\ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf7 Iran: 3,636+ killed (HRANA floor estimate \u2014 1,701 civilians including 254+ children, 1,221 military, 714 unclassified; FROZEN since Day 38\/April 7; ceasefire in effect on Iran front; no updated HRANA report found this session)
\ud83c\uddf1\ud83c\udde7 Lebanon: At least 2,454 killed, 7,658 wounded (Lebanese disaster management unit via Al Jazeera, April 21 \u2014 full war period from March 2; Israel-Lebanon ceasefire extended three weeks April 23)
\ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf1 Israel: At least 43 killed (Wikipedia citing Magen David Adom, April 19 \u2014 treat as indicative)
\ud83c\udf0d Gulf states: At least 28 killed in Iran-attributed attacks (Al Jazeera live tracker \u2014 unchanged)
\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 US military: 13 deaths confirmed (CENTCOM \u2014 unchanged)
\ud83d\udee2\ufe0f Brent crude: $107.20 \u2014 highest since the war began; up from $105.10 Thursday evening; mine-laying shoot-to-kill order, ongoing Hormuz seizures, and no diplomatic resolution driving sustained climb (OilPrice.com<\/a>, confirmed this session)
\u26fd US gas: $4.05\/gallon national average (CNN, April 19)<\/p>\n
Sourcing note: Iran civilian casualties sourced to HRANA (US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency), which relies on a network of activists inside Iran and represents a floor estimate. Figures frozen since Day 38\/April 7; no updated report found this session. Lebanon figure sourced to Lebanese disaster management unit via Al Jazeera April 21; no updated figure found this session. Israel figure sourced to Wikipedia citing Magen David Adom as of April 19 \u2014 not confirmed via direct primary source this session. Methodology differs between sources; figures should not be treated as directly comparable.<\/p>\n
\n
1. AMERICA\u2019S ALLIES ARE NOT JUST COMPLAINING. THEY ARE LEAVING.<\/p>\n
This morning, Reuters confirmed that an internal Pentagon email is circulating options for punishing NATO allies the US believes failed to support it in the Iran war. The options include suspending Spain from the alliance and, in a detail that caused immediate alarm in London, reviewing America\u2019s longstanding diplomatic support for Britain\u2019s claim to the Falkland Islands. The memo\u2019s stated purpose: \u201cdecreasing the sense of entitlement on the part of the Europeans.\u201d<\/p>\n
The email is the latest and most explicit document in a fracture that has been building for eight weeks. It is not the beginning of the story. It is the point at which the story can no longer be told as a series of diplomatic spats.<\/p>\n
Spain: The Most Exposed Ally<\/strong><\/p>\n Spain is the primary target of the Pentagon memo. It is also the NATO ally whose position has been most unambiguous. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called the Iran war \u201cunjustifiable\u201d and \u201cdangerous\u201d from its first week. Spain closed its airspace to US military planes involved in the conflict. It refused to allow its two jointly operated US military bases, Naval Station Rota and Mor\u00f3n Air Base, both strategically critical to US operations in the Mediterranean and Africa, to be used in the war effort. Defence Minister Margarita Robles stated Spain\u2019s position publicly and without qualification: \u201cI think everyone knows Spain\u2019s position. It\u2019s very clear.\u201d<\/p>\n The Pentagon memo does not merely express frustration. It outlines a specific punitive option: suspending Spain from the NATO alliance. There is no established mechanism for doing this; NATO\u2019s founding treaty contains no expulsion or suspension clause. The memo itself acknowledges the suspension would have \u201climited effect on US military operations but a significant symbolic impact.\u201d That framing is worth reading carefully. The US is considering a symbolic punishment for an ally whose position, that joining a war in the Middle East was not in Spain\u2019s national interest, is shared by virtually every other NATO member.<\/p>\n The Falklands Gambit<\/strong><\/p>\n The second option in the memo \u2014 reconsidering US diplomatic support for Britain\u2019s Falkland Islands claim \u2014 is directed at the United Kingdom, America\u2019s closest ally. Britain has not joined the Iran war. Prime Minister Keir Starmer told Parliament in terms that were as direct as any allied leader has used: \u201cI\u2019m not going to change my mind. I\u2019m not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so. I know where I stand.