The new Trump-Netanyahu escalation - and new TACO (for the moment) - in the Iran War

Trump’s completely deranged public threat to wipe out all of Iranian civilization is further evidence of his unfitness for any position of responsibility, much less President of the United States in command of its nuclear arsenal.

Zeteo provided this early reaction to the latest TACO, including the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi: (1)



Peter Beaumont explains the key problem with Trump’s and Netanyahu’s regime-change-by-bombing approach to regime change in Iran this way:

Will the national humanitarian disaster visited on millions of Iranians make them love the United States? Israel has already learned a lesson or two from imposing horrifying humanitarian sanctions on Gaza residents, only to realize too late that they lead to no strategic gains and merely turn it into a pariah. (1)

Zvi Bar'el elaborates on the same theme:

Even if Trump pushes back his deadline once again, recent history does not suggest that strikes on infrastructure – widely seen as war crime – are likely to force Iran on to a new path.

More recent than Lebanon is the experience of Ukraine under four years of sustained Russian bombardment, after Moscow’s own illegal war of aggression. That culminated this year in Kyiv’s worst winter of blackouts as Russia hammered the country’s heating and power plants, but failed to force Ukraine to concede. (2)

Wajahat Ali interviews Robert Pape on the state of affairs after Trump’s latest TACO – however long or short of a time it may last. Pape is the historian of strategic bombing who has been warning that Iran has had “escalation dominance” in the current war against the US and Israel. Among other things, Pape warns that Israel may very well be a “spoiler” once again on the new two-week ceasefire. (4)



Notes:

(1) Mehdi Hasan and Experts REACT to Trump's Iran Decision. Zeteo YouTube channel 03/07/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/X-6Li9Az7Yk?si=zDNq5Gq1_gQhcnkO> (Accessed: 2026-08-04).

(2) Beaumont, Peter (2026): Will bombing Iran back to the ‘stone ages’ achieve any war objectives? Guardian 04/07/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/07/will-bombing-iran-back-to-the-stone-ages-achieve-any-war-objectives> (Accessed: 2026-07-04).

(3) Bar'el, Zvi (2026): Will bombing Iran back to the ‘stone ages’ achieve any war objectives? Haaretz 04/07/2026. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-04-03/ty-article/.premium/no-matter-which-path-he-chooses-trump-will-pay-a-heavy-price-for-the-iran-war/0000019d-4f5a-d257-a5dd-6fdb0cb50000?gift=7dff37e4654d499ea8646c3a4df5a1a3> (Accessed: 2026-07-04).

(4) BREAKING NEWS! Trump and Iran Agree to a Ceasefire Deal: Will It Hold and What's the Blowback? Wahahat Ali YouTube channel 04/08/2026. <https://youtu.be/ZjOMfGrFc-c?si=tU53Qmelqhh9Tb4r> (Accessed: 2026-08-04).

How did Trump get convinced to start the Iran War?

Peter Beaumont summarizes a number of the ways in which the Netanyahu government in Israel enticed Trump with the idea that attacking Iran as the US and Israel did on February 28 was a grand idea. (1)

• When Netanyahu visited Trump in Washington in late December, he gave him the Israel Prize for Trunp’s alleged “tremendous contributions to Israel and the Jewish people.” Trump is notoriously interested in getting such honorary awards.
• The Israeli intelligence service Mossad presented an evaluation that the Iranian regime was on the verge of collapse in the face of mass protests.
• Netanyahu promised the Orange Sucker that it would be a quick and easy war.
• The decapitation strategy of assassinating top Iranian leaders that Israel successfully carried out as part of its joint war effort with the US failed to cripple the regime and to instigate new instigate moves for regime change.
• Trump got a big boost in his confidence in winning wars quickly by his kidnapping operation against Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
• “Axios, quoting a US source using Netanyahu’s nickname, reported last week: ‘Before the war, Bibi really sold it to the president as being easy, as regime change being a lot likelier than it was. And the VP was clear-eyed about some of those statements’.”

It’s not clear on that last point if J.D. Vance was conned by that pitch as much as Trump appears to have been.

