Iran War

[Sheilbh]

I believe this applies, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible

Pope John Paul II canonized the Opus Dei founder, to undo this would mean that a previous pope failed in his divine duty, was misinformed or otherwise misled, something that can not happen when you represent God on Earth.

It's akin to admitting the divine Augustus made a mistake in not writing a proper constitution with codified rules of succession for his empire.  (because, well, I had to think of Rome, you know...)

Not really anything to do with papal infallibility - canonisation is a decision of the church/magisterium (with a lot of process), not a personal decision of a Pope. I don't think there's anyway to formally revoke canonisation.

I would add of course the wider issue with a critical perspective of JPII is that he is now Saint John Paul II the Great.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah.  Else why would the Pentagon summon a Vatican diplomat for a meeting? Foreign policy is conducted by the State department, not DoD.

Normatively yes, but in the Trump admin, anything goes.  No one is really conducting anything, and to the extent something resembling policy exists, it can be driven by anyone that has Trump's ear and attention in the moment, or at least his acquiescence.  Thus, such things like an "advisor" with no official position of any kind acting like a super Prime Minister and destroying entire departments and agencies; the vast expansion of ICE over areas far outside its authority, competence, or jurisdiction; the combination of graft and pseudo-diplomacy carried out by the unaccredited negotiation team of Kushner+Witkoff; the takeover of the US justice system by Trump's criminal defense lawyer; many other examples.  In that context, a takeover of Vatican diplomacy by DoD is no great innovation.

[Norgy]

During the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?

[frunk]

During the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?

This time around everything is understaffed or unstaffed, except ICE which is staffed in the worst way.

[HisMajestyBOB]

During the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?

The State Department is too woke.

[grumbler]

Yeah.  Else why would the Pentagon summon a Vatican diplomat for a meeting? Foreign policy is conducted by the State department, not DoD.

Normatively yes, but in the Trump admin, anything goes.  No one is really conducting anything, and to the extent something resembling policy exists, it can be driven by anyone that has Trump's ear and attention in the moment, or at least his acquiescence.  Thus, such things like an "advisor" with no official position of any kind acting like a super Prime Minister and destroying entire departments and agencies; the vast expansion of ICE over areas far outside its authority, competence, or jurisdiction; the combination of graft and pseudo-diplomacy carried out by the unaccredited negotiation team of Kushner+Witkoff; the takeover of the US justice system by Trump's criminal defense lawyer; many other examples.  In that context, a takeover of Vatican diplomacy by DoD is no great innovation.

My point was that the fact that the envoy was summoned to the Pentagon is evidence that the story of him being hectored and threatened is true. There would be no obvious other purpose to summon him to the Pentagon except to do exactly that.

[Syt]

During the first Trump presidency, there were reports of the US state department being very understaffed. I suppose this trend has continued?

There were several articles on the topic when Iran started, like this one:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-03-19/state-department-cut-jobs-with-deep-expertise-in-middle-east-as-iran-crisis-escalates

[...]

• State Department has cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs and eliminated a dedicated Iran office as the region faces escalating conflict with Tehran.
• Over 3,800 department employees departed since President Trump took office, including veteran diplomats and speakers of critical languages like Arabic and Farsi.
• Evacuation messaging to Americans in the region came late and initially confused, with some embassies unprepared for the crisis.

[...]

[Sheilbh]

Not seen any furthe reporting on this in the West - but Iranian reports that DC is allowing the release of $6 billion of frozen Iranian funds (via Qatari and South Korean intermediaries).

The Iranian delegation also playing a few games around messaging to emphasise that they're not rushing to or desperate for negotiations. I'd add that if the assets story is true, plus Lebanon and the US asking Israel to pause fighting then it's not just theatre from the Iranian delegation.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

If the Iranians play it smart they'll get an unconditional surrender from Trump

[Valmy]

Yep. Swaggering breathtaking arrogance combined with breathtaking ignorance. The American way.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.

[mongers]

The US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had not paid a toll to Iran Trump Inc.

FYP for greater accuracy.

[jimmy olsen]

Unless some moves are made quickly I don't really see the ceasefire holding, there's too little of the "cease" and too much of the "fire."

In terms of Trump's strategy versus Iran--his biggest single weakness specific to Iran (ignoring his general weaknesses like low intelligence, poor emotional regulation etc), is his obsession and fear of gasoline prices.

You can go to war with Iran.

You cannot go to war with Iran, and not raise gas prices.

Given that reality, it is virtually impossible to wage a successful war against Iran if you have close to no tolerance for increased gas prices. In the past, when American Presidents have felt the need to wage wars that they knew would create unpopular domestic consequences, they made appeals to the American public, they built a case for the war, they convinced people this war justified some sacrifice.

Trump started the war in secret with little advance notice, certainly no public political debate. He has never meaningfully justified it to America, and he has certainly never tried to appeal to Americans patriotism to get them to tolerate self sacrifice. Instead he has consistently said the war would be over "very soon" and tried to create narrative that the war would solely be fun and winning, no pain at all.

Now, I'm not sure necessarily if Trump could ever achieve significant wins in Iran without ground troops. But I do know some figures like former Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, have openly said it is more or less "insane" that Trump hasn't shut down Iran's oil trade. That's out of line with basic military strategy for about as long a we've had navies--the idea that you let your enemy shut down trade vital to your country but take no effort to blockade its own trade is...weird. And it only makes sense because Trump feared even more gas price increases.

Montgomery (who was made infamous for his involvement in the "Fat Leonard" scandal, but let's assume he at least does know naval strategy better than Trump), noted that things like seizing Kharg Island are also unnecessary. Montgomery's opinion is if the Navy simply put out a warning that any oil tankers attempting to depart the region with Iranian oil would be subject to interdiction would likely shut down significantly the trade--with many unlikely to risk challenging the proclamation.

Anyway--I don't know that shutting down Iran's oil revenue gets you to a win, the reality is Iran is still a big country with a lot of people and IMO just won't be defeated by anything short of a ground invasion. But I do agree with the logic that it makes little sense to have allowed Iran to conduct a one sided blockade--it only makes sense in the context of a President unwilling to "pay the cost" of the war he started.

Trump's taken your advice! Proud of your influnece.👏

[OttoVonBismarck]

More likely if figures like Mark Montgomery—who was in with Trump in his first term were saying it publicly he has probably heard it privately.

[Syt]

The US president, Donald Trump, said the US Navy would immediately start blockading the strait of Hormuz and would also interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran.

"You can't block the straight! We will block the straight much more!"