A comment at the Abraham article brings up several speculative but curious points, and AI helps flesh them out.
As well as his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner, Donald Trump also has a Lebanese Christian son-in-law, billionaire Michael Boulos who married Trump’s daughter Tiffany, a child Trump had with previous wife Marla Maples
Though there is no trusting Zionist Chabadnik Jared Kushner, he recently said this which seems to be true –
“The Islamic Republic’s regime is much tougher when risking Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian and Houthi lives than when risking their own”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2024-09-29/jared-kushner-israels-assassination-nasrallah
It seems the long-running claims about ‘axis of resistance’ countries, was mostly a myth, with Iran in particular a self-limiting (corrupt, or just timidly weak?) ‘adversary’
Just like Russia in its – more certainly corrupt – refusal to blow the 20-odd Dnieper river bridges which would quickly win its war in Ukraine
——————————————————–
This comment brings together various viewpoints and opinions about Middle Eastern geopolitics, U.S. foreign policy, and the personal connections of Donald Trump’s family members. Let’s break down each part of it for clarity:
Jared Kushner and Michael Boulos: The comment references Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s Jewish son-in-law, who was a senior advisor during Trump’s presidency and known for his role in U.S. Middle East policy. It also mentions Michael Boulos, who is of Lebanese Christian heritage and married Trump’s daughter Tiffany. These connections underline Trump’s personal ties to people from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds within the Middle East, though Kushner’s political influence far outweighs Boulos’s.
Kushner's Quote on Iranian Support for Militias: The quote attributed to Kushner suggests that Iran’s regime values proxy forces (like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis) as expendable in pursuing regional influence, implying a strategic preference for risking allies rather than Iranian assets directly. This perspective supports the view that Iran’s actions are carefully calculated to avoid direct confrontations that could threaten its own security.
“Axis of Resistance” Claims: The comment implies skepticism about the true strength and commitment of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” which includes countries like Iran and Syria, along with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, aligned in opposition to U.S. and Israeli influence. The statement questions whether Iran is genuinely committed to confronting these powers, suggesting it may be limited by corruption, caution, or both.
Russia’s Strategy in Ukraine: The last part of the comment draws a parallel between Iran’s allegedly self-limiting approach and Russia’s apparent reluctance to escalate its conflict in Ukraine by destroying key infrastructure, such as the Dnieper River bridges. This perspective argues that certain decisive actions could quickly shift outcomes but are avoided due to corruption or strategic caution. In the case of Russia, it suggests that dismantling these bridges could inhibit Ukrainian resupply and movement, potentially tipping the balance in the conflict.Overall, the comment reflects a view that both Iran and Russia might prioritize strategic caution over decisive military action, a stance that the commenter attributes to potential corruption, weakness, or conservatism within these regimes. The opinion is speculative, particularly in linking these geopolitical strategies to internal corruption, but it does raise questions about the strategic calculations influencing both Iran’s regional maneuvers and Russia’s conduct in Ukraine.