Bharat Rakshak

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 22:33

Jay wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 19:23 Not surprising, per se, but this habit of attributing every conflict to the “deep state” machinations and viewing it only from that angle is a bit grating and wacky at times.

It is not too dissimilar to attributing every conflict to Sona Bandar and viewing it ... grating ... wacky.

Who is "deepstate"? The richest people in the world, and most of them are in the US. The whole point of MIC is to make money off of wars. Riddle me this. Why was Arabia made into KSA? The installation of Shah in Iran? Settlement of Jewish in Palestine?

This is how capitalism rolls.

Sure...KSA in it's current political entity started sometime in the 1930's and secured american/western protection around WW2 timeline. Jewish settlement in Palestine has a similar trajectory around the similar timelines and also has explicit american support. If the deepstate is represented and guided by only one virtue. i.e. the accumulation and control of wealth then why did they relinquish control of India, and Africa around this same time? Wouldn't it have made this group of individuals more wealthy and quicker by having a direct say in how the enormous resources of these lands are used for their benefit? How did the deepstate willingly participate in the raise of china to their own detriment?

A_Gupta wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 21:21 Swami Vivekananda’s “"Was there ever a sillier thing before the world than what I saw in Malabar country? The poor Pariah is not allowed to pass through the same street as the high-caste man... The whole of Malabar is a lunatic asylum and the people are all mad."” was still 36 years in the future.

Going off topic here: What is the context of this statement from Swami ji?

Jay wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 23:41

Vayutuvan wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 22:33

It is not too dissimilar to attributing every conflict to Sona Bandar and viewing it ... grating ... wacky.

Who is "deepstate"? The richest people in the world, and most of them are in the US. The whole point of MIC is to make money off of wars. Riddle me this. Why was Arabia made into KSA? The installation of Shah in Iran? Settlement of Jewish in Palestine?

This is how capitalism rolls.

Sure...KSA in it's current political entity started sometime in the 1930's and secured american/western protection around WW2 timeline. Jewish settlement in Palestine has a similar trajectory around the similar timelines and also has explicit american support. If the deepstate is represented and guided by only one virtue. i.e. the accumulation and control of wealth then why did they relinquish control of India, and Africa around this same time? Wouldn't it have made this group of individuals more wealthy and quicker by having a direct say in how the enormous resources of these lands are used for their benefit? How did the deepstate willingly participate in the raise of china to their own detriment?

Americans were the new Europeans. They did ally with Western Europeans and shared the loot (resource extraction from Africa and oil from West Asia). Where is the reason for the European Jews to be settled in Semitic lands? Xtism is big business, and that is where the roots of that religion are. Power brings control, which is essential for becoming rich. Only idiot megalomaniacs like OM and Ross Perot want to become presidents, thinking that they don't have to answer to anybody.

That is where "deep state" comes in. They want their cut. That is the reason why Trump is acting the way he is. He is finding out there are limits to his power, even when COTUS is not doing its job of reining him in.

Even Si Valley is controlled by Europeans. Look at the largest VC firms in Si Valley. Founders and top executives are European.

@Jay gaaru, by not objecting to my "It is not too dissimilar to attributing every conflict to Sona Bandar and viewing it ... grating ...", you seem to be agreeing with me.

A_Gupta wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 21:21 For instance women did not have the right to vote, anywhere.

Women's suffrage in Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s ... witzerland

Women in Switzerland gained the right to vote in federal elections after a referendum in February 1971.[1] The first federal vote in which women were able to participate was the 31 October 1971 election of the Federal Assembly.[2] However it was not until a 1990 decision by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland that women gained full voting rights in the final Swiss canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden.[3]

An earlier referendum on women's suffrage was held on 1 February 1959 and was rejected by the majority (67%) of Switzerland's men. Despite this, in some French-speaking cantons women obtained the right to vote in cantonal referendums.[4] The first Swiss woman to hold political office, Trudy Späth-Schweizer, was elected to the municipal government of Riehen in 1958.[5]

Women were barred from Columbia College till 1974 (IIRC).

Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute- a repeated pattern - Iran sent a de-escalatory signal, say to the GCC; and is expecting a corresponding response. But Trump truth-socials in the middle that his coercion worked, he has won a great victory. Iran then withdraws.