\u201d<\/p>\n The Falklands option is a threat aimed at the one territorial dispute where British public opinion is most raw. Argentina\u2019s Libertarian President Javier Milei, a Trump ally, has maintained Argentina\u2019s claim to the islands. The suggestion that Washington might revisit its position, even floated in an internal memo, is the kind of signal that lands in London as a warning, not as bureaucratic speculation.<\/p>\n Starmer has separately reaffirmed Britain\u2019s commitment to NATO while refusing to join the war. \u201cNATO is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen. It has kept us safe for many decades,\u201d he told reporters. The US Ambassador to NATO pushed back: \u201cIt\u2019s not the time for another strongly worded statement. It is time for capabilities. It is time for frigates in the Strait of Hormuz.\u201d Britain has frigates. It has chosen not to send them into a war it did not sanction.<\/p>\n Trump, NATO, and \u201cA Paper Tiger\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The Pentagon memo reflects a posture Trump has been articulating publicly for weeks. In an interview with The Telegraph, he said he was \u201cstrongly considering\u201d pulling the United States out of NATO. \u201cI always knew they were a paper tiger,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd Putin knows that too, by the way.\u201d When asked by Reuters in April whether a US withdrawal was a possibility: \u201cWouldn\u2019t you if you were me?\u201d<\/p>\n Congress has Trump-proofed this specific option. In 2023, then-Senator Marco Rubio co-sponsored a provision requiring congressional sign-off before the US could leave NATO. That provision is now law. Trump cannot legally exit the alliance unilaterally. But the damage does not require a legal exit. It requires only the sustained communication, to allies and adversaries alike, that the Article 5 mutual defence guarantee is contingent on political performance rather than treaty obligation.<\/p>\n Polish Defence Minister W\u0142adys\u0142aw Kosiniak-Kamysz captured the bind plainly: \u201cThere is no NATO without the USA, but there is no strong United States without allies, either.\u201d Estonia\u2019s Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur told Politico: \u201cFor all the allies, at this very moment, it is important to build bridges, not to destroy the bridges.\u201d Finland\u2019s President Alexander Stubb said he shared a \u201cconstructive\u201d conversation with Trump about NATO. None of these statements suggest the allies are prepared to join the war. They suggest they are managing an alliance they can see cracking.<\/p>\n Canada: Moving On Without Washington<\/strong><\/p>\n The estrangement extends beyond NATO\u2019s European members. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, elected last year on an explicitly anti-Trump platform after Trump attacked Canadian sovereignty, has begun talking in terms that would have been unthinkable a year ago: moving forward without basing the alliance around the United States. Canada has not joined the Iran war. It has watched the US threaten its sovereignty, impose tariffs, and now threaten its NATO allies for not joining a war Canada also declined to join.<\/p>\n Japan, Australia, South Korea: The Indo-Pacific Rebuke<\/strong><\/p>\n On March 17, Trump\u2019s Truth Social statement renouncing NATO\u2019s assistance also rebuked Japan, South Korea, and Australia, US allies in the Indo-Pacific, for refusing to join US-led attacks on Iran. All three declined. Japan\u2019s response, this week, was to scrap its postwar arms export ban \u2014 not to join the war, but to build the independent military capability that makes Japan less dependent on US protection. The decision was made as Washington\u2019s attention and resources were absorbed elsewhere. Japan drew its conclusions and acted on them.<\/p>\n Sanna Marin Names What the Decisions Reveal<\/strong><\/p>\n Former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, who as PM took Finland into NATO specifically in response to Russian aggression, making that historic decision under sustained pressure, gave an interview to Euronews this week that named explicitly what the pattern of allied decisions has been showing implicitly. Europe cannot rule out war with Russia, she said. Europe is \u201cvulnerable.\u201d The EU must build its own independent military capabilities and strengthen European nuclear deterrence. Europe must stop depending on the United States for security.