Pragmatically Distributed

To eliminate the risk of Iran taking advantage of Biden’s lame duck period to achieve a nuclear breakout before Trump returns Israel should (with or without Biden’s permission) unilaterally attack Iran’s nuclear program.

It would be strategically worthwhile, even if the attack only delays their nuclear program, because it would give enough time for Trump to be inaugurated. Once Trump is back in the Oval Office Israel would have more indirect US support for the Israeli Air Force to finish off any last remnants of the Iranian nuclear program in followup airstrikes.

As for Ukraine, they would be wise to hire Boris Johnson as a special diplomatic representative to the United States to represent and coordinate military and diplomatic relations with Trump because of Johnson having more experience than any other European politician of working with him on international relations during Trump’s first term.

By publicly opposing an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear program (but offering American “assistance” in Israel’s retaliation against some other, less important, targets) Biden is trying to eliminate Iranian nuclear sites as target options for the Israelis in two ways.

First, Biden is trying to bluff Israel by intimidating them with the diplomatic risk of openly defying him if they attack Iran’s nuclear sites anyway (apparently Biden is operating under the false assumption that anyone is intimidated by him).

Second, by offering to have Israel join the United States in retaliatory strikes Biden and Sullivan are trying to trick Israel into accepting a Trojan Horse by making the US a stakeholder in how severe the retaliation will be.

And as pro-Iranian partisans, Biden and Sullivan will use their position as mission stakeholders to dilute the destructiveness of whatever counter attack they will permit Israel to participate in.

Therefore, Israel has two main options for retaliation –

1) Participate in a joint US-Israeli attack that Sullivan and Biden will make sure is watered down and does not inflict serious strategic harm to their beloved Ayatollahs.

2) Reject the offer by the United States to participate in a joint strike in order to give Israel the strategic freedom to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites and inflict as much conventional damage against Iran as Israel possibly can.

Because the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is unquestionably the greatest strategic objective Israel can possibly achieve (second only to actually destroying the Iranian Government itself) Israel’s best option is to call Biden’s bluff and attack the Iranian nuclear program on its own.

Israel going alone will mean their operation will proceed without the mission restrictions Sullivan (who is infamous for imposing absurd restrictions on Ukrainian military operations) will be as eager to force down Israel’s throat as he has been Ukraine’s, if Netanyahu is foolish enough to give Sullivan a foot in the door to control Israel’s retaliatory strikes via Sullivan’s Trojan Horse of a “joint-operation”.

In reality, this is a perfect time to finally call Biden’s bluff because he is a lame-duck President who will be out of office in 3 months.

Similarly, Sullivan is on his way out no matter who wins the presidential election: If Trump wins, Sullivan is certainly out, while Kamala is going to remove Sullivan (probably in favor of Philip Gordon) because Sullivan has excluded her from crucial foreign policy decisions and Kamala is known to be extremely vindictive against staff who cross her for even the slightest offenses.

Since both Biden and Sullivan are on the way out, there is no reason at all for Netanyahu to be afraid of rejecting Sullivan’s Trojan Horse to prevent Israel from giving Iran the disproportionate, devastating, counter-attack the Ayatollahs deserve.

If I were in Netanyahu’s situation right now I would reject the joint operation (without actually saying I am rejecting it) as follows –

If I were Netanyahu I would first tell Biden that I agree to a joint US-Israeli retaliation and I want to execute it at the end of October.

I will also agree that the attack will be as watered down as much as Sullivan wants.

I would also privately promise Biden and Sullivan that I will not launch any unilateral Israeli attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, or any other target without US participation.

Then what I would do is between now and October 15 I would go ahead and privately order the Israeli Air Force to proceed with a full-scale attack to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

The reason I would promise Biden and Sullivan to join a US-Israeli operation is twofold.

First, because it would put the minds of Biden and Sullivan at ease that Iran can continue its quest to build nuclear weapons to destroy Israel – which must be what Biden and Sullivan truly want to happen because why else would anyone object to destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons potential unless they ultimately want Iran to attack Israel sometime in the future with nuclear weapons???