In the end, of course, the US is responsible for its own foreign policy decisions. They don’t get to use “But Bibi told me it would be easy!” as an excuse for disastrously bad decisions.

But there’s no question that Israel’s view of the Middle East has won a lot of support among American officials over the decades, with the active help of the Israel Lobby. And Netanyahu in his recent actions in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran is pursuing a policy of seeking to illegally annex further territories while carrying out ethnic cleansing against Palestinians with a goal of making itself the Mideast’s superpower.

The catch is that Israel still is in no position to carry out these ambitions without the diplomatic and material support of the US.

Beaumont also reports:

What is clear from what has subsequently emerged is that Netanyahu – a self-styled “expert” on Iran – and the wider Israeli military establishment were fully invested in their pitch of an easy war. …

When viewed as a discrete conflict, it is as much owned by the US as Israel, but it is part of Israel’s war; the latest front in Netanyahu’s state of permanent conflict that has raged since Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.

That attack altered the country’s strategic calculations. And in the expanding regional conflicts that have followed in Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran, with the Houthis in Yemen and in the Syrian hinterland, a common theme has emerged: Netanyahu has promised and declared victories of which the realities are always more ephemeral and hubristic.

Semafor is taking a pretty dim view of the prospects for success in the war by the US-Israeli side:

The conflict looks set to batter allies’ economies by driving inflation up and hitting economic growth, while analysts have questioned the feasibility of Washington’s goals — whether regime change, or destruction of Tehran’s nuclear program or its missile stockpiles. Instead, “the war has empowered Iranian hardliners, blocked a vital shipping lane, and handed a windfall to Russia,” Fareed Zakaria wrote in The Washington Post.

At best, the political scientist Dan Drezner argued, US President Donald Trump is “stuck trying to sell a strategic defeat as a tactical victory,” while The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof said: “We’ve botched our way into an Iran cul-de-sac.” (2)

Owen Jones just did an informative interview with Stephen Wertheim on the developing Iran War disaster: (3)

We’ll soon see what happens with Trump’s latest obscene deadline, whether it sets off a new level of escalation by Iran – which currently has the escalation dominance in the situation – or it turns out to be another TACO moment.

Trump also announced on April 6:

US President Donald Trump said on Monday that Iranians are "animals," therefore bombing their civilian infrastructure like power plants would not be considered a war crime.

"How would it not be a war crime to strike Iran’s bridges and power plants?" A reporter asked Trump.

"Because they killed 45,000 people in the last month...they are animals," Trump said, referring to casualty numbers from a brutal crackdown on demonstrations earlier this year. (4)

Notes:

(1) Beaumont, Peter (2026): Was Trump oblivious to the realities of Netanyahu’s promised ‘easy’ war on Iran? Guardian 04/06/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/06/trump-iran-war-netanyahu-israel> (Accessed: 2026-06-04).

(2) Critics say the US war in Iran is a ‘strategic defeat’. Semafor 04/06/2026. <https://www.semafor.com/article/04/06/2026/washingtons-iran-strategy-questioned> (Accessed: 2026-06-04).

(3) Trump's Disturbed MELTDOWN Over Iran - w/. Stephen Wertheim. Owen Jones YouTube channel 04/05/2026. <https://youtu.be/dKNmHFi0c2w?si=xNzKYJxZrCR-tAax> (Accessed: 2026-06-04).

(4) Trump says Iranians 'animals' when asked why he would bomb power plants. Middle East Eye 04/06/2026. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/trump-says-iranians-animals-when-asked-why-he-would-bomb-power-plants> (Accessed: 2026-06-04).

Europe and the Iran War

Even European commentators still often use the tired old line about how disunited Europe is. But what looks like disunity can also be tag-team diplomacy.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski was publicly critical of the US-Israeli war against Iran a couple of weeks after they attacked Iran. (1) When a foreign minister says there was no “direct threat” in this context as Sikorski did, he’s saying that it’s an illegal war of aggression. The US State Department doesn’t seem very keen these days on this boring “diplomacy” business. But most of the rest of the world is still practicing it.

