Outskirts of Shrewd'm / Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
No. of Recommendations: 1
...to run the Straits of Hormuz at night and get oil past the Iranians, Hence the "Dark" reference.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-says...Very cool stuff:
Trump disclosed the operation earlier Wednesday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office. The president credited the clandestine oil flows from keeping prices from surging higher.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Tuesday that oil exports through Hormuz are "rising very meaningfully" without elaborating further.
Dozens of ships stranded in the Persian Gulf have exited through Hormuz in recent weeks amid quiet coordination with the U.S. Navy, Lloyd's List Intelligence reported last week.Evidently we set it up such that tankers transit to a certain point in the Gulf Of Oman, where they rendezvous with other tankers and then perform a ship-to-ship transfer of the oil. Then the original tanker slips back into the Gulf to re-load oil and no one is the wiser. The tankers are turning off their transponders and are being escorted by US drones.
The ships running the blockade were covered by the $40 billion that Treasury set aside for insurance purposes.
This certainly explains some of the downward pressure on crude prices in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately now that the Iranians and their Russian/Chinese suppliers of intel and targeting information know about this there will need to be quite the adjustment in tactics.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Trump disclosed the operation earlier Wednesday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office. The president credited the clandestine oil flows from keeping prices from surging higher.
First point: Trump is epically delusional.
Second point: for the sake of argument, let's say they have been doing this, instead of holding prices in check with large releases from crude reserves (net sifter says 66M barrels withdrawn). What the heck is the dipspit blabbing about it for? Trying to impress everyone with how miraculously brilliant he is?
Third point: average oil volume through the strait, before the war, was 20-21Mbpd. So, over several weeks, Trump the Conqueror claims to have sneaked 5 days worth of oil out, assuming he isn't simply blowing smoke, like the two months of "peace in three days" declarations.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
Second point: for the sake of argument, let's say they have been doing this, instead of holding prices in check with large releases from crude reserves (net sifter says 66M barrels withdrawn). What the heck is the dipspit blabbing about it for? Trying to impress everyone with how miraculously brilliant he is?
They've been doing both, hence my post on what the Chevron guy said last week. Trump only talked about it because the New York Times reported on it because of course they did.
No. of Recommendations: 14
They've been doing both, hence my post on what the Chevron guy said last week. Trump only talked about it because the New York Times reported on it because of course they did.
Please provide links. The net sifter says a Chevron exec commented about their ships being attacked, or trapped, in the Gulf: There are no reports or evidence suggesting that a Chevron executive or the U.S. is smuggling oil out of the Persian Gulf. Rather, the context likely stems from a highly publicized June 2026 announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump, who disclosed that the U.S. military has been executing clandestine operations to escort commercial oil tankers out of the heavily blockaded region wrt the NYT, the net sifter says: There is no New York Times report about the United States smuggling oil out of the Persian Gulf. Instead, New York Times reporting focuses on the United States seizing foreign tankers carrying illicit oil out of the Middle East and imposing strict naval blockades to choke off Iranian oil exports
Please provide credible links supporting your assertion. Otherwise, Trump's statements are, again, blowing a secret operation, to show people what a big shot he is, which is what he was reportedly doing with the classified files he had at his Florida estate.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here. You can even have ABC's spin:
Thank you. Yes, that article links to a NYT article saying the US was helping the previously reported "70 ships in three weeks", sneak out of the Gulf.
It also includes this bit, Trump the Master of Everything, explaining why he was blowing a classified operation.
During the Oval Office event earlier Wednesday afternoon, Trump had also indicated that he was choosing to reveal this "secret" mission now because the Iranians had "figured it out."
"But now I'm going to tell you, because they just figured it out. So now that they figured it out, I can tell you it was very hard for me. I wanted to say it so bad, but it was. I didn't want to ruin it, but it was very hard," Trump said.
Well, if they had not figured it out, he made sure they knew, so they tightened control of the Strait. Mission accomplished!
