Mark Sleboda

Mark Wauck

Iran Plays Hardball, US Military Looks For Off-Ramp

 

There was an overnight buzz that continues this morning. It started with reports in Reuters that Trump was willing to accept the Iran - Oman agreement for administering the Strait of Hormuz. The US blockade would end when the joint agreement was signed. Of course, that might be subject to US maneuvering behind the scenes, via pressure on Oman. These reports led to widespread speculation, such as this lengthy article at Zerohedge, which held out hope for an imminent “deal”:

US Official: Hormuz Deal Is Imminent, Upon Which US Will Lift Blockade Of Iranian Ports

Iran was quick to dispel any such illusions. First by attacking another ship utilizing the US route, then by issuing the following statement, which was essentially a demand for unconditional surrender by the US. Or unconditional acceptance of Iran’s terms for allowing US flagged commercial vessels to use the strait.

The Hormuz Letter @HormuzLetter

2h

BREAKING: Iran’s Supreme National Security Council declares the Strait of Hormuz will not be opened until the US “corrects its behavior,” rejecting Trump’s claim that the temporary Oman route amounts to a reopening, and setting out its conditions, including $300 billion in compensation, per Fars.

Iran “will never compromise, whether in war or in negotiations.”

1. Never threatening Iran or insulting its sacred values in any language

2. Ending, once and for all, any war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq

3. Lifting the naval blockade and withdrawing US military forces (naval and air) from the vicinity of Iran

4. Fully compensating Iran for the damages caused by the two aggressive and imposed wars, including a $300 billion fund

5. Lifting the unjust and illegal sanctions against the Iranian people

6. Unconditionally releasing all the assets that have been blocked and stolen from the Iranian people

7. Allowing Iran to charge up to 7% on every ship’s cargo

8. Allowing a ban on all US and Israeli commercial/military ships + “other hostile countries” from transiting

9. Allowing a violation toll of 20% on the ship’s cargo if any of the above are violated

And to rub all that well in, a bit of taunting:

 

Here’s Prof Pape’s comment on the Iranian demands. Pape definitely gets the issues right.

Robert A. Pape @ProfessorPape

26m

Iran Issues List of Demands, Complicating Efforts to Reopen Strait

Almost ensures Hormuz and Red Sea remains virtually shut for weeks and weeks more

What are the consequences for the global economy?

From my POV this fits in perfectly with my contention that Iran is seeking escalation. Carefully calibrated escalation. The closure of Hormuz is Iran’s nuke. Unlike a single explosion, this Hormuz nuke operates over time—which is exactly the sort of weapon you want on your side in a war of military but also economic attrition. This Hormuz nuke has the potential to destroy Trump and his Jewish Nationalist backers, so of course Iran will escalate to ensure that Hormuz and the Red Sea remain virtually shut for weeks—or months—more. As for the consequences for the global economy, well, I think we know what those consequences will be. Iran is confident that those consequences will be laid at the doorstep of Trump and his Jewish Nationalist backers.

But that doesn’t mean that those demands are simply negotiating positions. What those demands mean is that Iran controls the situation and they know it.

Does anyone in DC understand this? I think there are some people who do understand this—starting with Trump. The problem for Trump is that his essential narcissism means that he’s willing to sacrifice almost anything—the welfare of American service personnel, of NatSec institutions, of the US economy—rather than accept the humiliation entailed by Iran’s demands. Instead he’s still trying to find a way out of the maze he walked into or, alternatively, someone he can plausibly blame for this fiasco. Someone other than himself, of course. The upshot of this looks like an impasse.

But there are others in DC who are discussing how to get out of this. These are people many of whom probably see that the future of the GOP, the future of the US economy, the well being of long suffering American service personnel in the Middle East, and the future of America’s geopolitical position in the world may be at risk as a result of Trump’s subservience to Jewish Nationalist influence. Some of them are probably also alarmed by Trump’s plan to merge the United States into a junior partner of the Anglo-Zionist Empire—meaning, junior to Israel, via the provisions to merge intel sharing and defense technology, subordinating US assets and resources to Jewish Nationalist demands. Put those considerations in any order you choose.