Poland has also “rejected calls from the United States to deploy an MIM-104 Patriot air defense system to the Middle East, where it could be used to counter Iranian missiles and drones. Warsaw has said that the weapons are needed to deter Russian aggression in Europe.” (2)

As a country sharing a border with Russia, Poland has to take seriously the kind of standard, routine military games that go on there:

Poland sits on the border with Ukraine, and Russian drones attacking targets in western Ukraine have come perilously close to detonating across the border. Poland also borders Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, the hub of its Baltic Fleet. Poland and Lithuania have each played a significant role in preparing for war in the “Suwalki Gap,” the narrow strip of land between Poland and Lithuania separating Kaliningrad from Russian-allied Belarus and a likely flashpoint for a future land war in Europe. In preparation for such a conflict, Poland and the three Baltic states have also withdrawn from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines.

Last September, NATO and Polish forces intercepted multiple Russian drones that had violated Polish airspace. At the time, a German-operated Patriot system was even placed on high alert. However, Polish F-16 Fighting Falcons and Dutch F-35 Lightning IIs were credited with downing the Russian unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

With European NATO countries concerned about their own borders as well as those of Ukraine, they are also diplomatically stressing the importance of international law, especially as regarding borders and wars of aggression. And there are at least a lot of international law experts who say bluntly:

“The initiation of the campaign was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, and the conduct of United States forces since, as well as statements made by senior government officials, raise serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes,” said the letter.

While the letter is focused on the conduct of the US government, it also denounced the Iranian government’s crackdown on dissent and its “ongoing unlawful strikes on civilian infrastructure using explosive weapons in densely populated areas”. (3)

The legal experts highlighted the loose lips of the US Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth, too:

We collectively affirm the importance of equal application of international law to all, including countries that hold themselves out as global leaders. Recent statements from senior U.S. government officials describing the rules governing military engagement as “stupid” and prioritizing “lethality” over “legality” are profoundly alarming and dangerously short-sighted. These claims, particularly in combination with the observable conduct of U.S. forces, are harming the international legal order and the system of international law that we have devoted our lives to promoting. (4)

Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Portugal are currently playing major roles in the transition to what is looking more and more like a coming post-NATO future, not least because they have the six largest armies of the current NATO members. And Britain and France are both nuclear powers who will have to play a more prominent role now in the nuclear deterrence system in relation to Russia, especially as the Trump regime follows such a Russia-friendly direction as it is now doing.

Britain as the long-tine staunch ally of the US, even on the Iraq War, has been taking a cuatious position on the Iran War. They are sending military assistance to various oil monarchies being directly attacked by Iran, i.e., Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said on Monday the UK is "not going to get dragged into this war" but would continue to defend its interests and allies in the region.

The defence secretary [John Healey] has been visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain as the government announced the deployment of further systems, and associated teams, for the nations and for Kuwait. …

Speaking on Monday, Starmer reiterated that UK troops will not be deployed on the ground in Iran.

"This is not our war and we're not going to get drawn into it," he said while responding to a question from reporters.

The UK previously gave permission for the US to use British military bases for "defensive" strikes on Iranian missile sites after Starmer denied a request for the use of UK bases for the initial US-Israeli strikes against Iran in February. (5)

France: President Emmanuel Macron told the Orange US President that he was bonkers if he thought opening the Strait of Hormuz with military operations is feasible. Although he phrased it more diplomatically: “it is never the option we have chosen and we consider it unrealistic.”

Macron said such an operation would take excessive time and expose those crossing the strait to "coastal threats," particularly from Iran's Revolutionary Guards, "who possess significant resources as well as ballistic missiles." "This can only be done in concert with Iran," the French leader added, calling first for a ceasefire and a return to negotiations. (6)

But Macron also announced that France was sending a nuclear aircraft carrier to the eastern Mediterranean declaring it was for defensive purposes. And it has been participating in some defensive operations as a way to get up-to-date on drone warfare: “French warplanes and air defense systems are currently deployed in countries such as the United Arab Emirates to fend off Iranian drone counterattacks.” (7)

Now that the US has all but formally bailed on its NATO commitments, the European powers have to concentrate more on a new credible defensive posture against possible Russian aggression – although there is no real sign that Russia has any such intentions for the immediate future.

