U.S. Rejects Tehran's Latest Deal and All Signs Suggest That Regime Change Is on Trump's Agenda

RedState 

Iran has responded to President Trump's vow on Thursday to have a completed deal that shuts down Iran's pathway to nuclear weapons — and no, Obama's nuclear deal did not do this despite what some prominent leftist midwits claim — or shutting down what remains of its program the old-fashioned way within 10 to 15 days saying, “the only solution is diplomatic negotiation.” 

Iranian Prime Minister Abbas Araghchi showed a marked lack of situational awareness in an interview on MS NOW where he basically taunted Trump over the claimed lack of success by Operation Midnight Hammer (Hegseth, Trump Open Up About Operation Midnight Hammer Impact, Offer Behind-the-Scenes Glimpse) and feigned hurt that Trump was responding with force to the statement made by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on December 27, “In my opinion, we are in a full-fledged war with America, Israel and Europe. They do not want our country to stand on its feet.” This is more than rhetoric; shortly after Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran placed a $40 million bounty on President Trump's head; see Iran Has Placed a $40 Million Bounty on President Trump.

Araghchi told MS Now that this military build-up is “absolutely unnecessary and unhelpful” and is classed as “hostility shown to us by the United States.”

On Friday, Araghchi also pushed back on Trump’s claim that U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites last June had “decimated” Iran’s nuclear program.

Araghchi pushed back on this narrative, saying that during the “huge attack” in June by the U.S. and Israel, “they killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn’t kill our nuclear program.”

If you followed the prelude to former Venezuelan strongman and current federal prisoner Nicolas Maduro being dragged, whining, and in his boxers, onto a U.S. Army helicopter, a lot of this will look familiar:

• An intransigent opponent. 
• A taste of kinetic action, with Iran, it was Midnight Hammer, with Maduro, it was his drug boats getting vaporized. 
• Trump offering a deal. 
• The opponent thinking they can use the rope-a-dope to do nothing. 
• A massive military buildup. 
• A deadline.

There are several lines of attack against possible military action that have emerged.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Republican Representative Thomas Massie (KY-4) and Democrat Representative Ro Khanna (CA-17) are threatening to use the War Powers Act to stop military action.

Cute and sure to impress the midwits and lackwits who look to those two for intellectual content. I addressed how the War Powers Act works and why every administration since Ford has declared it to be unconstitutional during the run-up to snatching Maduro; see Oh, No. The War Powers Posse Comes After President Trump Over His Attacks on Drug Cartels – RedState. Not only does such a resolution require action by both House and Senate, but the President must also sign it into law, or his veto must be overridden. If you are reading this and think the War Powers resolution is anything but a very cheap and transparent social media stunt, you probably should have anything sharper than a tennis ball taken out of your reach.

The Russians and Chinese are not thrilled. The claim that they will participate in a tripartite naval exercise with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Though this tweet uses the past tense, as though they were already on station, that is not the case. It is doubtful that either nation can move surface combatants to the Straits of Hormuz before Trump's deadline. I don't see how they do much more than serve as shields for Iran's navy to protect it from harm. 

Russian media is trotting out "OMG!! This is WORLD WAR 3!!!" narrative.

As always, it is important to evaluate the people talking. I've never encountered the Krapivnik character before, so I did a bit of digging. He claims to have enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1993 and to have become an infantry officer via an undisclosed means. He says he turned down a promotion to major in 2004 because of "fatigue from the systematic preparation for military operations in his homeland." By "homeland," he means Russia. Given the total timeline, I suspect his efficiency reports are in the toilet, and he left because he knew he had no hope of promotion. He has lived in Russia since 2010, which means he basically knows as much about current U.S. military operations as your typical labradoodle.

I understand why Russia might be torqued at having two client states jerked away in as many months, but their ability to do anything about it is limited.

Exact information on the U.S. forces arrayed in the region is spotty and, I think, unreliable. Suffice it to say that there will be two carrier strike groups, led, respectively, by the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, in the region before President Trump's deadline expires. A large number of aerial tankers and strike aircraft are positioned in the region. It is the largest buildup of US forces since the invasion of Iraq. One of these accounts, @OSINTdefender, is well known for plagiarism, and ordinarily, I wouldn't use it, but we know he stole it someplace fair and square.

That said, what is missing is a flow of ground units to the region. That provides an idea of the scope and intent of any potential operation.

The capture of Britain is at the point where we can no longer rely on them as an ally, but we seem to have found workarounds.