The point is that CNN has a fascinating article that names four of the people who are engaged in discussing some sort of off-ramp from the war—who, at the very least, recognize that it’s a complete disaster.

Trump’s top general is ‘looking for an off-ramp’ from Iran war as US military options remain limited, sources say

Over the last few weeks, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine has privately made clear to other top Trump advisers that the US needs to find an off-ramp from the war with Iran — because the military options on the table to escalate the conflict could backfire and airpower alone is unlikely to achievePresident Donald Trump’s stated objectives, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

“Caine is looking for an off ramp,” one of the sources said bluntly.

Caine is not alone in his view that the war has reached a crossroads. He has discussed concerns about the military options for escalating the conflict and raised the prospect of finding an off-ramp from the war with other key Cabinet officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, two of the sources said.

“Including”? Does that mean “including but not limited to?”

The top US general has recently side-barred with some of those key, like-minded Trump advisers in an effort to facilitate interagency coordination and ensure they are on the same page ahead of meetings with the president. The aim has been to make clear the limitations and pitfalls of the available military options, including those that do not involve putting US boots on the ground, the sources said.

“I think it is just his way of protecting the military,” one of the sources told CNN, referring to Caine’s discussions with other top national security officials within Trump’s cabinet about the Iran war.

There’s much more to this article but I consider this excerpt to be the essence of it. Now, here’s a bit of speculation for my own part. I won’t pretend to say how likely this is, but it would be foolish not to consider this as a possibility. And, of course, I have—since the war began—maintained that this war could lead to Trump’s removal from office.

So, having read this, I reviewed the provisions of the Section 4 of the Twenty Fifth Amendment:

Section 4: Declaration by vice president and cabinet members of president’s inability

Section 4 has never been used, and its in such a case as this would be controversial and contentious. To make it stick it would be necessary to make the case that Trump’s psychological disabilities—his manifest narcissism (manifest in his ongoing attempts to transform Washington DC into a monument to himself) or his susceptibility to blackmail—render him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”. That would be tough, from a political standpoint. Nevertheless, the named officials are key officials in the key NatSec offices of the regime. Two of the three have longstanding ties to the House and Senate. And, while Vance’s time in the Senate was relatively brief by comparison to Rubio, the very fact of his time in the Senate puts his key position on a different level than a VP who had no such ties.

The alternative would be impeachment—and, in fact, impeachment would quite possibly end up being necessary following any invocation of the 25th Amendment. The question is, how long can America drift this way, in an undeclared war that is nevertheless a major war? With the economy facing a crisis state?

Never say never. We’re in uncharted waters.

Thanks for reading Meaning In History! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Special add-on feature:

Danny Haiphong

Mark Sleboda discusses the massive upheaval in the Trump and Israeli regimes as Iran imposes its will on the outcome of the war. Mossad is imploding, and UAE ships are being struck by Iranian fire as a new Middle East takes shape. Danny Haiphong

---

This video features geopolitical analyst Mark Sleboda discussing the ongoing conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran. Sleboda argues that Iran is currently in a position of strategic dominance in the Middle East, while the US military faces significant limitations.

Key topics discussed:

• Strategic Shift in the Middle East: Sleboda highlights the perceived failure of US and Israeli efforts to achieve regime change in Iran (2:14 - 3:03). He notes the recent firing of top Mossad officials as evidence of this operational failure (0:56 - 1:06).
• Control of the Strait of Hormuz: The discussion centers on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has reportedly been striking UAE vessels and demanding significant concessions for safe passage, including the removal of sanctions and war reparations (1:22 - 1:49, 12:01 - 13:07).
• US Military Limitations: Sleboda criticizes the reliance on air power and mentions that US munitions, particularly air defense interceptors, are running dangerously low (0:26 - 0:33, 29:34 - 30:15). He asserts that the Patriot missile system is largely obsolete against modern Iranian ballistic missiles (19:52 - 20:53).
• Regional Alliances: The conversation touches on new defensive pacts, such as the reported alliance between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey, which Sleboda describes as a "paper shield" in the face of Iranian regional influence (22:30 - 25:06).
• Ukraine Conflict: The latter part of the video (40:35 onwards) shifts to the war in Ukraine, where Sleboda discusses the collapse of the "coalition of the willing," the Russian blockade of Odessa (45:03 - 45:51), and the Russian air force's growing dominance due to its evolving air defense and strike capabilities (49:25 - 50:15).