Germany: Germany has spent decades diplomatically investing itself in having good relations with Israel. But that goal is in conflict with their official commitment to international law, which they take far more seriously than either the Biden or Trump Administration did, especially when it came to the Gaza genocide. In practice, it is diplomatically very awkward for Germany to take a direct position of opposition to Israel, although in this case Israel and the US are engaged are engaged in an illegal “aggressive war” in the sense of the Nuremburg Trials.

Spain: Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been more blunt in his rejection of any part in the US-Israeli war on Iran. His government has refused to use US bases in Spain to conduct acts of war against Iran, and later expanded that the banning even US overflights for war missions. (9)

Italy: Italy’s current rightwing government under Georgia Meloni does not take the pro-Russian tilt that various other European rightwing parties – including her own coalition partner party, the Liga – have been taking. And Italy also seems to be taking very seriously the current challenge of building a European deterrent not dependent on the US.

Italy has denied the use of an airbase in Sicily to US military planes carrying weapons for the war in Iran after the US did not follow the required authorisation procedure.

A source at the Italian defence ministry confirmed a report in Corriere della Sera that “some US bombers” had been due to land at Sigonella – one of seven US navy bases in Italy – before heading to the Middle East, but that use of the base had been denied because the US sought authorisation to land only while the aircraft were already en route to Sicily. …

In Italy, where there is a deep-rooted anti-war culture, opinion polls consistently show very strong opposition to the conflict and strong dislike towards Trump. The unpopularity of Trump in Italy has also started to erode the popularity of Meloni, who is ideologically in tune with the US president and has established good working relations with him.

Opposition parties have for weeks been urging the government to block the US from using Italy’s bases for involvement in the Middle East conflict. (10)

This may look like confusion. But for countries that practice more complicated diplomacy than the Incredible Hulk version - “Me drop big bombs. Big bombs go boom,” they can coordinate the national position in ways that maximize their collective political influence on US and Russian policy.

Apologies to the Incredible Hulk, btw. The Big Green Guy may have a limited vocabulary. But he has a much better grasp on reality than the Big Orange Guy.

Cover of Hulk: Smash Everything #1 (2025) Image by Adam Kubert.

Notes:

(1) Knapp, Ferdinand (2026): No ‘direct threat’ from Iran to Europe, US before war, Polish foreign minister says. Politico EU 03/12/2026. <https://www.politico.eu/article/no-direct-threat-from-iran-eu-europe-us-before-war-began-poland-foreign-minister/> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(2) Suciu, Peter (2026): This NATO Member Won’t Send Patriot Launchers to Help America Against Iran. The National Interest 04/03/2026 <https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/this-nato-member-wont-send-patriot-launchers-help-america-against-iran-ps-040326> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(3) Asem, Sondos (2026): Over 100 US-based legal experts declare Trump's strikes on Iran as possible war crimes. Middle East Eye 04/03/20206. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/over-100-us-based-legal-experts-say-trumps-war-iran-may-amount-war-crimes> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(4) Letter of over 100 international law experts on Iran war. Just Security 04/02/2026. <https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(5) Smith, Cachella et al (2026): More UK troops to be sent to Middle East, defence secretary announces. BBC News 03/31/2026. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vq76g45rvo> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(6) Macron says military operation to liberate Strait of Hormuz 'unrealistic'. Le Monde/AFP 04/02/2026. <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/02/macron-says-military-operation-to-liberate-strait-of-hormuz-unrealistic_6752051_4.html> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(7) Kavali, Laura (2026): Politico EU 03/30/2026). <https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-war-ukraine-iran-made-france-rethink-military-plans/> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(8) More, Rache & Mackenzie, James (2026): German Chancellor Merz says he has doubts over Iran war aims. Reuters 03/27/2026. (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(9) Brugen, Stephen (2026): Spain closes airspace to US military over Iran war, widening rift with US. Guardian 03/30/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/30/spain-closes-airspace-to-us-military-over-iran-war-widening-rift-with-us> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(10) Giuffrida, Angela (2026): Italy denies use of Sicily airbase to US planes carrying weapons for Iran war. Guardian 03/31/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/31/italy-denies-sicily-airbase-us-planes-carrying-weapons-iran-war> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

What’s up in post-Maduro Venezuela these days?