The second reason would be that by promising a diluted joint attack in late October I would be able to justify any questions US intelligence would have when they see Israeli preparations for the full-scale, Israel-only, attack in mid-October.

These preparations could be easily justified as merely being preparations for the weaker, joint-attack later that month.

Additionally, when I order the full-scale attack sometime before October 15, Biden and Sullivan (who will be expecting a weak retaliation later in October) would not have enough time to try to save Iran’s nuclear program.

Setting up their expectations for a joint attack later in October, but then executing a unilateral Israeli attack earlier and against Iran’s nuclear program, would leave Biden and Sullivan as surprised and helpless as the Ayatollahs.

Vance’s idiotic Ukraine plan to have Russia win the war in exchange for nothing has given Kamala a powerful strategic opportunity that poses a serious strategic risk to the Trump campaign.

With the presidential race basically tied in the Rust Belt even the smallest of voting change among particular demographics can make all the difference between victory and defeat.

The advantage Vance just handed Kamala on a silver platter is a politically terrible Ukraine policy that risks shifting just enough ethnic whites in the Rust Belt and white voters in the Sunbelt towards Kamala for her to beat Trump.

So far, Ukraine is a topic that Kamala has barely mentioned: presumably because Ukraine is not a priority in national polling.

However, in the all-important Rust Belt swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the Ukraine war has the potential (if Kamala makes Ukraine a top 5 campaign issue) to be a much higher voter priority than it is nationwide because of the large ethnic white populations of those states.

This would include millions of Italian, Polish, German, and Scandinavian descended Americans who have good ancestral reasons to want Russia’s military to be destroyed in Ukraine and rendered unable to attack other Eastern European nations like Poland.

A Russian victory (which is what Vance’s proposal for Ukraine is) would leave Russia in a position to rebuild and launch more invasions of other European nations aside from Ukraine.

If Vance gets what he wants, which is to guarantee Russia wins today and attacks more European nations in the future, it would obligate (under both EU and NATO treaty, and regardless of whether the United States intervened) for Italy, Poland, Germany, Scandinavia, and nearly all of the rest of Europe to declare war on Russia, something which Italian Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans and Scandinavian Americans in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would vote against in potentially large enough numbers for Kamala to win.

Polish Americans alone make up over 1.5 million residents of those three rust belt states and it would only take Kamala a net gain of 3% to 5% of Polish American voters for her to narrow her margins with Rust Belt white voters enough to win the Electoral College.

The Rust Belt is not the only potential area where Kamala loudly driving home the Ukraine issue could win it all for her.

With their large veteran and active military populations, the Sunbelt states of Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, and Georgia have swing groups of white voters with connections to the military who would also be receptive to the argument that Vance should not be allowed to have Russia win the war.

Thanks to Vance, all Kamala has to do is stop barely mentioning Ukraine, which is what she is doing now.

Instead, Kamala’s advisors will probably recommend she make Ukraine a top 5 campaign issue in these Rust Belt and Sunbelt swing states and run with the false attack line that if Trump wins he will make sure Russia wins the war by following Vance’s plan for future Russian wars of aggression.

Kamala would argue a victorious Russia will then go on to attack further into Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, which will then embroil Italy, Poland, Germany, Scandinavia, and most of Europe in a war with Russia that could have been prevented by allowing Ukraine to finish off and destroy the Russian Army.

Kamala would also then say that in order to prevent future Russian invasions, Putin and Vance can be stopped perfectly easily if only ethnic whites in the Rust Belt and militarily connected white voters in the Sunbelt vote for her so that she can implement her pro-Ukraine policies as President.

The result of Kamala running much harder on Ukraine with this kind of message (harder than she has so far) would probably be that her deficit in these swing states with ethnic white voters and white veterans and military personnel narrows to a point where she wins the Electoral College.

Thanks to Trump’s long coattails in Ohio it appears that Bernie Moreno is on track to defeat Senator Brown because the incumbent is very unlikely to win enough ticket splitters to be reelected.