<\/p>\n Marin is no longer Finland\u2019s prime minister. She left office in 2023. But she speaks from inside the decision-making architecture that took her country into NATO \u2014 a decision made on the explicit premise that the alliance\u2019s Article 5 guarantee was real and reliable. What she is now saying, publicly and in terms that require no interpretation, is that the premise has changed.<\/p>\n The Northwood coalition, 30-plus nations meeting this week at Britain\u2019s military headquarters to plan a Hormuz reopening operation explicitly without US participation, is Marin\u2019s argument made operational. The Japan arms decision is the same argument made structural. The Canadian sovereign pivot is the same argument made electoral. The Pentagon memo threatening Spain and Britain is the response to all of it from a Washington that reads allied reluctance as ingratitude rather than sovereignty.<\/p>\n Macron and the Nuclear Umbrella<\/strong><\/p>\n Marin is not speaking into a vacuum. While she was giving that Euronews interview, the architecture she is calling for was already being built, in France.<\/p>\n On March 2, standing in front of the nuclear submarine Le T\u00e9m\u00e9raire at a French naval base in Brittany, President Emmanuel Macron announced the most substantial shift in French nuclear posture since 1992. France will increase the number of warheads in its arsenal for the first time in over three decades. It will stop disclosing the total size of its stockpile to maintain strategic ambiguity. It will allow nuclear weapons to be forward-based outside French territory for the first time. And it will bring European partners directly into its nuclear deterrence framework, including joint exercises and visits to strategic nuclear sites.<\/p>\n The countries named in the first stage of that cooperation: Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, and Denmark. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced a Franco-German nuclear steering group the same day and said Germany would participate in French nuclear exercises before the end of the year. The Washington Post noted the explicit driver: \u201cgrowing mistrust in the United States propels once-taboo plans for the French nuclear arsenal to protect Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n On April 20, four days ago, Macron met Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Gdansk and publicly discussed extending the French nuclear deterrent framework to Poland and other European countries. Tusk said Poland does not want French nuclear-capable Rafale fighters flying over Polish territory, but the conversation itself would have been unthinkable eighteen months ago. Poland is a NATO member whose allies host US nuclear weapons across alliance territory under the burden-sharing arrangements that have underpinned European deterrence since the Cold War. Its prime minister is now publicly negotiating an alternative deterrence framework with Paris.<\/p>\n The Chatham House analysis of Macron\u2019s March 2 speech frames what he is doing with precision: it is not a replacement for the American nuclear umbrella but a preventive initiative. If European states begin to doubt the US guarantee, and the Pentagon memo threatening Spain and Britain gives them specific and current reason to do so, individual countries will pursue their own nuclear capabilities. Poland\u2019s Tusk has said publicly that Poland should consider acquiring nuclear weapons. A nuclear-armed Poland would be a rupture in the European security architecture that makes the current allied fractures look minor. Macron\u2019s offer of a French deterrence umbrella is the attempt to provide an alternative before that moment arrives.<\/p>\n The Atlantic Council noted that Macron\u2019s new posture \u201creflects deep and growing unease among some US allies in Europe following the release of the 2026 US National Defense Strategy,\u201d the document that explicitly ended the era of automatic American primacy in Europe. The 2026 NDS made Europe\u2019s security Europe\u2019s problem. Macron read it, drew the only logical conclusion, and announced it from the deck of a nuclear submarine.<\/p>\n \u201cWe must be feared,\u201d Macron said. \u201cAnd to be feared, we must be powerful.