This is a helpful conference discussion about Venezuela from the Quincy Institute, founded by Andrew Bacevich and an excellent cite for foreign policy information and analysis. (1)

The participants talk about the fact that Venezuela has been reasonably stable since the US kidnapped Venezuela’s then-President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in January.

Fracisco Rodriguez of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) notes that US sanctions have been rolled back. But Venezuelan revenue for oil sales still have to go through the Venezuela Government Deposit Fund the Trump regime set up after kidnapping Maduro. But the national state-owned oil company PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela) has a lot of flexibility in transactions, which Rodriguez expects will likely to provide new investment inside Venezuela that will strengthen the economy.

The sanctions on Interim President Delcy Rodriguez have also been lifted. From the BBC:

Rodríguez, a close ally of Maduro who served as his vice-president, had been placed on the sanctions list in 2018, with the US accusing her of undermining democracy.

She was sworn in as interim president by Venezuela's National Assembly, which is dominated by Maduro loyalists, days after the US raid and has been described by US President Donald Trump as "a terrific person". (2)

Having Donald Trump describe you as "a terrific person" is a real stigma!

Julia Buxton of Oxford Analytica on the panel suggests the current government is looking to reinvigorate the politics of Chavismo, which she distinguishes from Madurismo. She also notes the cocaine traffic, which the Trump regime used as an excuse for his mini-invasion, is actually cheap these days, unlike the 1970s when many of US popular impression on narcotrafficking were established. The Forever War On Drugs that the Nixon Administration began will surely be remembered as on of the more destructive delusions in which the US has indulged.

But Orlando Perez emphasizes that the basic structure of Maduro’s regime seems to be stable. He notes that some of the most senior military leaders have been removed. But their replacements were figures that apparently support the basic structure of Maduro’s government, so that it’s “continuity, not really reform.” He also notes that Trump’s general policies in Latin America are creating new political opportunities for left populists in the region going forward.

Venezuela has the longtime blessing and curse of being a petrostate with a huge part of its economic directly dependent on the vagaries of the world oil market. Thanks to the Trump regime’s Iran War, Venezuela stands go get a big boost in its national income, as Fracisco Rodriguez noted. I expect there will be some very interesting developments with the Venezuela Government Deposit Fund Trump’s government controls. The grift always has the highest priority with the Orange Man and his cronies. It unimaginable that this crew will be scrupulous in managing that fund for the benefit of Venezuela and its people. As Trump himself periodically blurts out, the points of wars and “military operations” against petrostates is to take the oil. By which he mainly means, take the money.

As Trump himself said just this week in the speech about the Iran War that sent oil prices soaring: “We could just take their oil. But, you know, I’m not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate. You know, they want to see it end. If we stayed there, I, you know, I’d prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily.” (3)

As the BBC reports:

In the months since Maduro's removal from office, several high-level US delegations have travelled to Venezuela to discuss how the US could expand its access to Venezuela's oil and mineral wealth.

Critics of Rodríguez have, however, bemoaned the fact that there has been little talk of democratic elections.

Opposition leader María Corina Machado, who has been living in exile since leaving Venezuela to collect the Nobel Peace Prize she was awarded in December, met Rubio on Tuesday.

Despite having been sidelined by Trump in favour of Rodríguez, Machado struck an optimistic note, calling the meeting "excellent" and praising the US secretary of state's "dedication to democracy, freedom and Venezuelans' well-being".

An obvious question that corporate media will be reluctant to ask is, if Marco Rubio and other advocates for the rightwing, anti-Cuba and anti-Venezuela voting bloc are okay with Delcy Rodriguez’ regime, which is actually a direct continuation of Maduro’s regime, just how bad could Maduro’s regime have been?

And, more to the point on the international law front, how much of a security threat to the US can Venezuela really be, if the US was able to conspire with senior members of Maduro’s government who were willing to have the US kidnap and imprison him with minimal military resistance? Compare that to Iran’s preparations for the current US-Israel war against them, in which they are able to do massive damage to the world economy and directly to Israel, US bases in the regions, and other Middle Eastern governments who allied with the US and Israel.