Assuming Tester loses his Montana seat and there are no surprise defeats of incumbent GOP Senators then Republican pickups in West Virginia, Ohio, and Montana would give them 52 Senate seats.

If Moreno’s lead holds for another week then Senate Republicans would be wise to win at least a 53rd seat by investing more money in the Senate campaigns of McCormick in Pennsylvania, Rogers in Michigan and Hovde in Wisconsin (although Hovde may not need as much money since he can self-finance).

Although Rogers and Hovde might be considered somewhat more longshot campaigns than McCormick’s, investing in these two longshot campaigns is worth the risk if numbers for Moreno continue to look strong.

The Trump campaign was going absolutely perfectly until Vance became the runningmate in mid-July.

Ever since then Vance has been the best possible gift the diabolical Kamala could have hoped for. Vance has single handedly destroyed Trump’s poll numbers.

However, if Vance is “transitioned” (not “fired”) out of the VP role and into an analyst role for the campaign (which could lead to a cabinet position) then Trump’s numbers would immediately improve; a drastic improvement that would be easily accomplished with one, simple, change.

In terms of basic risk analysis it is clear that the danger of keeping Vance is far riskier than the risk of transitioning him out of the VP role.

If the current operational slowdown by Ukraine on the Kursk front is caused by demands from Biden and Sullivan to call off the offensive then Ukraine is making a major mistake (if it is being done for other reasons then it would depend on what those other reasons are).

In the event the slowdown is due to the Biden Administration then Ukraine should reject their demands to stop and proceed with an accelerated attack deeper into Russia on the grounds that Washington’s refusal to allow Ukraine to attack Russian airfields with long range American weapons is forcing them to push back Russian air activity further into Russia by taking more Russian land.

Overruning more Russian territory around Kursk until Ukraine positions itself North of Belgorod will force Russia to either move more ground forces from Ukraine and open gaps on the frontline which Ukraine could exploit in the South and/or East of Ukraine (which is especially dangerous for Russia considering their huge material losses mean repositioning to Kursk would exacerbate combat-ineffective numerical amounts of artillery and armor that are covering their pre-Kursk frontlines) or they would have to concede Ukraine’s advances and allow them to tear apart the rail lines around Belgorod that keep supplies flowing into Russian occupied Donbas.

But slowing down the offensive before Ukraine, at a minimum, reaches the North of Belgorod will minimize how many forces Russia has to reposition out of Ukraine and minimize the logistical damage Ukraine causes the Russians by striking the still lightly-defended Kursk-Belgorod region.

Delaying will also minimize how many Russian forces Ukraine can destroy since the Russians around Kursk are mostly fighting out in the open without the protection of prepared defenses. Giving Russia more time to construct fortifications will make it harder in the future for Ukraine to destroy those formations.

So long as Ukraine does not does not stop their offensive like Prighozin did (no matter how much Sullivan complains) their decision to invade Kursk is an outstanding maneuver.

Provided they keep pushing East and Southeast further towards Belgorod the Russians will be forced to either move forces out of Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from taking Belgorod but at the risk of opening gaps elsewhere in their frontline, or, they will have to abandon Belgorod and give Ukraine an opening to not only take Belgorod but position their soldiers North of Luhansk where they will be able to move South behind the main Russian fortifications in Luhansk.

But if Ukraine does stop (or even if they slow) the attack from going further East to threaten Belgorod then the Russians will not need to shift as many forces to block Ukraine and most of the strategic advantages of invading Kursk will be lost.

Replacing a VP nominee who didn’t work out as hoped because they turned out to be goofy is not even a scandal beyond a few days of media attention that quickly fades.

When Tom Eagleton was replaced as a VP nominee (an event that was quickly forgotten) it was more of a campaign administrative reorganization (rather than an admission of a failure or a mistake) because no one today remembers who Tom Eagleton was.

Similarly, the removal and replacement of Vance out of the VP slot (perhaps to a role of senior advisor and promise of a cabinet secretary where he would be out of the spotlight) would not be due to a mistake on Trump’s part.

Replacing Vance would be a perfectly normal, perfectly routine, administrative task for the Trump campaign, perhaps a mild demotion at worst.