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 14
Sigh. Here. You can even have ABC's spin:
Hmm. ABC reports “what Trump said.” It’s like somebody “reporting” what Bernie Madoff said about his investment firm.
Quoting a liar still makes it a lie.
I’m out of the links on demand business, btw
Of course you are. No sense in supporting your facts with, uh, facts.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Otherwise, Trump's statements are, again, blowing a secret operation, to show people what a big shot he is,
Or, and equally pathetic…… he’s watching those tank bottoms swim into view…… he’s already opened the spigots on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve…… he knows that crunch time is approaching, so he throws a verbal Hail Mary, trying to convince markets that there is more supply than there actually is.
But markets count actual barrels, not imaginary barrels.
Regardless, absolutely nothing this president says can be believed without independent corroboration.
No. of Recommendations: 1
saying the US was helping the previously reported "70 ships in three weeks", sneak out of the Gulf.
How many of those 70 ships were oil tankers? Hmmm, no information. What capacity? Again, no information.
More than likely, many of the ships were small container ships--so who cares? Not Iran.
No. of Recommendations: 6
>>I’m out of the links on demand business, btw<<
Of course you are. No sense in supporting your facts with, uh, facts.
I applaud anyone showing there is some basis for what they say, including Dope. Infinitely preferable to the "because I say so" some people adopt. The article Dope linked to, contained a link to a NYT article. I had heard about the "70 ships in three weeks", but had not read, before, the detail about the US helping them.
In any event, the number of ships escaping was trivial, compared to pre-war traffic. Trump bragging about it has made Iran more vigilant, to strangle traffic in the Strait even more.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 9
You can even have ABC's spin:
This isn’t ABC’s spin, it merely quotes Dozing Don.
And given Dozing Don’s history as the world’s biggest bullshit artist, there is a 100% chance that significantly less than 100 million barrels have been moved.
In fact, even ABC knows this, which is why they included the following paragraph from your link:
ABC News could not immediately verify the accuracy of Trump's claims and the numbers of oil barrels and ships that he claims have passed through the Strait of Hormuz.
In other words, “we know Trump is full of shit”.
Heck, even my 5-year old grandson knows Trump is full of shit, although he uses the word ‘caca’ to avoid parental punishment. Smart kid.
No. of Recommendations: 4
It also includes this bit, Trump the Master of Everything, explaining why he was blowing a classified operation.
Except that he didn't, there was reporting out already.
The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't - what nobody saw coming was the Navy has evidently deployed a fair number of autonomous warships and drones and they're using them as escorts. Plus the IRGC's Zodiacs have a much harder time running around in the dark and they're easy infrared targets against cold water for Predators, Apaches and whatever else is flying along. I wouldn't bother to waste any Hellfires on them; the Apache's chain gun is more than enough. Bullets are cheap.
Always let things play out.
No. of Recommendations: 13
The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't - what nobody saw coming was the Navy has evidently deployed a fair number of autonomous warships and drones and they're using them as escorts.
But...it has been a failure. Right? Traffic through the Strait is still almost entirely blocked. Not 100% blocked, but pretty close to it. "70 ships in three weeks" is about three ships a day. Compared to normal traffic of about 150 per day. Getting 2-3% of the traffic restored means that the Straits are 97-98% blocked.
We haven't been able to force open the Strait. Because doing that requires more than taking out Zodiacs - you'd need to secure the coastline to prevent land-based drone and missile launches. Which we can't do with just escort ships.
No. of Recommendations: 15
"Sigh. Here. You can even have ABC's spin:
https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-claims-100-mill..." - Dumbass Dope
I know you have reading comprehension problems, but your link doesn't support your assertions. It just says what everyone already knows (that Trump made the claim). It doesn't say why Trump mentioned it though.
"I'm out of the links on demand business, btw." - Dumbass Dope
Right. You are out of the business of supporting your arguments business because you actually can't support your arguments. You make claims that simply are not true then you refuse to back them with any sort of evidence. It is one of the many reasons you are considered the punching bag of Political Asylum.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is one of the many reasons you are considered the punching bag of Political Asylum.
