has taken in a life of its own, it is now almost everywhere and it is labelled truth next to the actual truth and a lot of people (including myself) are finding it harder and harder to distinguish one from the other and the BBC gives us less than a day ago “But what is driving the US pressure on Cuba and how is it responding?” Because as I see it, that is the next stage. Canada, Greenland, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba? Did anyone really want to give President Trump a Nobel peace price? As I see it, War and Politics don’t mix, politics needs to present a clear message, from that war optionally derives, but that is a personal view I have and it might be wrong.

Have a great day. Oh wait, I am watching Harry Potter getting killed again. Repetition doesn’t make the story better or more, it makes the story the same story, no matter how it is reenforced. So enjoy the day and consider how the story is being told to you and what it is actually saying, because that too shapes the narrative that is in your mind, in all our minds actually. So have a good one, I am still hours away from my morning coffee, so I might look at letter 26 multiple times for a few hours (the answer is ZZZZZZZZZ).