Jay wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 23:43

A_Gupta wrote: ↑20 Apr 2026 21:21 Swami Vivekananda’s “"Was there ever a sillier thing before the world than what I saw in Malabar country? The poor Pariah is not allowed to pass through the same street as the high-caste man... The whole of Malabar is a lunatic asylum and the people are all mad."” was still 36 years in the future.

Going off topic here: What is the context of this statement from Swami ji?

My context is the state of human rights and the lack of relevance of 1861 to today’s conflicts.

Swamiji -The Future of India - https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info ... _india.htm

AI:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed through:

The legacy of earlier Saudi states (1727 onward)

Ibn Saud’s recapture of Riyadh in 1902

A 30‑year campaign unifying central, eastern, western, and southern Arabia

The official proclamation of the kingdom in 1932.

Saudi Arabia emerged because:

Ottoman decline created a power vacuum

British strategy favored strong local allies

Hashemite weakness opened the Hejaz

Ibn Saud’s military skill and tribal diplomacy unified the peninsula

It was a perfect storm of global empire decline, regional rivalry, and local leadership.

I forgot to add: What role did the USA play in the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1903-1932?

AI:

To understand the U.S. role in the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) between 1903 and 1932, it is helpful to first clear up a common misconception: the United States was largely a bystander.

While the U.S.-Saudi relationship eventually became one of the most significant alliances of the 20th century, during the actual period of unification, the U.S. played a very minor, secondary role compared to the British Empire.

1. Minimal Engagement (1902–1920s)
During the early years of Ibn Saud’s (Abdulaziz Al Saud) campaign to recapture Riyadh and expand his influence, the United States practiced a policy of non-interference in the Middle East.

British Dominance: The British were the primary Western power in the region. They backed various leaders through subsidies and treaties (like the Treaty of Darin in 1915) to secure their route to India.

American Isolationism: Post-WWI, the U.S. was largely focused on domestic issues and was wary of becoming entangled in the complex tribal politics of the Arabian Peninsula.

2. The Turning Point: The Crane-Twitchell Mission (1931)
The first real "American" footprint appeared just before the formal declaration of the Kingdom. Ibn Saud was facing a severe financial crisis due to a decline in pilgrims during the Great Depression. He needed to find natural resources—specifically water and minerals.

Charles Crane: A wealthy American philanthropist and former diplomat, Crane met with Ibn Saud in 1931. Crane was interested in the region and offered to fund a geological survey.

Karl Twitchell: Crane sent American mining engineer Karl Twitchell to explore the Hejaz and Nejd regions. While Twitchell was looking for water and gold, his reports eventually hinted at the massive petroleum potential of the Eastern Province.

3. Formal Recognition (1931)
The United States officially recognized the "Kingdom of the Hejaz and Nejd and its Dependencies" (the precursor name to KSA) in May 1931.

This was a significant diplomatic step, as it acknowledged Ibn Saud’s sovereignty independently of British influence.

However, the U.S. did not even establish a permanent legation or embassy in the country at that time; diplomatic matters were handled through the U.S. embassy in Cairo.

4. The 1932 Transition
When the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was officially proclaimed in September 1932, the U.S. role remained primarily private and commercial rather than governmental.

The Oil Factor: As the Kingdom formed, Ibn Saud began looking for partners to develop his resources who weren't the British (to avoid becoming a de facto colony). The U.S. was the perfect "third party"—technologically advanced but without a history of regional imperialism.

Standard Oil of California (SOCAL): While the major oil deals were signed in 1933 (just after your 1932 cutoff), the groundwork for American corporate entry into the Kingdom was laid during the final months of the unification process.

A_Gupta wrote: ↑19 Apr 2026 07:10 If you read online summaries of JCPOA, they invariably omit this:

"Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons".

They also never mention this motivation for the US to eventually walk out of the agreement:...
..

Of course..
It’s amusing and fascinating to watch some folks here work themselves into a lather over nicknames like "Obummer" and talking about "JCPOA is a completely non-sensical agreement that Obummer thrust upon the world" and more laughable claim.

While this fan fiction, and sheer ignorance of even the basic understanding about enrichment and what JCPOA deal was or was not it is entertaining, back in the world of actual geopolitics, the current President just released his 'truth' post quoting JCPOA..

Looking at Trump's latest post, something is clearly shifting:
The tone is a complete 180 from the last 48 hours. The "no more Mr. Nice Guy" rhetoric and threats to power plants have vanished. Instead, he’s pivotally building a comparison with Obama's JCPOA, claiming his deal will be "far better." When a President starts explaining why his deal beats his predecessor's, it’s a classic signal that a such deal may be not that bad..