...and albaby punches the hardest, albeit with "tough love." LOL
albaby has answered the question about responding to the dopes in the past - that with facts and reasoning, it helps him work out arguments pro and con. Of course, with dopes it is pretty much con, and in more ways than one.
Pete
No. of Recommendations: 9
The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't - what nobody saw coming was the Navy has evidently deployed a fair number of autonomous warships and drones and they're using them as escorts.
There is no siege in history that has been 100% effective. We got convoys through the Atlantic in World War II in spite of the wolf-packs. Japan managed to keep itself supplied even though we have mastery in the Pacific for the last two years of that war.
Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip was pretty effective, yet failed to achieve its goals. Russia has tried siege tactics in several Ukrainian cities, yet they still stand - and fight. Not to put too fine a point on it, but all the might of the Federal Government couldn’t stop the flow of liquor coming in from Canada during Prohibition, or marijuana from Mexico during the 1970’s.
Any siege that cuts off 97-98% of intended traffic has to be a great success, yet here we are with almost no oil (comparitively) flowing through the Strait, and threats entirely ineffective (and likely to produce worse results if Iran targets neighboring countries’ oil infrastructure - as they have already shown a willingness and ability to do.)
This is a loss. It’s a loss because Trump and Hegseth are wedded to the “me have big guns, therefore you lose” mindset, and that’s not how it always (or even frequently) plays out. See: Afghanistan (both the US and Russia). Vietnam (both the US and France). Ukraine. There are lots more throughout history. The Spanish Empire didn’t collapse for lack of guns, nor the Ottoman, nor lots of others.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 7
No. of Recommendations: 1
Trump is saying there's a deal:
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/11/trump-cancel-iran...(liberal friendly link)
https://www.axios.com/2026/06/11/trump-cancel-iran...Maybe the threat of seizing Kharg was enough:
Trump has claimed an agreement was close multiple times before, and Tehran has yet to confirm his latest claim. However, three sources briefed on the talks told Axios that key gaps were resolved during talks between Iranian officials and Qatari mediators on Wednesday. ...
The sources said the gaps were narrowed on three key issues:
The mechanism for releasing Iran's frozen assets — the most important issue for the Iranians.
Arrangements for reopening the Strait of Hormuz during the 60-day ceasefire period.
How negotiations over Iran's nuclear program will be conducted during the 60-day ceasefire period.As always, let this play out.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Why isn't oil at $150 a barrel and climbing?
Because we haven't yet hit the point where physical supplies are constrained, and futures markets incorporate the non-trivial chance that the Strait might reopen in the future. Not because the Strait is open now.
And one more time: we haven't tried to force our way through.
It's not about "forcing our way through." This isn't about whether the Strait can be transited by U.S. warships. It's about whether conditions permit civilian commercial cargo vessels to safely traverse the waterway.
The goal of Operation Project Freedom was to enable merchant ships to once again freely go through the Strait. That goal has failed. Sneaking two or three ships per day through the Strait doesn't make it a success. That means that 97-98% of commercial traffic is still blocked.
You can't change that by protecting merchant vessels from Zodiac ships. You need to take away the threat of land-based drones and missiles. Which almost certainly requires ground troops to control the Iranian coastline, not "forcing our way through" the Strait.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dope1: Maybe the threat of seizing Kharg was enough
Pedo Don first threatened to "take Kharg Island" on March 29.
Dope1: ...releasing Iran's frozen assets...
Should be fun watching you condemn the billions that Pedo Don is going to give to Iran.
Can't wait.
Dope1: Arrangements for reopening the Strait of Hormuz during the 60-day ceasefire period.
Wow, a return to the status quo. So much winning.
Dope1: ...negotiations over Iran's nuclear program will be conducted during the 60-day ceasefire period
albaby1 has already explained this one to you. Pedo Don will never secure assurances from Iran that will be any different than those secured by Obama years ago.
What a clusterf*ck.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Which almost certainly requires ground troops to control the Iranian coastline, not "forcing our way through" the Strait.