Notes:

(1) What is the New Paradigm of US-Venezuela Relations Post-Maduro? Quincy Institute YouTube channel 04/02/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/KDErgdUE_PE> (Accessed: 2026-04-03).

(2) Buschschlüter, Vanessa (2026): US lifts sanctions on Venezuelan interim leader Delcy Rodríguez. BBC News 07/02/2026. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cje4l9de0d1o> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

(3) Breaking News. The New Republic 04/02/2026. <https://newrepublic.com/post/208535/white-house-accidentally-easter-lunch-trump-speech> (Accessed: 2026-03-04).

Cesar Chavez reconsidered

The recent stories about alleged abuse sexual conduct on the part of United Farm Workers (UFW) Cesar Chavez provide yet another reminder that the political and moral symbolism that attaches to figures like Chavez is not identical to sanctification of heroes in the Catholic Church. In Chavez' case, it's a fact that he was a pioneering farm labor organizer in the US, a persuasive spokesperson and activist for social justice, and an important figure in promoting equal treatment for Latinos and for Latino pride in the US.

But certainly the charges by Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguia and Debra Rojas deserve to be taken seriously, as well. It's also the case that claims of such crimes that emerge decades later are more difficult to evaluate than ones formally investigated immediately after the event. Murguia and Rojas were minors at the time they report the abuse began. (1)

It’s worth remembering that Chavez teamed up in the late 1970s with the authoritarian Synanon cult headed by Charles Dederich, which was known for encouraging psychological and physical abuse. Not that it diminishes Chavez’ responsibility for his own actions, but it would be interesting to know if the claimed sexual assaults occurred before or after Chavez teamed up with the Synanon cult.

Chavez’ association with Synanon doesn’t seem to have been often mentioned in the years since his passing, although it became well known at the time. Jeffrey Rubin reports on an experience he had in 1978 as a teacher who held English classes for the UFW. What he describes took place around 1978, when the Synanon effects had become very evident. He describes an incident at a graduation ceremony for students successfully complete their courses. Note that Huerta was also part of this process:

At the end of the show, photos of Cesar Chavez, [the union headquarters] La Paz, and a farm worker in the fields came onscreen with a voiceover saying, “The Union is not Cesar Chavez, the Union is not La Paz, the Union is the farmworkers.”

In the bright sun, families strolled from the school building to the dining room, congratulating the graduates and helping themselves heartily to the cafeteria-style buffet. Soon after lunch began, however, Huerta stood up to denounce an act of treason. “There are traitors here who want to destroy Cesar,” she said with characteristic fierceness. These covert enemies, Huerta explained, had inserted the words “The Union is not Cesar Chavez” in the slideshow as part of an effort to usurp the leader’s authority, and they needed to be named and expelled from the movement.

Huerta demanded that the teachers identify the authors of the subversive phrase. The teacher of the advanced class refused, as did the rest of us. The meal ended quickly and awkwardly, the families dispersed, and the teachers from all three classes were ushered to a small table in a backroom office. Confronted there by Huerta, Richard Chavez, and Cesar Chavez himself, we were accused of being part of a subversive plot, railed at, called “chicken shit” by Cesar, and thrown out of La Paz and the union. (2) [my emphasis]

Rubin also describes some of the qualities of Chavez’ union work that did achieve real successes at the time. He also gives a glimpse of the Catholic version of nonviolent action that Chavez’ and his movement practiced. And he also writes some about how that large vision of a social movement may have eventually detracted Chavez from the essentials of union-building:

From the first strikes, Chavez infused the UFW with a religious sense of mission, embodied in his fasts and in visions of a self-sustaining, quasi-religious order to nurture the movement at its core and expand the struggle. As soon as the early grape contracts were signed, Chavez began to speak of a Poor People’s Union and farm worker cooperatives ...

So far as I’m aware, Chavez never used his position as a movement leader for personal financial gain. His notion of a Catholic poor people’s non-violent revolution obviously eventually led him to practice abusive behavior in his role as a union and movement leader. But running financial scams does not seem to have been one of his failings.

