A new op-ed in The Hill lays out something worth reading if you've been following the USAID story.

It's co-authored by J. Brian Atwood (USAID Administrator under Clinton, 1993-1999) and an attorney who's represented federal employees for over three decades. Their argument: USAID's career staff were fired without the misconduct or performance findings the Civil Service Reform Act requires, and the administration is now calling it a "reorganization" to get around due process protections.

The interesting part is that government lawyers have reportedly conceded in court that no one was fired for misconduct or poor performance. The authors argue that concession alone undercuts the legal basis for the firings.

There's also reporting cited in the piece that the White House pressured the Merit Systems Protection Board behind closed doors to adopt a broad theory of presidential removal power, which the board then adopted in March. That ruling is now under review by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Worth a read regardless of where you land politically on USAID itself. The legal question here (can career civil servants be removed without due process) applies well beyond one agency.

Op-ed: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5981243-doge-usaid-lawsuit-civil-servants/

More on the case and the organization backing the legal defense: https://www.usaidemployeefund.org

7.8 billion people have had enough of these 2 countries jumping between peace and war almost daily in some cases . They are adversely impacting people around the world who can not afford high oil prices , the rising cost of food and other flow-on events . The conflict needs to stop . Grow up, come to an agreement and let the world return to normal.

Are you sure it's just...."a landmark civilian nuclear deal"

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has explicitly stated that if regional rival Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia must follow suit.

It's seems like The Adjudicated Rapist has only one idea in how to deal with the war he started: if the Iranians refuse to submit to his will, he will continue to use violence against them.

Obviously the Iranians aren't going to do what The Great Negotiator demands. So what's the exit strategy? How the hell do we get out of this war?

War in Iran has cost the United States more than $37 billion dollars https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/war-iran-billions-pentagon-5Hjddz8_2/

A wider Sunni military coalition is probably unlikely, but I don’t think the possibility is zero.
If Saudi Arabia or Qatar were directly attacked, some Arab countries could try to organize a coalition under the argument of defending Sunni Muslim territory. Pakistan and Turkey could also come under pressure to support them, especially because both countries have military and political ties with Gulf states.
That does not automatically mean they would send large ground forces. More likely, support would begin with air defense, intelligence, logistics, weapons, naval protection, or limited deployments.
The main obstacle is that these countries do not all have the same interests. Pakistan would have to consider its relationship with Iran and its own internal problems. Turkey would act based on its national interests, not simply religious solidarity. Arab states are also divided and have struggled to act as one military bloc.
So a full-scale coalition of Arab armies, Pakistan, and Turkey is still a low-probability scenario. But if Saudi territory, Qatar, or major Islamic sites were directly threatened, the political pressure for some kind of joint intervention could become much stronger.