Notice the "dogs that aren't barking" in his post. There is no mention of uranium transfer to the US, no "zero enrichment" demands, and no "no money exchanged" hardlines—all the points Iran publicly rejected. He’s quietly dropping the maximalist positions without admitting it.

My read: Trump is already pre-selling the deal that's coming. By framing it against the JCPOA, he’s preparing the ground for an agreement that will likely look more like the original JCPOA than he’ll ever admit—some monitoring, some enrichment limits, but packaged as "the greatest deal in history" for domestic consumption! One can't even make this up!

Amber G. wrote: ↑18 Apr 2026 22:01

A_Gupta wrote: ↑18 Apr 2026 17:12 JCPOA
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/o ... 245317.pdf

Who would have thought (or did not expect - in era of Trump): Treaty worked out by Moniz and Salehi - two quantum physicists.
They called it "Strait of Schrödinger". It's both open and closed at the same time. (** Note)

Nice one haha

Anything that goes into Iran through Iranian ships can be blocked. Also any Chinese Vessels and companies supplying Iran could be sanctioned by U.S in supplying to the U.S or western markets. Chinese can allow one small single company to be sancitoned and keep supplying to Iran.
How US Marines Seized a 900-Foot Iranian Container Ship

Trump narrative ahead of second phase of Islamabad Talks?

Question - all the Islamic countries are performatively anti-Israel; in practice, only Iran actually is in conflict - why is this? The easy answers I know; I am missing deeper insights.

From: Mykhailo Rohoza

During talks between U.S. and Iranian delegations in Pakistan, the topic of Ukraine unexpectedly came up.
While discussing U.S. guarantees in the event that Iran halts uranium enrichment and abandons the development of nuclear weapons, the Iranian side asked how the United States is fulfilling the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which it pledged to respect and protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The U.S. delegation left the question unanswered.

Wow! Among my circle, many noticed this before and now Iran just invoked the Budapest Memorandum in its nuclear talks with USA.

Pause on that for a moment.

A country currently under U.S. military pressure is pointing negotiators back to America’s own past commitments—specifically, the 1994 assurances given to Ukraine when it agreed to surrender the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal.

And the track record since then? Hard to call it reassuring.

Ukraine gave up roughly 1,900 nuclear warheads in exchange for security guarantees. What followed: the annexation of Crimea, further territorial losses, and prolonged uncertainty about military support when it mattered most. The gap between promise and outcome is now part of the global strategic memory.

Tehran is clearly paying attention. So is every state quietly evaluating the trade-offs between nuclear restraint and national security.


Here’s the uncomfortable reality: when Iran can credibly cite precedent to question the durability of U.S. guarantees—while negotiations are still ongoing—it suggests something deeper than routine diplomatic friction. It points to a credibility problem.

There was a time when an American security assurance could reshape decisions at the highest level—ending programs, stabilizing regions, closing chapters.

Today, those same assurances are being quoted back across negotiating tables—not as foundations of trust, but as exhibits in an argument!!!

I am seeing this kind of comparisons:


or

Iran just quoted the Budapest Memorandum at American negotiators. Their own guarantee. Their own signature. Worth nothing.

The nuclear lesson every nation just learned:

Libya gave up its weapons — destroyed.
Iraq had none — destroyed.
Iran had none — bombed.
Ukraine gave up 1,900 warheads for a US promise — invaded.
North Korea kept them — untouched.

.... And Iran just cited the receipt.

For those who who have not heard of Budapest Memorandum?..
Here's Marco Rubio to explain.. (priceless 4 minute video clip)
{ Added late:
In this speech, Senator Marco Rubio emphasizes the critical importance of supporting Ukraine's stability and defense capabilities in the face of Russian aggression. He frames the situation as having global implications for nuclear non-proliferation and international security.


-Rubio advocates for a cost-benefit approach to foreign policy, arguing that helping Ukraine stabilize its economy and governance is essential despite any imperfections in legislative language.

He highlights the need for pragmatic decision-making that serves the interests of the U.S. and its allies.

- Rubio points to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine surrendered the world's third-largest nuclear stockpile in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., UK, and Russia.

He warns that Russia's invasion undermines these promises, sending a dangerous message to other nations (e.g., South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia) that they may need to develop their own nuclear weapons for self-defense if international assurances are no longer credible.