\u201d<\/p>\n The Alliance in Numbers<\/strong><\/p>\n Polling confirms the American public has not followed Trump\u2019s reading of this. An AP-NORC survey in February found 70 percent of Americans said NATO membership was \u201cvery\u201d or \u201csomewhat\u201d good for the United States \u2014 the highest reading since at least 2022. A Gallup poll the same month found more than three-quarters of Americans supported increasing or maintaining the current US commitment to NATO. Even after the Iran war began, a Pew Research poll in late March found nearly six in ten Americans viewed NATO favorably. Only 13 percent of Republicans wanted to withdraw entirely.<\/p>\n The institution Trump is threatening to blow up is one most Americans \u2014 including most Republicans \u2014 want to keep.<\/p>\n \ud83c\udf0d TRANSLATOR\u2019S NOTE: The Pentagon memo has led international coverage from London to Madrid to Ottawa this morning. In Spain, it is being reported as a direct threat from an ally. In Britain, the Falklands reference has triggered reactions across the political spectrum; the islands are not an abstraction in British politics, they are the subject of a war in living memory. Al Jazeera\u2019s April 1 analysis of the full NATO rift, confirmed this session, frames the allied refusal not as disloyalty but as a sovereignty calculation: joining a war that was not sanctioned by their parliaments, that the UN did not authorise, and that their publics oppose by large majorities. That is how the rest of the world is reading this. Not as European weakness. As European refusal.<\/p>\n \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 What American readers need to know: The United States is threatening to punish Britain for not joining a war Britain opposes, by withdrawing diplomatic support for British territory it has defended for four decades. It is threatening to suspend Spain from an alliance whose founding treaty contains no suspension mechanism. It is threatening to leave NATO \u2014 an institution that 70 percent of Americans support \u2014 because its members exercised their sovereignty. The allies are not leaving because they are weak or ungrateful. They are restructuring because they have concluded, one by one, that the United States under this administration is not a reliable partner. That conclusion, once reached, does not reverse easily. The damage to the alliance system that has underwritten Western security since 1949 is not theoretical. The Pentagon memo makes it explicit.<\/p>\n Sources: <\/em>Reuters\/CNBC<\/a><\/em> (wire \u2014 Pentagon email confirmed, Spain suspension option, Falklands option, \u201cdecreasing entitlement\u201d language, confirmed this session); <\/em>Al Jazeera<\/a><\/em> (Qatar, state-funded\/editorially independent \u2014 Spain airspace closure, Robles quote, Starmer quote, NATO rift analysis, confirmed this session); <\/em>TIME<\/a><\/em> (US \u2014 Trump \u201cpaper tiger\u201d quote, Stubb, Kosiniak-Kamysz, Pevkur reactions, confirmed this session); <\/em>CNN<\/a><\/em> (US confirmation \u2014 Starmer Parliament quote, US Ambassador Whitaker quote, polling figures, Carney framing, confirmed this session); <\/em>CNN analysis<\/a><\/em> (US \u2014 Starmer \u201cI will not yield,\u201d IMF downgrades, Bessent quote, confirmed this session); <\/em>Euronews<\/a><\/em> (European, broadly centrist \u2014 Marin interview, \u201cvulnerable,\u201d independent EU military, nuclear deterrence, confirmed this session); <\/em>Brussels Signal<\/a><\/em> (UK, right-leaning \u2014 Marin France\/Poland nuclear exercises context, confirmed this session); <\/em>Washington Post<\/a><\/em> (US \u2014 Macron March 2 submarine base speech, European nuclear exercises, forward-basing announcement, \u201cgrowing mistrust in the United States\u201d framing, confirmed this session); <\/em>Atlantic Council<\/a><\/em> (centre, mixed orientation think tank \u2014 four nuclear posture changes confirmed, partner countries named, Franco-German steering group, Merz quote, 2026 NDS connection, confirmed this session); <\/em>Chatham House<\/a><\/em> (UK, non-partisan \u2014 preventive initiative framing, Poland nuclear weapons risk, strategic clarification analysis, confirmed this session); <\/em>EADaily<\/a><\/em> (European outlet \u2014 Gdansk meeting April 20, Tusk Rafale objection, confirmed this session)<\/em><\/p>\n 2. THE PENTAGON IS CENSORING THE NEWSPAPER OF AMERICA\u2019S TROOPS, WHILE THEY ARE AT WAR<\/p>\n Editor\u2019s note: The editor of this publication served in a non-journalistic support role during the IFOR\/NATO mission in Bosnia in the 1990s, alongside both Stars & Stripes and the Armed Forces Network. He is not a journalist by training. What he knows is what that newspaper meant to the people serving there.