That is an important question, because the next stage is any setting can be set in two switches. The one that affects you directly and the the one that does not affect you. We then get the affected switch that has a direct consequence and merely a derived one. So when we get Al Jazeera who gives us ‘Tehran rejects Trump’s Hormuz deadline’ mere hours ago, these switches go into overdrive. Because now we get BBC telling us 5 hours ago ‘Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran over Hormuz Strait blockage’ where we learn “US President Donald Trump has published an expletive-laden post on social media in which he threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants and bridges if it failed to meet his Tuesday deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. He repeated an earlier threat to unleash “hell” but told US media there was a “good chance” of a deal being reached with Tehran. Iran mocked his ultimatum, dismissing it as “helpless, nervous and stupid”.” And we then get ABC giving us 13 hours ago ‘Iran briefing with Matthew Doran: Threats tell us more about Trump’s frustration than anything else’ where we see “Donald Trump has issued a new deadline of Tuesday for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping traffic, without restriction. In an expletive-laden post on social media, he said bridges and power plants would be destroyed if the regime in Tehran didn’t comply”, in this we have “issued a new deadline”, which is what people do who cannot follow through on threats are a separate issue. I cannot say what issue, because I am still on that horse named bankrupt and the only setting that makes sense would have been bombing near immediately. The fact that we get timeline stretching is another setting that influences it all. But 3 minutes ago Al Jazeera gives us ‘Pakistan says it is engaged in diplomacy amidst ‘egos’ and ‘distrust’’, I personally believe that Pakistan needs to get involved to safe face with both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but they are right in one part. Whatever the United States gives us is flawed if not, an outright ‘miscommunication’. ‘So whilst we all see the ‘tirades’ President Trump gives us all we deny, looking in the corner where nobody wants us too look. Add to that all the generals who got fired (apparently 8 in total) a setting that shifts a few lines and the derived consequence to the switches I mentioned at the start by them.
Whatever is taken from a convoluted timeline that we see now seems to be the flimflam orchestration which only reaffirms my thoughts that the United States is on its last energy and when that runs out, the hostilities begin. Do you really believe that President Trump will admit to being out of funds? I reckon that we better reenforce the defence of Canada, because as I see it, the United States is likely to get 65,000 troops as reenforcement. So suddenly I sound a little less crazy don’t I? And it comes at a time when CUSMA is under review, the Hill gives us “Canada and Mexico have suffered the ire of Trump, ranging from blanket tariffs to threats of annexation and invasion. As a result, economic policy uncertainty is at historical highs in Canada, while in Mexico, the devaluation of the peso and a 10-25 per cent U.S. tariff on many Mexican goods has hit the economy hard. Beneath the headlines are more muted negotiations over policy choices on matters of tariff exemption and content requirements for a range of sectors. While automobile manufacturing and steel steal the headlines, the critical minerals and energy sector is now at centre stage in the CUSMA review.” The setting is ‘pre-arranged’ as it is the United States that is in a crunch, not Canada or Mexico and it is the United States that requires critical minerals. And in that setting both Mexico and Canada are the strong players, even whilst we are given “economic policy uncertainty is at historical highs in Canada” all whilst Canada is making new headways in the world with the Middle East, Europe and Asia the new stages of economic strength. Not policy uncertainty. As I see it, there are more settings in play.
There is a setting under the surface that screams misalignment. I personally think that the United States is playing bluff poker with a “dead man’s hand” all whilst his opponents Iran, Europe and Canada knows what he is holding. I think this is the best analogy I can come up with. So when the shouting and bully tactics end, the United States is holding the cards they have and they are not good. So they either bluff their way into everyone not playing, or they will win. Even at this setting Canada needs a mere three two’s to win the hand and that might be the weakest setting it needs. No one has a clue what Mexico has, but its catering to the shortages of Cuba gives them a few short term advantages. So whatever the United States is proposing in this setting will have a few set backs. The first what the Venezuelan failure brought and the second is the 6 week failure that Iran is bringing to the table. I reckon that they might have a claim of a few hundred billion to the table of the International courts of The Hague. No matter how you slice this, it will be seen as an illegal war. No matter whatever the US administration calls it (they called it not a war) and in that setting it is the courts that will have a field day (and those lawyers making the good cash) and all of this comes out of the near empty coffers of the United States. So whilst we see all this, a mere two days ago we are given “Fox News’ Bill Hemmer cut off President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser when he tried to blame former President Joe Biden for high gas prices amid the Iran war. Oil prices have surged as Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway in the Middle East that carries about a fifth of the world’s oil. The national average cost of gas has exceeded $4 a gallon in the U.S. as Americans bear the brunt of Trump’s war against Iran.” So is this the path of this US administration? Blame the previous administration?
And I apologise in advance of jumping over these hurdles (articles) like a horse on steroids. But it gives us a larger setting that is over all the images. The media are pretty good of merely looking at one part, hoping the people doesn’t see the larger image. It reminds me of the person showing is the image of a worm and we think ‘Oh, goody’ but the image becomes a little weird when we zoom out, only to realise that we were looking at the tail of a rat and the ones manipulating the images are all about misdirecting our interest whilst we should be focusing on rat extermination.
So whilst I might be wrong to focus on a broke United States of America, it is where the exposed data leads me. And whilst the United States tells the world it is doing great, we need to realise that things are bad. Consider that last week we were given “According to March 2026 data, the US labor market showed remarkable strength with 178,000 jobs added” and whilst we see a few days later “Oracle has laid off approximately 30,000 employees, representing about 19% of its global workforce” all whilst we are also given “Since the start of 2026, Meta, Autodesk, Salesforce, Workday, Google, Pinterest, Block and other firms have announced layoffs” so how great is the employment setting of the United States? In all this it is merely another element towards the broke setting of the United States, all whilst the media is no help in giving us what we would need to give ourselves a neutral view on the matter. A setting that this US Administration is using (read: abusing) to get the populist vote, but things really are not that rosy at present for the current administration. I reckon that the expected filtering on the speculated ‘deleting of bad news’ in California will aid the economic downturn that the United States is currently facing.
The ice is slippery and not enough to bare anyones weight (especially mine) but as the media is not doing its jobs, I have no choice but to speculate with the (incomplete) data I have and this is the conclusion I come to. The United States is broke, I have said so before, but the evidence is now becoming malleable, which it should not, I agree with people opposing that thought. Yet the images of President Trump going all out like the proverbial mad dog with his threats
All whilst people focus on the threat and not on the stage surrounding that threat and it goes way beyond Iran.
So have a great day and consider the thoughts I am leaving you with.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 