Quibble. Not just the coastlines. Longer range drones are available, so you would have to secure much of the interior of Iran, also. Basically, another Iraq. Or Afghanistan. We'd have to take the whole thing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe the threat of seizing Kharg was enough:
He first threatened to seize Kharg Island in March.
Didn’t work then.
Doesn’t seem to be working now.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Why isn't oil at $150 a barrel and climbing? Because we are tapping the “Strategic Reserve” to the tune of 1.5m bbl a day.
Because China is using about 3m bbl per day
less oil.
China Is Propping Up the World Economy by Importing a Lot Less Oil
Beijing plugs a three-million-barrel hole with little visible disruption, but analysts aren’t sure how long it can keep going A sharp fall in China’s crude oil imports during the Iran war has been instrumental in holding down oil prices and keeping the global economy humming.
Clues are emerging in the mystery of the missing three million barrels—the oil that China would normally be importing but isn’t now. Chinese people are driving fewer gasoline-powered cars and taking trains instead of planes. The country is dialing back operations at the plants that turn crude oil into feedstock for materials such as plastics. And Beijing is beginning to draw down reserves. https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/china-is-p...Because Saudi Arabia has ramped up its east-west pipeline by 2m bbl per day to the unrestricted port of Yanbu.
Because international air travel is significantly down since March, because domestic air routes have been cancelled, because China has cut back flights in favor of rail, because of similar economic events happening throughout Europe and elsewhere.
Prior to this foolishness, the Strait handled about 20m bbl per day. Not quite half that has been replaced - or in China’s case “unconsumed” - or in some places Reserves have been pumped, meaning the full impact of the siege is not yet being felt. China can’t keep this up forever (neither can we), but they don’t want a worldwide recession any more than we do, and they have throttled some of their industries which are the biggest consumers of oil and derivatives in the interest of lowering consumption. That is easier to do in a command economy than in one without those kinds of direct controls.
And one more time: we haven't tried to force our way through. And we won’t. The last thing Trump wants is soldiers and sailors coming home in body bags in the run up to midterm elections. Congress doesn’t want it. The American people don’t want it. Nobody wants it except Pete Hegseth and the other deadenders with the “big guns” mentality. (Even then, it’s entirely unclear that it would work, given our stretched supply lines, lack of permission from other Gulf states to operate from our bases there, and the dubious ability to hold a small piece of territory amid drone and missile strikes from anywhere.) Oil tankers are notoriously big and slow, a ripe target for a drone volley, and there’s no indication that we could operate Kharg Island effectively under an assault that Iran could manage.
In the old days you could tell where a missile had been launched from, and since it took those kinds of facilities you could preemptively strike that target before another came on. Today’s drones can be launched from the back of a box truck or out of a garage, they are, except for using massively expensive and hard to source defensive measures, effectively unstoppable in toto. You can hit a lot of them, true, but if you can’t get them all, an oil tanker, a pipeline, or a refinery is just a sitting duck.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Because we haven't yet hit the point where physical supplies are constrained, and futures markets incorporate the non-trivial chance that the Strait might reopen in the future. Not because the Strait is open now.
Who claimed the Strait was open? No one did.
It's not about "forcing our way through."
It is if you want the strait opened yesterday.
It's about whether conditions permit civilian commercial cargo vessels to safely traverse the waterway.....which happens after you force the strait open.
The goal of Operation Project Freedom was to enable merchant ships to once again freely go through the Strait. That goal has failed.
I think that remains to be seen. Why not let it play out?
You need to take away the threat of land-based drones and missiles. Which almost certainly requires ground troops to control the Iranian coastline, not "forcing our way through" the Strait.
No kidding. Which is why I've pointed out a half dozen times now that we've never tried to force our way through the strait.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Who claimed the Strait was open? No one did.
You said, "The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't...." But the purpose of Operation Project Freedom was to open the Strait. You claimed it wasn't a failure. But if it wasn't a failure, the Strait would be open - or at least substantially open. But it is not. Which means that you're wrong when you say "Looks like it wasn't." It absolutely was.