But clearly Vance was better off in the background supporting Trump rather than soaking up the campaign spotlight as VP because he is too much of an easy target with too many negatives which Democrats happily exploit to justify keeping him on the VP ticket where he can only harm Trump’s poll numbers.

The latest screwup by Vance (on the same day Kamala’s campaign photographed him goofily stalking her Air Force Two plane on the tarmac) is that he (stupidly) has revived an issue that hadn’t been a problem for Trump since 2016.

The issue that Vance has resurrected, an issue that was put to rest 8 years ago and which Trump (until Vance a few weeks ago) hasn’t had to deal with in years is the false allegation Democrats have made that Trump avoided the draft in Vietnam with a bogus medical exemption.

This once forgotten issue has become something Democrats (as they planned) are bringing up again because Vance blundered into the trap Walz and the Democrats set for him.

The trap is that the Democrats snookered Vance into getting into a long back and forth with Walz over whether Vance or Walz had lied about their accomplishments in the military.

What Vance wasn’t clever enough to realize was that the Democrats WANTED Vance and Walz to battle it out over their military service for a while in order to bait Vance into saying Walz deserted his troops.

Once Vance accused Walz of abandoning his troops, and once there was enough media attention and fury over the Vance-Walz debate, Vance revived an opening for Democrats to raise the false accusation against Trump that Trump had abandoned his military duties with a bogus medical intention.

Now, the Democrats have Vance in a strategic dilemma (a problem that Vance should never have created for Trump) where, after Vance accused Walz of abandoning his military duties, the Democrats can dare Vance to explain TRUMP’S military service and ask if Vance thinks Trump wrongly abandoned his military duties.

Vance is now in a no win scenario.

Obviously, Vance cannot say Trump abandoned his duties even though it is PROBABLE there is at least ONE video of Vance recorded sometime between 2015 and 2019 where Vance (who was then a NeverTrumper and Bilderberg member) repeated the common Democrat lie that Trump got out of Vietnam with a bogus medical exemption (this video, which very well could exist, is probably being saved by Kamala’s opposition researchers).

Would ANYONE IN THE WORLD bet money that there IS NOT ONE video, or, some interview or email/writing of Vance from his time as a NeverTrumper where he himself didn’t repeat the Democrat lie that Trump got out of Vietnam with a bogus medical exemption???

Afterall, Vance at the time Democrats made these false allegations about Trump and Vietnam was a VERY devoted and outspoken NeverTrump political pundit on TV and in newspapers who would probably have repeated all of the standard Democrat lies about Trump, which would include the lie about Trump and Vietnam.

But if Vance says Trump didn’t abandon his duties, the Democrats will say he is flip flopping again (just like he has flip flopped on NeverTrump, abortion, his own name, and many other issues) by saying he is a hypocrite for, on one hand, saying that Walz didn’t uphold his duties but then Vance is fine saying Trump did uphold his duties which the Democrats will insist Trump did not uphold by referring the media and voters to their old lie that Trump evaded Vietnam with a bogus medical exemption.

This will allow the Democrats to bring up Trump’s military service CONSTANTLY throughout the rest of the campaign because Vance opened this Pandora’s box.

Vance allowed the Democrats to resurrect this false allegation against Trump by letting Walz lure him into a debate over Vance and Walz’s military career.

Now that military service will be something Democrats (thanks to Vance’s foolishness) will be happy to keep attacking Trump with for the rest of the campaign because Vance indirectly revived this false rumor, the only way to terminate these false allegations against Trump is to demote Vance from VP to a senior advisor, perhaps even a cabinet secretary in a new Trump Administration.

Fortunately, demoting Vance is the best option for Trump and it carries minimal risk because it will be quickly forgotten (like Tom Eagleton was forgotten) and it does not carry the enormous burden and risk of Trump’s military service being a central talking point in the campaign, a talking point that can only be taken off the table by the reassignment of Vance.

The strategy the Democrats have used to trap Vance – which Vance, as a good beta male doofus, has completely fallen for – can be illustrated with the recent exchanges between Vance and Walz about their respective military records.

