Oh, one other thing about Iran:

The Persians have never quite gotten over the fact that they aren't King Shit of Turd Mountain anymore, and haven't been for about 2,300 years – ever since Alexander the Great came along with his phalangites and showed them who their Daddy was. They still believe that they are the rightful rulers of the world and haven't yet understood that just because Xerxes wanted things done a certain way, that doesn't mean that those methods work in the modern world.

That does not mean that the West should underestimate or trivialise Iranian military competence and ability.

The Millennium Challenge wargame showed very clearly that the US military leadership is not prepared to deal with a technologically and logistically inferior enemy that can nonetheless improvise and innovate in ways that neutralise American advantages in remote intelligence-gathering and communications. Everything that I have seen indicates that, while Iran could do nothing to stop America from establishing total air supremacy in the event of a war, they could easily bleed American forces so badly, and outright sink enough carriers, that America would end up losing a war with them, or at most win a purely Pyrhhic victory.

As for Iran becoming a major power in the region – well, they already are, thanks to their size and military power, but this masks the fact that the Iranian economy is under severe strain and they face a major demographic crisis within a generation. Their fertility and birth rates have simply collapsed, and their economy is (mis)managed as most Islamic economies usually are – i.e. very badly.

Assuming that the God-Emperor continues to consistently apply the time-tested methods of "peace through strength" upon Iran, I think the chances are pretty good that the mullahs and RIFs will be forced to back down eventually and give up their regional power ambitions, at least temporarily.

It is more complicated than this.

There was a time when the absolute will and power of the monarchy ruled over Great Britain, but that time has long passed. The country is now a constitutional monarchy and has been ever since Cromwell's revolution.

Whatever power the sovereign possesses is entirely "soft" in nature. The Queen, especially today, cannot afford to take forceful and brutal decisions because her entire power base rests on the love and affection that the people have for her – there is absolutely no threat of force to back up her decrees and commands. Therefore, she has to live an exemplary life of virtuous, uncomplaining service to her nation, and to act as a paragon of British propriety.

So that raises the question of whether a King would have stopped his grandson from marrying a well-ridden half-breed divorcee whose entire worldview was completely opposed to that of the monarchy. There, again, we run into serious problems. Remember that the monarchy depends on the love and affection and tolerance of the British people – who, rightly or wrongly, nowadays see themselves as an open, tolerant, and welcoming people who are happy to accommodate immigrants from around the world.

To deny a grandson his right to marry such an obviously disastrous woman would be sensible behaviour 80 years ago – but in this "tolerant and diverse" day and age, such a thing would be seen as cruel, racist, and backward in the extreme.

So no, I seriously doubt that even a King would have the ability to stop a ginger knucklehead like Harry from doing such damage to the monarchy.

With respect to the decisions that the Queen has taken regarding the Sussexes, I counsel patience. The Queen has left herself and the monarchy plenty of wiggle room. If the Sussexes try to monetise the Royal Family and cheapen their "brand", then the Queen will have every right to simply strip them of their titles and cast them out. She has opted for being merciful and kind – and put the burden of good behaviour entirely upon her wayward grandson and his walking disaster of a wife.

I believe that it is a virtual certainty that both Harry and Meghan will at some point seriously overreach and make a mess of things. And I do believe that Harry will eventually find the situation so intolerable that he will divorce the Half-Blood Princess – who will, of course, go on to make millions selling her story about those horrid stuffy royals to anyone who will listen. As always, the man in this situation will be the loser.

I think that the more apt and apposite Scriptural references here really have more to do with Delilah (Judges) and Jezebel (Kings I & II).

As for Soleimani – he was clearly a scumbag, but one aspect of his killing that has been thoroughly overlooked is the fact that Iran was also a major counterweight against ISIS in the region. Soleimani was instrumental in creating and executing the Iranian strategy to contain and fight ISIS, who espouse a brand of extreme Sunni Islam that is totally at odds with the Shi'ite version that the Persians follow.

By killing Soleimani, the Americans have clearly crossed a line, and have seriously damaged Iran's ability to fight Wahabbist RIFs funded by the Saudis and other Sunni nutocracies.

I do not think that the God-Emperor made a bad decision, but the consequences of his decision are uncertain at this point.

Also I read more about the Iranian Suleimani. As much as his is the enemy, his life could be made into a good film. He took advantage of the Bush and Obama era's to set up the Iranian influence across the middle east. Leading to Iran almost a power house in the region if Trump had not step in.