>
Silver's $3 Trillion Stress Test
BlackRock Just Confirmed the Worst-Case Scenario
A COMEX report says JPMorgan closed its silver short around ~$78.
How underwater 3D printing could soon transform maritime construction
Smart soldering iron packs a camera to show you what you're doing
Look, no hands: Flying umbrella follows user through the rain
Critical Linux Warning: 800,000 Devices Are EXPOSED
'Brave New World': IVF Company's Eugenics Tool Lets Couples Pick 'Best' Baby, Di
The smartphone just fired a warning shot at the camera industry.
A revolutionary breakthrough in dental science is changing how we fight tooth decay
Docan Energy "Panda": 32kWh for $2,530!
Rugged phone with multi-day battery life doubles as a 1080p projector
4 Sisters Invent Electric Tractor with Mom and Dad and it's Selling in 5 Countries

Over the past two weeks, two important messages were conveyed to Iran, both of which were rejected.
One came from the U.S. and the other from Israel. The former was: "We [the U.S.] will carry out a limited attack and you should accept it; or at least, give only a symbolic response". Tehran rejected this request, saying that it would consider any attack to mark the beginning of a full-scale war.
Israel's message, delivered through one of the various mediators, was: "We will not participate in the American attack". It asked Iran therefore, to not target Israel. This request also met with a negative response, together with the explicit clarification that were the U.S. to commence military action, Israel would be immediately attacked. In parallel, Iran informed all states in the region that any attack launched from their territory or airspace, would result in an Iranian attack on whomsoever facilitated such U.S. military action.
As background, the Iranian perception of threat of U.S. military action has moved beyond the level of a manageable threat, to that of an existential threat. Consequently, writes Iranian analyst Mostafa Najafi, Iran's leadership has "concluded that a U.S. attack — even if limited in scope — [would] not lead to the end of a conflict … [Rather, it would] result in the continued shadow of war and increased security, economic, and political costs for the country. On this basis, a comprehensive response to any attack, even whilst accepting its consequences, is viewed as a strategy for restoring deterrence and preventing the continuation of sustained military pressure".
It seems, given the report by Israeli Channel 14's Hallel Rosen on the talks between the U.S. Commander of CENTCOM General Cooper and his Israeli counterparts on 25 January, that Cooper and his team told their Israeli colleagues that the U.S. Administration were seeking only a 'clean, quick, and cost-free operation in Iran' – one that would not require a significant drain on resources, nor result in the U.S. becoming entangled, nor slipping into widespread complications inside Iran.
Iran, of course, is not Venezuela. It seems that Trump's quest for an 'In-Boom-Out' standout operation for Iran is proving elusive. It carries too high a risk of a bad look – not playing as a 'winner' – especially at a time when Trumps' approval rating is suffering.
U.S. Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had arrived in Israel (from Davos, where they had focussed on both Ukraine and Gaza), to meet with Netanyahu on the Saturday that the CENTCOM team were in town.