By Mark Sleboda

THE WIT & WISDOM OF MARK SLEBODA - NATO TRANSITIONS TO A LONG TERM DIRTY WAR AGAINST RUSSIA

Garland Nixon
Streamed live on Jun 4, 2026

Summary

This detailed discussion with Mark Sleboda centers on the evolving nature and strategy of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, focusing heavily on the concept of a "dirty war" — a form of asymmetrical, unconventional warfare largely consisting of terrorism, sabotage, and covert operations intended to destabilize Russian society politically and economically. Sleboda explains that while the Ukrainian regime (referred to as the KV regime) cannot win via conventional battlefield engagements due to Russia's persistent advances, it increasingly resorts to asymmetric tactics to inflict damage, cause civilian casualties, and erode Russian public support for the “special military operation.” This shift includes drone and missile strikes against civilian targets, critical infrastructure, and symbolic locations like Moscow's business district and St. Petersburg.

The conversation further covers Ukraine’s political and military leadership changes, particularly the potential replacement of the military commander Sirki with Kyrylo Budanov, a CIA-backed figure specializing in intelligence and covert warfare, signaling a tougher embrace of insurgency and asymmetric tactics. Russian forces, meanwhile, continue their systematic offensives in the Donbas and Zaporozhye regions, gradually dismantling the last defensive lines and gaining ground.

Sleboda highlights Russia’s significant advantage in drone production (reportedly 15,000 drones daily), missile capability, and the degrading air defense capacity of Ukraine and its Western backers, especially the US, which struggles with interceptor missile shortages. The discussion touches on the modern transformation of air warfare—drones and standoff munitions replacing traditional bombers—and the new reality of commercial trucks being used to covertly launch drone attacks, escalating the complexity and moral ambiguity of the conflict.

Economic warfare is also central: Ukraine and Europe face looming shortages and skyrocketing costs in diesel and hydrocarbons crucial for military and industrial operations, while Russia’s oil and gas sector remains robust, even benefiting from increased global prices despite Western sanctions. These dynamics underscore the asymmetry of resources and production capacity between the two sides. The speakers note that while Ukraine’s attacks on Russian infrastructure create dramatic visuals and psychological impacts, they fail to translate into meaningful strategic setbacks for Russia.

Finally, the discussion touches on Russia’s calculated strategy to keep the conflict contained to avoid direct NATO involvement, highlighting a battle of “salami slicing” territorial gains and escalation control. Sleboda also mentions the psychological and information dimensions of the war, including Western media complicity in framing Russia as the sole aggressor and enabling the “dirty war” narrative. The talk closes by guiding listeners to Mark Sleboda’s Boosty platform for further engagement and content.

Highlights

• [01:04] 🚨 Early warning: The 'dirty war' against Russia was foretold, aiming to exhaust Ukrainian Slavs and drag out the conflict.
• [04:12] 🎯 Asymmetric tactics: Ukraine pivots to terrorism and unconventional warfare to undermine Russian political will.
• [08:08] 🏢 Civilian targets attacked: Drone strikes hit civilian buses, dormitories, and residential buildings in Russia, drawing condemnation for targeting non-combatants.
• [11:26] ⚔️ Leadership shakeup: Potential replacement of Ukrainian military commander Sirki with CIA-backed Budanov signals deeper commitment to covert and dirty warfare.
• [22:47] 🤖 Massive drone production: Russia reportedly manufactures 15,000 drones daily, underpinning a sustained drone-missile campaign against Ukraine.
• [30:00] 🚚 Commercial trucks weaponized: Ukraine launches drones from disguised commercial vehicles, complicating Russian defensive targeting and raising war crime concerns.
• [36:10] 🛢️ Economic asymmetry: Russian energy sector remains resilient amid attacks, while Europe and Ukraine face crippling hydrocarbon shortages impacting military production.