I think that remains to be seen. Why not let it play out?
You can let it play out (assuming there's no deal), but that doesn't change your incorrect statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom wasn't a failure. It certainly has failed so far. If you want to suggest there's a chance it might succeed in the future, even though it has failed for nearly a month, you're of course free to do that. But it doesn't make it correct to say that today it looks like it wasn't a failure.
No kidding. Which is why I've pointed out a half dozen times now that we've never tried to force our way through the strait.
But that's why I keep pointing out to you that forcing our way through the strait isn't the relevant operation. We can't restore commercial traffic by forcing our way through the strait. We have to seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops. Forcing our way through the strait is irrelevant.
Now - it is certainly also correct to say that we've never tried to seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops. But "force our way through the strait" sounds like something we might do. "Seize the Iranian coastline with ground troops" is something that's almost certainly not going to be attempted. You keep saying the former, even though the latter is what would have to happen. By referring to "forcing our way through the strait," that framing makes it seem like the Strait being closed is something we might change with a future action that we might take. That's wrong. Forcing our way through the Strait doesn't open the Strait for merchant commerce. Only seizing the coastline with ground troops does.
No. of Recommendations: 1
You said, "The media and this board declared operation Freedom or whatever it was called a failure before it started. Looks like it wasn't...."
Which isn't nearly the same thing as declaring the strait open. Nice try, though.
You can let it play out (assuming there's no deal), but that doesn't change your incorrect statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom wasn't a failure.
<rolls eyes>
This is your opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 16
Which isn't nearly the same thing as declaring the strait open. Nice try, though.
Do you think Operation Project Freedom can avoid being a failure if the strait isn't open? Remember, the goal of the operation was to open the strait for commercial merchant vessels. That was the stated objective. If the strait is still closed, can the operation be said to not have failed?
<rolls eyes>
This is your opinion.
How is that an opinion? The stated goal of the operation was to open the strait to merchant vessels. 97% of the traffic is still blocked. How is that not a failure?
No. of Recommendations: 16
Why isn't oil at $150 a barrel and climbing?
Oh, for crying out sideways—that's our new reference point now? Oil under $150 a barrel is peaches and cream? Not the $75 or $80 it was before Bibi took Diaper Dipshit and Pistol Putz Pete out for their middle east walkies?
So we've all been looking at this whole Iran cock-up backwards——everything is actually so much better than the so much worse it hasn't gotten yet!
Do you get out of bed in the morning planning to be a gullible nitwit, or is that just how every day seems to work out for you?
Don't bother answering. I don't actually care.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Do you think Operation Project Freedom can avoid being a failure if the strait isn't open?
Define "open". How many ships is that? Bear in mind that every time you do, you're injecting your opinion as to "how many ships are enough". As an open opponent of this entire effort, then literally any number below 100% for the metric of "Strait is open" you'll define as a failure.
Hey, whatever you want to do.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Oh, for crying out sideways—that's our new reference point now?
I'll take, "Felcher doesn't understand the question for $400, Alex". This discussion isn't meant for you; the subject is over your head.
I don't actually care.
lol. Do you think I take anything you write seriously? Nah, bruv.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Define "open". How many ships is that? Bear in mind that every time you do, you're injecting your opinion as to "how many ships are enough". As an open opponent of this entire effort, then literally any number below 100% for the metric of "Strait is open" you'll define as a failure.
Nonsense. One can point out that a five-year-old is a child while a forty-three-year-old is an adult without having to identify the exact day and date a child turns into an adult. The fact that we can't pinpoint the exact moment of a transition between two states doesn't mean that it's impossible to speak meaningfully about those two states when we're not dealing with the transition point. There is a clear difference between night and day, even though there may not be any non-arbitrary way to determine the precise point at which night turns into day.
If only 2-3% of pre-war traffic is going through the Strait, then the Strait is still closed. Conversely, if 97-98% of pre-war traffic were going through the Strait, the Strait would inarguably be open. We do not have to worry about the edge cases of 43%-57% or 52%-48% to know that the Strait is still closed if 97% of traffic is stuck.