I would highly recommend the book Why David Sometimes Wins: Strategy, Leadership, and the California Agricultural Movement (2099) by Marshall Ganz, a veteran of the civil rights movement who was a longtime senior organizer for the UFW and its political efforts. In 2008 headed the Obama campaign’s grassroots mobilization group that applied Ganz’ community-organizing methods. Unfortunately for the health of the Democratic Party, Obama after his election folded that group’s function into the Democratic Party organization – which of course dumped the community-organizing model right away.

It’s also worth noting that Cesar Chavez was training as a community organizer by Fred Ross in Chicago, who had been himself trained by Saul Alinsky. The Republicans used this as one of their favorite insults against Obama, using the idea that Obama was an “Alinskyist” organizer as a synonym for leftwing black Communist Kenyan Muslim. There’s a real irony there, because the “Alinsky” style of community organizing, which Alinsky described in his 1945 book Reveille for Radicals.

The accusation that Alinsky-type organizing represented some kind of crackpot left radicalism is ironic, because Alinsky himself promoted a non-ideological brand of community organizing through house meetings, protests, fundraisers, and door-to-door recruiting. It focused heavily on scoring small but visible wins – getting a park renovated or traffic lights installed, improving the sewage system, clearing out some community eyesore, organizing neighborhood watches, getting streets repaired, demanding actions against landords who don’t keep their building properly repaired, and so on.

It’s obvious why such organizing techniques could be attractive for left-leaning causes. If you were promoting a campaign for No Taxes On Billionaires, for instance, you would hold a million-dollar-per-plate dinner at Mar-a-Lago or sponsor a Toby Keith concert at the Davos Economic Forum, or something similar. You wouldn’t be organizing house meetings in working class neighborhoods.

But left-leaning critics did criticize the Alinsky style for not emphasizing larger social issues like the maldistribution of wealth. Foreign policy issues, health insurance, public school funding, emergency preparedness are all issues that require action by Congress or state legislatures. And effectiveness on that level means having political parties that can gain representation in state and federal governments. And that requires a wider political ideology and/or partisan identity than demanding better street-cleaning service from city hall.

Cesar Chavez had a much broader ideological vision of a poor people’s movement. That he wound up obsessed with wielding his personal authority and allegedly acting in a sexually abusive way not a matter of political ideology as such but of personal failings. But he was neither the first nor the last to use his personal position and charisma for unworthy purposes.

Ganz in a 2009 paper also analyzed the experience of organizers in the 2008 Obama campaign, drawing this distinction which reminds us that techniquest of community organizing can be adapted to larger and more ideological causes than the Alinsky vision represented:

Unlike political "marketers" who sell causes, candidates, or commodities by appealing to the preferences of their customers; unlike philanthropic "providers" who dispense services to needy clients; and unlike social ―entrepreneurs‖ who devise technical solutions to challenging public problems; organizers identify, recruit and develop leaders who can mobilize constituents to  - stand together‖ to learn, collaborate, and act on behalf of common purposes. (3)

Notes:

(1) Brangham, William et al (2026): Investigation uncovers sexual abuse allegations against Cesar Chavez. PBS Newshour 03/18/2026. (Accessed: 2026-01-04). <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/investigation-uncovers-sexual-abuse-allegations-against-cesar-chavez>

Saad, Nardine (2026): US civil rights leader Cesar Chavez accused of sexual abuse. BBC News 03/19/2026. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8r8rggxmmo> (Accessed: 2026-01-04

Rainey, James (2026): A cult of personality around Cesar Chavez shatters with sexual assault allegations. Los Angeles Times 03/19/2026. <https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2026-03-19/essential-california-cesar-chavez-sexual-assault-long-secret> (Accessed: 2026-01-04).

(2) Rubin, Jeffrey (2010): Shattered Dreams. Dissent Spring 2010. 91-95. <https://dissentmagazine.org/article/shattered-dreams/>

(3) Ganz, Marshall (2009): Organizing Obama: Campaign, Organizing, Movement. Harvard Kennedy School Aug 2009. <http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27306258> (Accessed: 2026-01-04).