Key Insights

• [02:10] ⚔️ Asymmetric warfare as a strategic pivot: Mark Sleboda explains that since the Ukrainian regime cannot decisively win conventional battles, the focus has shifted to asymmetric tactics—terrorism, sabotage, and guerrilla methods—aimed at spreading political and economic turmoil in Russia. This shift attempts to exploit weaknesses outside the battlefield, targeting civilians and infrastructure to foment dissent against the government. The use of the term “dirty war” reflects the morally ambiguous and brutal tactics that go beyond accepted combat norms. The insight reveals how modern conflicts involve hybrid warfare blending conventional and irregular strategies.

• [10:48] 🕵️‍♂️ Budanov’s rise signals a strategic shift: The anticipated appointment of Kyrylo Budanov, a US-backed intelligence and covert operations specialist, to lead Ukraine's military highlights the move toward prioritizing sabotage and irregular warfare over conventional military leadership. Budanov’s background in special forces and asymmetric operations emphasizes Ukraine’s evolving warfighting doctrine focused on protracted and unconventional conflict rather than large-scale battlefield victories. This also illustrates Western intelligence agencies’ direct influence on Ukraine’s military strategy.

• [22:47] 🤖 Industrial drone warfare dominance: Russia’s production of approximately 15,000 drones daily underlines the importance of unmanned aerial systems in modern warfare. These range from reconnaissance to long-range strike capabilities, enabling Russia to sustain a highly effective cost-efficient campaign against Ukraine’s military, logistics, and critical infrastructure with minimal risk to personnel. This scale of drone manufacturing also provides strategic flexibility and the ability to engage in relentless swarm tactics and saturation attacks.

• [26:50] ✈️ The evolving bomber paradigm: The discussion on the transformation of bombers from traditional iron bomb carriers to platforms launching stand-off missiles and drones speaks to broader military technological shifts. Modern bombers can conduct strikes without entering enemy airspace, minimizing risk. This reflects the increasing primacy of precision long-range weapons and autonomous systems over conventional air power, changing the calculus of deterrence and combat engagement zones.

• [30:22] 🚛 Civilian assets weaponized: new ethical and tactical challenges: Ukraine’s tactic of launching drone strikes from commercial trucks blurs the lines between civilian and military targets, forcing Russia to consider striking civilian logistics vehicles to counter attacks. This approach constitutes a war crime under international law because it hides military activity among civilians, endangering non-combatants and escalating the conflict’s brutality. It also marks a dangerous escalation in hybrid warfare, with global implications for trade and logistics security.

• [36:10] 🛢️ Resilience of Russian energy sector vs. Europe’s vulnerability: Despite repeated Ukrainian attacks, Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure sustains minimal strategic damage owing to large spare capacity, repair capability, and the ability to capitalize on high global energy prices. Conversely, Europe faces an imminent diesel and hydrocarbon crisis, with supply shortages threatening military-industrial output and civilian energy stability. This economic imbalance will increasingly constrain Ukraine and European warfighting capacity and flexibility as energy constitutes a vital war resource.

• [45:00] 🔥 Controlled escalation to avoid NATO intervention: Russia’s strategic calculus aims to keep the conflict limited, using a “salami slicing” approach to gradually gain territory without provoking NATO direct involvement. This risk management approach reflects Moscow’s confidence in a prolonged war of attrition and its desire to avoid escalation to a wider NATO-Russia war. It demonstrates the complex geopolitical risk management underpinning ongoing operations, with both sides aware of red lines that must not be crossed.

Additional Observations

• The discussion underscores a media narrative critique, pointing to Western outlets that implicitly endorse or ignore the “dirty war” methods while demonizing Russia, reflecting the information warfare dimension of the conflict.
• The conflict demonstrates how modern warfare increasingly involves hybrid tactics, drone swarms, economic warfare, and covert operations beyond traditional combat, altering the nature of military engagement and civilian impact.
• Energy and industrial production capacities emerge as crucial long-term determinants of conflict endurance and capability sustainability.
• The interview suggests that despite dramatic and brutal attacks, Russia maintains a strong strategic position, with ongoing territorial gains and resilience to economic disruptions.

This comprehensive breakdown sheds light on the multifaceted evolving nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, highlighting strategic pivots, technological innovation in warfare, economic dimensions, and geopolitical risk management at play.