<\/em><\/p>\n Stars & Stripes has been published for American service members since Union soldiers found a printing press in Missouri in 1861. General John Pershing relaunched it in 1918 with a vision that it \u201cshould speak the thoughts of the new American Army and the American people from whom the Army has been drawn.\u201d General Dwight Eisenhower said he wanted it to be \u201cthe equivalent of a soldier\u2019s hometown newspaper, with no censorship of its contents, other than for security.\u201d Congress created the position of ombudsman in 1991 specifically to protect that independence, after it became alarmed at Pentagon attempts to suppress unfavourable news during the Iran-Contra affair.<\/p>\n On Thursday, the Pentagon fired the ombudsman.<\/p>\n Jacqueline Smith, the 13th ombudsman and the first woman to hold the position, was notified via DA Form 3434 that her last day is April 28. No reason was given. The form states: \u201cThis action is not grievable.\u201d Pentagon spokesman and Defense Department official Sean Parnell, the same official who announced the Stars & Stripes overhaul in January, issued the dismissal. Smith\u2019s response, published Thursday on the Stars & Stripes website itself, was direct: \u201cNo one should be surprised that they\u2019re kicking out the one person charged by Congress with protecting Stars and Stripes\u2019 editorial independence.\u201d<\/p>\n She had been reporting her concerns to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees for months. She told them the Pentagon was systematically attempting to control the newspaper\u2019s content. She was not wrong.<\/p>\n In March, the Pentagon issued a memo ordering Stars & Stripes to stop publishing content from wire services including AP and Reuters, requiring that content instead be \u201cconsistent with good order and discipline,\u201d language from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the legal code that governs military conduct and discipline. Separately, the Pentagon announced that roughly half of Stars & Stripes\u2019 new content would be \u201cWar Department-generated materials.\u201d Job applicants to the newspaper are now being asked on the government\u2019s employment website how they would \u201cadvance\u201d President Trump\u2019s policies. The newspaper\u2019s editor-in-chief, Erik Slavin, wrote in a note to staff: \u201cThe people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n The timing is not incidental. American sailors and soldiers are currently deployed in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Thirteen US military personnel have been confirmed killed. The newspaper that has served those service members, that has reported on black mold in military housing, child neglect in base day care centres, and agreements that prevent military spouses from working, is being converted into a vehicle for administration messaging while the people it serves are at war.<\/p>\n Smith\u2019s closing line in her Thursday column was the kind of sentence that takes a career to earn the right to write: \u201cThis is a critical time for the newspaper to be without an ombudsman who can fight against censorship and control.\u201d<\/p>\n \ud83c\udf0d TRANSLATOR\u2019S NOTE: The Stars & Stripes story is receiving coverage in the international press \u2014 the Washington Post broke it, and it has been picked up across European outlets \u2014 primarily as an indicator of the broader pattern of press freedom erosion under the current administration. It follows directly from the Amal Khalil story this week. Two consecutive days, two press freedom stories: a Lebanese journalist killed in her shelter by an ally of the United States, and the newspaper serving US troops being stripped of its independence while those troops are deployed. The international press is connecting them. American media is covering them as separate stories.<\/p>\n \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 What American readers need to know: The newspaper that has served American troops since the Civil War \u2014 that Eisenhower said should have no censorship \u2014 is being turned into a Pentagon mouthpiece while American service members are fighting a war in the Gulf. The person Congress put in place specifically to prevent this just got fired. If you have a family member deployed right now, the independent newspaper they have always been able to rely on for honest information is being dismantled. The form used to fire the ombudsman says the action is \u201cnot grievable.