And there you have it: Witkoff says that Trump is frustrated/curious as to why Iran has not "capitulated" yet, despite massive US military threats.
This is the core of the matter: As I have written extensively, Israel and pro-Israeli voices have sold Trump a narrative that claims that Iran is far weaker than it actually is, which predictably has led Trump to push for maximalist goals and Iranian capitulation, which in turn, likely will lead to war - completely in line with Israel's goals.
There is a deal to be had, but not the surrender option Trump has put on the table. As I explain this piece, the US "offer" is so unrealistic that Iran believes war offers it better odds than this capitulation.
If Trump doesn't seek war, he needs to quickly discard the false Israeli narrative and adopt a much more realistic approach centered on American rather than Israeli interests.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-iran-small-attack/
Before & since the June war I've argued that the Iranian government's position on the nuclear issue and its regional policies are out of sync with reality it faces. But on the U.S. side, the professed interest in a deal seems undermined by fundamental points of confusion. 1/
Does Trump Have the Legal Authority to Strike Iran?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Also no. https://time.com/7380309/iran-war-legal-trump/
If Portugal follows London's lead on the usage of bases for war with Iran, we will have a rerun of the Greenland debate, this time of the Azores. 1970s rerun to be precise.
Syria's new Al Qaeda president I guess inadvertently created a situation that let tens of thousands of jihadists escape prison. No one will care or think about this until a few years from now when we need a new war.
No foreign enemy in decades has done more to hurt Americans’ security and prosperity than DC’s own pro-war hardliners. They’re revving up to do it again.