That is a statement we are familiar with. We get things wrong. You, me, people we know. But the setting that Al Jazeera gives us (at https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/18/top-us-spy-accused-of-omitting-iran-intel-that-contradicts-trump) is different. The setting that is given us is ‘Top US spy accused of omitting Iran intel that contradicts Trump’ a spymaster (yes, I am laughing at this too) should not be allowed to give us anything like “US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been accused of altering her Senate testimony on Iran, omitting details that contradict President Trump’s claim that the country posed an imminent threat.” You see, as a person of ‘direct interpretation of intelligence’ you are in a position that if you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. That is the direct involvement of Intelligence and as such we can deduce that America is more of a joke than anyone has been considering for some time. And this is not to the audience, as stated this is towards the people ‘steering’ that comedy stage. Altered intelligence was offered (as said) towards the US senate. That is a more ludicrous setting to say in the least.
And it gets to be worse we get ‘US counterterrorism chief resigns over Iran war’ from Defense One (at https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2026/03/counterterrorism-center-head-resigns-over-iran-war/412171/) where we are given “The head of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned from his post Tuesday over the U.S.-Israel war on Iran. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Joe Kent, the head of the center, wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump.” As such we now get a new kettle of fish. I personally believe that the setting of “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby” is additional dishonest. What it gives me is (beside a weird taste in my mouth) is that the setting that I have been giving for some time that America is too broke to matter, that this administration will steal whatever they can to get the revenue they need to pay interest payments. That could also result in the International courts in The Hague and the United Nations giving the United States a written summons to adjust or be made irrelevant. I think this is a much better resolution than Rubio telling the world that the United States decides on International law than the world does (a little sloppy explanation, but it suffices), like we see the how the United States are setting the setting for Cuba now. A setting that is merely muddling the pool. As I personally see it, it is a way to get Russia involved so that the United States can cry like little bitches that they are under attack from Russia, and Europe much act in its defence.
So as we are now given a new state through Reuters as we are given ‘Exclusive: US weighs military reinforcements as Iran war enters possible new phase’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-weighs-military-reinforcements-iran-war-enters-possible-new-phase-2026-03-18/) a mere two hours ago. We see here “President Donald Trump’s administration is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the U.S. military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran, said a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter. The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding U.S. operations, with the Iran war well into its third week.” But this has come AFTER Tulsi Gabbard has been accused of “altering her Senate testimony on Iran, omitting details that contradict President Trump’s claim that the country posed an imminent threat.” So the question becomes is Tulsi Gabbard the decoy to hide the financial setting of the United States, or is there more in play and that is something that the minute by minute logs will carry to the top of the limelight as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is approached by Iran and the Gulf states for financial appeasement because of the aggressive actions of the United States (and Israel). And do not think that this is out of the realm of possibilities. The United States (through President Trump) and its lackeys made statements like ‘Just for Joy’ and ‘no quester and no mercy’ all settings that does not fare well in the articles of war and beside the point that the United States never gave a writ through the declaration of war makes this an almost slam dunk for Iran. We can be against Iran for all we like (I personally am) but we adhere to the law and there Iran (the Gulf States too) have a valid claim in a setting of musical chairs the Gulf States against Iran and Iran against the United States and Israel. I tend to give the hand of adjustment to Israel, but is there an official declaration of war against Iran? Specifics matter in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and I get that, I am all for the law (even if it does not make sense at times) and the media is too some level at fault there as they have been omitting information at times because it didn’t ‘play well’ with its audience and as such there is a larger omission to deal with. If you doubt this, that is fair, bit tell me which international newspapers dealt with the setting that Defense One gave us in the setting that Joe Kent, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. Who else had this in their intelligence summary? As some say, if you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say and as it stands (as I see it), people like Tulsi Gabbard cannot hide behind episodes of expressive aphasia, so whilst we get to “The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran’s Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran’s oil exports, the three people familiar with the matter and three U.S. officials said. One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones.” We get to another setting in all this. Why send troops when it has been ‘bombed back into the stone age’? What is the need to put boots on the ground there? The Strait of Hormuz has more issues and troops there have seemingly no valid interest. It merely shows that the United States want to allegedly siphon off there what it can and that does not serve any purpose but their impeding invoices. But I might be wrong here.
The setting is that the media and through that parties don’t react the way they are supposed to, António Guterres is definitely one of them. When did he clearly speak out in favour of international law? Perhaps he did and the media merely ignored it. Too many questions and the fact that European leaders are ignoring Washington DC is perhaps the only clear setting we currently see.
As I see it, the entire Iranian setting is about to be heralded the largest shit show the world has ever seen and I reckon the media will get their digital dollars out of that fine setting for a long time to come.
Have an optional great day, it’s almost Friyay.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 