You're trying to dodge, but your statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom wasn't a failure is clearly wrong. If 97% of the Strait's traffic is still blocked from going through, then the Strait is still closed and Operation Project Freedom failed.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You're trying to dodge,
No. Refusing to engage isn't the same as dodging.
No. of Recommendations: 17
While y’all are arguing over assigning the criteria for determining what percentage of ships getting through constitutes victory, let’s not forget that before Trump launched this misbegotten war, that figure was 100%.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Refusing to engage isn't the same as dodging.
"And being not smart isn't the same thing as being stupid. Or wait..."
Drill, dopey, drill!
No. of Recommendations: 3
"And being not smart isn't the same thing as being stupid. Or wait..."
You'd know, Felcher!
It's amazing how you people imprint your prejudices (and personal failings) on 1 person.
No. of Recommendations: 17
No. Refusing to engage isn't the same as dodging.
This is dodging - not refusing to engage. You make a clear statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom didn't fail. Yet the evidence is clearly that it did. The operation failed to open the Strait.
Rather than acknowledge that, you're trying to dodge by raising the question of how one could define what it means for the Strait to be "open." But that's just evasion. It's not some ineffable conundrum whether a waterway that's still closed to 97% of traffic is "open" or not. It's not. It's still closed. Operation Project Freedom failed, and your statement was wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 3
This is dodging - not refusing to engage. You make a clear statement that it looks like Operation Project Freedom didn't fail. Yet the evidence is clearly that it did. The operation failed to open the Strait.
If you say so. My consistent position has been "let's play this all out".
Everyone on this board - including you - has assumed that my position is 100% in lockstep with Trump. It isn't, and no, I'm not inclined to explain the differences. Maybe sometime. But not now.
No. of Recommendations: 19
If you say so. My consistent position has been "let's play this all out".
If you were to take that position consistently, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you suggested that the fact that some ships had gotten through the strait meant that it looks like those suggesting that Operation Project Freedom would be a failure were mistaken. That's not a "let's see what happens in the future" comment. It's a statement assessing what's happened. To date, it's been a failure. If you want to say that we have to let this all play out before making that assessment, that's fine - but then we can't say that it looks like the original projections that it would fail are mistaken. Yet. Though I remain confident in my original prediction that naval power can't open the strait without ground forces seizing the coast, and that we're not going to do that.
Everyone on this board - including you - has assumed that my position is 100% in lockstep with Trump. It isn't, and no, I'm not inclined to explain the differences. Maybe sometime. But not now.
I have never assumed your position is 100% in lockstep with Trump. In fact, I fully expect that you'll roundly criticize him if he ends up agreeing to the terms that are being floated for the ceasefire deal. In this conversation, though, you've mostly been lining up with what he's claimed - namely, that the 'Dark Fleet' accomplished something meaningful in terms of Strait access. And that's where I think you - and he - are wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I have never assumed your position is 100% in lockstep with Trump. In fact, I fully expect that you'll roundly criticize him if he ends up agreeing to the terms that are being floated for the ceasefire deal. In this conversation, though, you've mostly been lining up with what he's claimed - namely, that the 'Dark Fleet' accomplished something meaningful in terms of Strait access. And that's where I think you - and he - are wrong.
This is wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 1
He first threatened to seize Kharg Island in March.Speaking of which:
Pentagon secretly deployed paratroopers to Israel: report
Journalist Ken Klippenstein reported on his Substack on Monday, citing a military source involved in war planning, that the deployment is part of a contingency plan between the U.S. and Israel "for seizing Kharg Island and carving out coastal territory inside Iran." That plan, Klippenstein reported, has been in place since at least February.
"The Army deployment order, issued April 7, 2026, directs elements of the 2nd Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment — the storied 'Geronimo' battalion — to deploy to Israel on 'temporary duty.' The Israel deployment has not been previously reported," it added.https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/trump-pentago...Steve