What hasn't been discussed thus far is what we are trying to achieve.

Superficially, depriving Iran of its nuclear weapons capacity seems to be the desired outcome. Though Operation Midnight Hammer probably destroyed Iran's ability to create fissile material and the widespread whacking of scientists and technicians further degraded Iran's return to bomb production, neither can be guaranteed. Ostensibly, there could be a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, believing that Iran will either give up its nuclear weapons program or negotiate in good faith calls your sanity into question. On Friday, our main negotiator with the regime, Steve Witkoff, brushed off Tehrna's latest "offer."

This suggests the real objective is regime change. And, of course, people whose memories and studies start in 2000 are going ape. 

This is a call for a circle jerk and negotiating with ourselves. You can always pull together some parade of horribles to make the case why something shouldn't be done. I think Iran can be divided into "us" problems and "them" problems. Iran building nukes, proliferating ballistic missile technology, and fomenting terrorism is definitely a "us" problem. On the other hand, civil war, state collapse, and a successor regime are "them" problems. While on the whole, we'd rather not see a cascade of suboptimal events, but we can't let that stand in the way of our national interests: the "us" problems. I can't be convinced that an Iran wracked by civil war and economic collapse is worse than the current regime, and I hope the administration sees the chance to put an end to the Tehran regime as more important than any possible negative outcome. I'm not a huge Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fan, but I think he gets this 100% right.

There is also the problem that if an X rando has a list of concerns, then so too does the Department of War. And if they aren't talking about it, it may be because it's none of your business. From what we've seen in the last year, it is utter folly for President Trump to share anything with the "Gang of Eight" because Hakeem Jeffries will injure himself getting to a camera to denounce what he's been told.

How does this unfold? If I'm right, and regime change is the desired outcome, then we need to look at the massive unrest in Iran.

The assertion that regime change is impossible without U.S. forces is fatuous. If we target the Clausewitzian "centers of gravity," we can leverage the latent power of the demonstrators who came within a whisker of prevailing in January to take down the regime. The target array would naturally include any unfinished business we have with the nuclear and ballistic missile programs, but it would also go after the forces propping up the regime, regime communications nodes, and regime leadership down to the city and province level. This would include destroying the regime's ability to jam and locate unauthorized devices inside Iran. 

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has legitimacy. Even if he personally can't pull together a successor government, he's demonstrated that he's respected in Iran and his broadcasts were vital in bringing people out into the streets; Is It 'Go Time' in Iran? – RedState.

As I noted in my posts about Venezuela, this aggregation of forces can't be sustained. It has to be used or dissolved. The window for using this force is weeks, not months. If the U.S. walks away, leaving the Tehran regime in place, we have given Tehran a huge win, and our credibility, which was burnished so brightly by the flawless extraction of Maduro, will be damaged.

President Trump Expresses Disappointment and Determination

President Trump reacts to the Supreme Court ruling with much the same perspective of many MAGA supporters.

For most of us the core of MAGA policy surrounds economics; specifically, GDP growth, jobs and wages. Economic security is national security. Immigration enforcement, border security and other priorities come after MAGAnomics.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country. I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you.

When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation.

Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.

I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.”

“To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.
 
Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:
 
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”
 
Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!
 
In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.
 
Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

4 Of The Best Lines From Kavanaugh’s Masterclass Defense Of Trump’s Tariff Power

‘As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense’

The Federalist

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump’s tariffs under an emergency act are unlawful, a conclusion Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “does not make much sense” in his dissent.

Trump declared two national emergencies in early 2025, one addressing drug trafficking and the other trade imbalances with other countries — like China — that have harmed Americans. As a result, Trump imposed tariffs on several nations, including China, Canada and Mexico.

The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Solutions Inc., that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

But Kavanaugh, dissenting alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, tore into the ruling.

‘The Answer Is Clearly Yes’

Kavanaugh argued that IEEPA gives Trump broad authority to regulate international economic transactions during declared national emergencies, including the “importation” of foreign goods.

As Kavanaugh pointed out, “The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate … importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”

But it apparently was not “clear” to the majority.

‘There Is No Good Answer’

Kavanaugh referenced historical precedent to back up his opinion, noting that President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent tariff on most foreign imports in 1971 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which authorized the president to “regulate … importation.” Such tariffs were upheld under that framing, which is the same language found in the IEEPA.