What ARE the topics of this debate?

1) Vance’s military record.

2) Walz’s military record.

Do you know what is NOT being mentioned anywhere in this debate?

Trump!

The debate about military records that is dominating news headlines has effectively pushed Trump almost completely out of the headlines because Democrats want Vance to be the center of the Trump campaign due to the large amount of personal baggage that Vance wants Trump to cleanup so long as Vance remains on the ticket.

The 1st stage in setting up this trap was when the Democrats initially worked to raise Vance’s negatives about his phoniness as indicated by his many policy flip flops (such as calling Trump Hitler once and now, supposedly, being a full Trump supporter) and even his name changes, and his many statements that are turnoffs to women like saying wanting an abortion after becoming pregnant from rape was a response to an “inconvenience.”

This was followed by Democrats successfully branding Vance as “weird” in order to further drive up Vance’s negatives with women, which, of course, would be a serious electoral risk to Trump since there are slightly more women voters than male voters.

The Democrat’s battle to destroy Vance’s brand image with women has been a success (Vance has at least a negative 10 point unfavorable rating overall and that will increase as time goes on because he is very unlikeable) that they have moved to phase two.

The 2nd phase of their strategy is going on now with the back and forth between Vance and Walz about their careers in the military.

What they are doing is engaging a badly weakened Vance on ANY issue in order that the media scrutiny keeps falling on Vance because women despise Vance the more they see of him.

That Vance and Walz are debating their military histories isn’t really the strategy because the topic is not relevant.

All the Democrats want is for Vance to debate ANY topic so that he takes the spotlight from Trump.

The debate topic could be about a cheese sandwich and Democrats would still be as happy to get Vance in the spotlight with that debate because the more Vance is in the news (regardless of the topic) the more he damages the Trump campaign by transforming it not into the Trump campaign but instead into the hated brand known as the J.D. Vance Show.

Of course, even though Democrats and the media are treating Trump more and more like an afterthought to Vance (almost like Trump is Vance’s running mate) they will still use Vance’s weaknesses to pivot and go after Trump more directly.

For example, in addition to the high level strategy of keeping Vance in the spotlight with multiple arguments about his biography and career, Walz is also clearly setting a trap in the debate where Vance will accuse Walz of abandoning his soldiers and then Walz will close the trap doors on Vance by asking him a deceptive question about “if Vance thinks TRUMP abandoned his own military duties with a medical exemption?” (This trap can, of course, be neatly avoided if Trump fires Vance before the VP debate).

But for the most part, the media and Democrats are going to keep going after Vance more than they are after Trump because Vance’s beta male energy is radioactive to women and keeping Vance in the spotlight keeps his betaness first and foremost in the minds of women voters.

Therefore, the more Democrats trick women into seeing the Trump campaign as the J.D. Vance show the more they will turn away from the Trump campaign because women already hate Vance and they are going to hate him even more as Vance is portrayed more and more as the de facto top of the ticket.

A VP candidate that attracts this much negative publicity is extremely unusual in presidential campaign politics (and when it does happen it is never for positive publicity).

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton rarely needed to defend and bailout Al Gore from his screwups like Vance needs Trump to defend and bail him out from Vance’s screwups.

In 1988 and 1992 George HW Bush rarely needed to defend and bailout Dan Quayle from his screwups like Vance needs Trump to defend and bail him out from Vance’s screwups (Quayle’s misspelling potato was a very, very, minor sin compared to Vance’s mistakes).

Gore and Quayle at least adhered to the golden rule of VPs to never overshadow the top of the ticket, a rule that Vance has happily broken in order to advance his own ambitions and which has given Democrats a huge opportunity to exploit at Trump’s expense.

Vance’s brand with women at this point is terrible, and will only get worse the more he is allowed to radiate his beta male energy in front of a female electorate that instinctively despises his creepiness.

With no hope of Vance turning around his already high negative ratings with women and the public generally, the best option for the campaign is to replace Vance with a new VP who will not be the anchor to Trump’s success that Vance is.