John Bolton's book "has been written with so little discernible attention to style and narrative form that he apparently presumes an audience that is hanging on his every word."

According to the review in the NYT, written by Jennifer Szalai.

... Bolton has filled this book’s nearly 500 pages with minute and often extraneous details, including the time and length of routine meetings and even, at one point, a nap. Underneath it all courses a festering obsession with his enemies, both abroad (Iran, North Korea) and at home (the media, “the High-Minded,” the former defense secretary Jim Mattis). The book is bloated with self-importance, even though what it mostly recounts is Bolton not being able to accomplish very much. It toggles between two discordant registers: exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged....

In another book by another writer, such anecdotes might land with a stunning force, but Bolton fails to present them that way, leaving them to swim in a stew of superfluous detail. Besides, the moment he cites as the real “turning point” for him in the administration had to do with an attack on Iran that, to Bolton’s abject disappointment, didn’t happen....

... Trump decided to call off the strikes at the very last minute, after learning they would kill as many as 150 people. “Too many body bags,” Trump told him. “Not proportionate.” Bolton still seems incensed at this unexpected display of caution and humanity on the part of Trump, deeming it “the most irrational thing I ever witnessed any President do.”...

[H]is chapter on Ukraine is weird, circuitous and generally confounding. It’s full of his usual small-bore detail, but on the bigger, more pointed questions, the sentences get windy and conspicuously opaque.... ... Bolton — known for what a 2019 profile in The New Yorker called his “tremendous powers of recall” — said it was too much for him to fully understand....

It’s a strange experience reading a book that begins with repeated salvos about “the intellectually lazy” by an author who refuses to think through anything very hard himself.

Iran warned its people that "millions" may die. This came "after hard-line Shiite faithful... pushed their way into the courtyards of two major shrines that had just been closed over fears of the virus."

AP reports.

This is very sad. It shows the problem of embedding people too deeply in religion. They feel they need to get to the shrine, apparently.

Meanwhile, Iran’s supreme leader issued a religious ruling prohibiting “unnecessary” travel in the country.

It's possible that religion can help people follow orders and that the religious leaders can look to medical experts to decide what orders to give. In the abstract, I might guess that it's easier for an authoritarian country to make everyone do what needs to be done. But concretely, we see religious people crowding and pushing into a closed shrine. They're gathering and having more contact with each other than usual.

Please comment, but ask yourself before hitting the publish button: Am I helping?

The whole world is in this together, and it seems to be worse in Iran than anywhere else.