Zionist Talking Points“Iran doesn’t want the Strait of Hormuz closed, they want it open so they can make $500 Million Dollars a day (which is, therefore, what they are losing if it is closed!). They only say they want it closed because I have it totally BLOCKADED (CLOSED!), so they merely want to ‘save face,’” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
The language and framing used in this story may be analyzed as an attempt to construct a narrative of power and control. The use of capitalization for “BLOCKADED (CLOSED!)” suggests a sense of triumph, implying that this action is a rightful display of power and authority. However, it can also be seen as a form of coercion, as the blockade restricts Iran’s access to economic resources and disadvantages them in negotiations. The term ‘blockade’, typically associated with wartime strategy, is used here to euphemistically describe a scenario of economic and political coercion. The claim that Iran merely wants to ‘save face’ reduces their opposition to this blockade to a mere concern for appearances, dismissing potential substantive objections to the blockade as illegitimate.
In the context of this story, the use of the term ‘blockade’ implicitly legitimizes a situation of economic violence by framing it as a normal, acceptable tactic of international relations. The assertion that Iran ‘wants’ the Strait of Hormuz open because of the financial benefits contradicts the fact that this desire is being forcibly denied by the blockade. This contradiction can serve to obscure the power dynamics at play, subtly suggesting that Iran is in control of their circumstances when, in reality, their options are being limited by external forces.
Pentagon announces resignation of US Navy Secretary John C. Phelan. No reason provided.
The structural breakdown becomes evident in the absence of information. The story provides no context or reasoning for the resignation of the US Navy Secretary, which can be interpreted as a form of coercion by withholding information. The use of the term ‘resignation’ can be misleading as it implies a voluntary act, whereas the true circumstances remain undisclosed. On a structural level, this could be a strategy to control the narrative and maintain a certain image of stability and order within the Pentagon.
The story presents a contradiction between the normative expectation of transparency in governance and the actual practice of withholding information. This discrepancy can be seen as an attempt to uphold the legitimacy of the Pentagon as a governing institution, despite evidence of internal changes or disruptions. The lack of reason provided for the resignation implies a lack of accountability, as it prevents the public from fully understanding and assessing the actions and decisions of their leaders.