\u201d Congress mandated the ombudsman\u2019s existence. The Pentagon has decided that mandate is inconvenient.<\/p>\n Sources: <\/em>Stars & Stripes \/ Jacqueline Smith<\/a><\/em> (primary \u2014 Smith\u2019s own column published on Stars & Stripes, confirmed this session); <\/em>Washington Post<\/a><\/em> (US \u2014 ombudsman firing confirmed, Parnell role, DA Form 3434, confirmed this session); <\/em>Christian Science Monitor<\/a><\/em> (US \u2014 January overhaul announcement, War Department materials, job applicant questions, Slavin editor-in-chief quote, confirmed this session); <\/em>Wikipedia \/ Stars and Stripes<\/a><\/em> (secondary \u2014 March AP\/Reuters ban memo, \u201cconsistent with good order and discipline\u201d language, ombudsman congressional mandate history, confirmed this session)<\/em><\/p>\n 3. WHERE THINGS STAND: DAY 55<\/p>\n The ceasefire is holding. Barely.<\/p>\n The three-week Lebanon extension Trump announced Thursday from the White House gives the Lebanon track until mid-May. The Iran ceasefire, extended indefinitely by Trump on April 21, has no deadline but no framework. Iran has still not submitted a proposal. Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen publicly in 55 days. The civilian negotiating team wanted to talk. The IRGC is seizing ships. Neither position has been resolved by the ceasefire extension, because ceasefire extensions do not resolve internal Iranian politics.<\/p>\n The Strait of Hormuz is not open. Only 12 vessels crossed in the past 24 hours, per MarineTraffic, most using the Iranian-approved route off Bandar Abbas. The IRGC\u2019s toll system collected its first central bank payment Thursday morning. CENTCOM has now turned around 31 ships under the blockade, mostly oil tankers. The mine-clearing operation that would actually make the strait safe for normal shipping cannot begin until a sustained ceasefire is in place, and would take up to six months after that.<\/p>\n Brent crude is at $107.20. That is the highest since the war began on February 28.<\/p>\n Iran and the US have been in a nominal ceasefire for 17 days. In those 17 days: Iran has seized two ships and fired on a third. Israel has conducted approximately 50 airstrikes in Lebanon and killed a journalist in her shelter. The US has turned around 31 ships under blockade. Iran has collected toll revenue in cryptocurrency. Congress has been told mine-clearing will take six months after any deal. The Lebanon ceasefire has been extended twice.<\/p>\n None of the structural issues that started this war, Iran\u2019s nuclear program, the Strait of Hormuz, Hezbollah\u2019s role in Lebanon, the sanctions architecture, have moved.<\/p>\n \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 What American readers need to know: Brent at $107 means the price at the pump is not coming down this week. The ceasefire is holding in name. The war\u2019s causes are unresolved. The man who would need to authorise any Iranian diplomatic movement has not been seen in 55 days. This is where things stand entering the weekend.<\/p>\n Sources: <\/em>NBC News live blog<\/a><\/em> (US confirmation \u2014 12 vessels MarineTraffic, CENTCOM 31 ships turned around, confirmed this session); <\/em>OilPrice.com<\/a><\/em> (markets \u2014 Brent $107.20, confirmed this session via Rudy); <\/em>Reuters\/CNBC<\/a><\/em> (wire \u2014 ceasefire status, confirmed this session)<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cWhenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.\u201d \u2014 Thomas Jefferson, 1789<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Iran War & Beyond Weekday morning and evening editions. Saturdays once. Good news on Sundays. All sources labeled. WAR DAY 55 | NUMBERS AT PUBLICATION \ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf7 Iran: 3,636+ killed (HRANA floor estimate \u2014 1,701 civilians including 254+ children, 1,221 military, 714 unclassified; FROZEN since Day 38\/April 7; ceasefire in effect on Iran front; no updated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oxygen_hide_in_design_set":false,"_oxygen_tags":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-patreon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rudymartinez.wtf\/stuff-and-nonsense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n![](\"https:\/\/images.unsplash.com\/photo-1647633785408-645d98b6db39?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=M3wzMDAzMzh8MHwxfHNlYXJjaHwxfHxzdGFycyUyMCUyNiUyMHN0cmlwZXMlMjBuZXdzcGFwZXJ8ZW58MHx8fHwxNzc3MDI4NzI0fDA&ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=80&w=1080\")
\n
\n