• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

In a related note, the Polymarket 'prediction market trading' (which seems like a veneer for actual gambling) saw a $529M trade on the timing of the Iran bombing, with similar trades happening around Venezuala and other US attacks.

Seems a hell of a lot like insider trading, with indivudual directly profitting from this, and greasy AF. Sure it's completely coincidental that Donald Trump Jr is on their advisory board.

This is insane, and also seems like another breach of OPSEC like the pizza orders that targets could monitor as an early warning to prepare themselves.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poly...g18kLrfmbAuIgRcQrMnoqNh05K0q-Yjcp4mzytpQlRbzp
 
Navy_Pete said:
This is insane, and also seems like another breach of OPSEC like the pizza orders that targets could monitor as an early warning to prepare themselves.
Click to expand...
What would be the point of worrying about OPSEC for indicators of "something is going to happen there" if a major political aim is to properly restore Congress's role in the decision to authorize war? The US can either try for the former or just give up and go with the latter; there is mitigation for the latter if it's done well before any operations are in contemplation and that would also apply some diplomatic leverage. (Against the Iranian regime, Congress could have authorized a blank cheque as far back as 1979.)

There will still be the necessity of OPSEC for "what exactly is going to happen", and judging by some domestic political reactions, going through Congress risks some of that, too. I suppose the US would have to eat leaks for at least one operation, but if the administration came down brutally hard on leakers and used every possible legal theory to chase anyone promulgating leaks (including journalists, if there are suitable provisions in law), that might mitigate the risk for future operations.

Being against war (eg. pure anti-war), being against unauthorized war (eg. constitutionalists), and being against what the US is trying to do are three different positions I'm seeing people stake out, sometimes in different mixes (eg. anti-war or constitutionalist, but pro-regime change). The people whose positions amount to defending the Iranian regime are in the least desirable position, and while there may not be many, they are loud.

[Add: at some point, someone is going to find a budget to place bogus bets or buy a bunch of pizza just to make people think something is about to happen in a lead up to some kind of negotiations...]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top