In creating IEEPA, as Kavanaugh wrote, Congress divided TWEA “into two separate statutes,” though “Congress retained that same ‘regulate … importation’ language in both laws — in TWEA for wartime and in IEEPA for peacetime national emergencies. In doing so, Members of Congress were plainly aware — after all, how could they not be — that the ‘regulate … importation’ language had recently been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to encompass tariffs.”

“If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA’s scope, why would it enact the exact statutory language from TWEA that had just been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to cover tariffs? Neither the plaintiffs nor the Court today offers a good answer to that question. Understandably so, because there is no good answer,” he continued.

Kavanaugh also noted that one year before IEEPA was enacted, the Supreme Court “unanimously ruled that a similarly worded statute authorizing the President to ‘adjust the imports’ permitted President Ford to impose monetary exactions on foreign oil imports.”

‘Heads in the Sand’

Kavanaugh also accused the majority of trying “to dodge the force of the Nixon tariffs by observing that one appeals court’s interpretation of ‘regulate … importation’ to uphold President Nixon’s tariffs does not suffice to describe that interpretation as ‘well-settled’ when IEEPA was enacted in 1977. Fair enough.”

“But that is not the right question,” Kavanaugh continues. “The question is what Members of Congress and the public would have understood ‘regulate … importation’ to mean when Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. Given the significant and well-known Nixon tariffs, it is entirely implausible to think that Congress’s 1977 re-enactment of the phrase ‘regulate … importation’ in IEEPA was somehow meant or understood to exclude tariffs.”

“Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the ‘regulate … importation’ language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand,” Kavanaugh wrote.

‘That Approach Does Not Make Much Sense’

Kavanaugh also questioned the rationality of the majority trying to limit the president’s authority while simultaneously allowing him a broader authority.

“The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports — meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment.”

“As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense,” he wrote.

Kavanaugh ended his opinion by essentially arguing that the majority concluded President Trump merely “checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs” — even though IEEPA, under his interpretation, would have been sufficient.

“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case — albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. “

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Outlines “Multiple Tools” Now Deployed in Tariff Policy – Sec. 232, 301 and 122 Explained

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority.  As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs.  WATCH (prompted):

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

The conflict between Meloni and Macron goes public

 A conflict has arisen between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron following the murder of a right-wing activist in Lyon. Meloni called the actions of left-wing extremists "a wound for Europe," which drew sharp criticism from Macron.  

 

 “I am always amazed at how nationalists, who oppose interference in their country’s affairs, are always the first to comment on what happens in other countries,” he stated. Meanwhile, in France, the investigation into the murder of young nationalist Quentin Dérank continues. He was killed after a brutal attack by left-wing radicals. 

 

 Among those arrested is Raphael Arnaud, an assistant to a member of the "France Unbowed" party, who announced the termination of his contract with his employee. The attack took place in Lyon, where Dérank, a member of the right-wing group Némésis, had attended a protest against the conference of Franco-Palestinian MEP Rima Assan.  

 HIS NAME WAS 

Quentin Deranque  (not Dérank)

 

Kavanaugh: Trump Obviously Has Tariff Power And Here’s How He Can Keep Using It

The Federalist 

The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled against President Trump’s use of an emergency economics law to impose tariffs on foreign countries, but that doesn’t mean the president is left without other measures he can pursue to implement them.

In its Friday decision in Learning Resources, Inc., et al v. Trump, the high court ruled (6-3) that Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact tariffs on foreign goods coming into the United States is unlawful. The majority more specifically asserted that the president’s reliance on the statute’s “regulate … importation” language does not encompass the power to levy tariffs.

Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito strenuously disagreed. In the principal dissent authored by Kavanaugh, the three justices argued that the existing “[s]tatutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer” to the question of whether presidents possess the power to implement tariffs under IEEPA “is clearly yes.”

Throughout his opinion, Kavanaugh provided a thorough explainer of how the law’s text, “longstanding historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents” favor the president. Equally significant, however, is the justice’s note clarifying that the majority’s opinion “might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.”

“That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case — albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The Trump appointee went on to list a series of existing federal statutes conferring the president tariff powers. Among those referenced by the justice are “the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”

“In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs,” Kavanaugh wrote.

It didn’t take long after the high court’s ruling came down for Trump to turn to such alternative statutes to enact tariffs on foreign goods. Citing Kavanaugh’s dissent, the president announced in a Friday press conference that he is signing an order imposing a “10 percent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”

Existing Section 232 and 301 tariffs will continue to “remain in place,” according to Trump.