The Peace President's wars and assorted military interventions

I see that the Orange Anomaly in the White House has announced what is at least supposed to sound like a policy statement on the Iraq War, an illegal war of aggression he and Benjamin Netanyahu initiated. He may change his mind several times between now and then. And probably once or twice during his speech, or more if he’s not reading from a teleprompter.

This is worth keeping in mind:

During his two terms in office, Trump has overseen armed interventions and military operations — including drone strikes, ground raids, proxy wars, 127e programs, and full-scale conflicts — in Afghanistan , Central African Republic, Cameroon, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, Venezuela, Yemen, and an unspecified country in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as attacks on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. More than 6,500 U.S. Special Operations forces’ “operators and enablers” are currently deployed in more than 80 countries around the world. And during its second term, the Trump administration has also bullied Panama and threatened Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Greenland (perhaps also Iceland), and Mexico. (1)

Of course, not every military intervention of any kind is a war. The sinking of various Venezuelan and Colombian fishing boats wasn’t a war, it was “only” murder. Mass murder, actually, if we applied the common standards used when reporting on murders inside the US. Obviously, the current major war against Iran by the US and Israel is very much a real war with huge risks for all involved.

Turse’s examples also include “military operations,” which one assumes could include things like reconnaissance flights undertaken with the permission of the government over whose countries it is taking place. Or training missions in cooperation with the local government.

There’s nothing inherently wrong about such examples. The United States is one of the three most powerful countries that are currently at the center of the international power system. It does have a global military presence, and it is certainly worth questioning whether it is too broad and worth understanding the real risks involved with it. We see right now the risks involved with US military bases in Middle Eastern nations that are part of the US-Israel anti-Iranian positions. Those bases are a tool of US power projection, just as in the case of US bases in NATO countries. But their existence is not totally free of risk to the United States or to friendly countries willingly hosting them. And by any reasonable standard, there are way too many of them.

Turse’s link in the quote above to the more than 80 countries with US Special Operations forces is to this recent video from the House Armed Services Committee: (2)

Special Operations include forces from the Army and the Navy and are of course being employed during the current Iran War. There’s a very good chance that some of them already have “boots on the ground” in Iran, to use the popular phrase for “Us soldiers participating directly in military action in a foreign country.” By “very good chance” I mean “unthinkable that they are not.” (2)

Turse adds this important reminder:

Due to a lack of government transparency, obscure security cooperation, and carveouts baked into the U.S. Code — like the 127e authority enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, and the covert action statute that enables the CIA to conduct secret wars — the actual number could be markedly higher.

He also reminds us that the Peace President started using the opportunity of this massive military presence to conduct secret military missions even early in his first term in 2017:

[T]he bid to keep Trump’s other African wars secret imploded during a May 2017 AAA mission when Navy SEAL Kyle Milliken was killed and two other Americans were wounded in a raid on an al-Shabab camp in Somalia. The Pentagon initially claimed that Somali forces were out ahead of Milliken — U.S. troops are supposed to remain at the last position of cover and concealment where they remain out of sight and protected — but that fiction fell apart, and the truth emerged that he was, in fact, alongside them. [my emphasis]

Trump has recently been explicitly threatening to go to war with Cuba. The US obsession with Cuba since 1960 is a classic case of irrational obsession. Not every foreign policy calculation is based on some kind of rational national-interest calculation. Some of them are political responses to domestic political constituencies or just plain emotional reactions that make no practical sense even in terms of narrowly-conceived national interests.

Notes:

(1) Turse, Nick (2026): Trumps Secret Wars on the World Keep Expanding. The Intercept 03/30/2026. <https://theintercept.com/2026/03/30/trump-secret-wars/> (Accessed: 2026-31-03).

(2) Intelligence & Special Operations Hearing 03/18/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/7N1rh7YwMQU?si=TbHrG4RnQbK_mh6J> (Accessed: 2026-31-03).

Iran War Monthly Summaries: Month 1 (March 2026)

The current Iran War began on Febuary 28, a month ago, with the military attack by the US and Israel on Iran.

Trump, 10/09/2025 on the cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas: “I think it’s going to be a lasting peace, hopefully an everlasting peace.” (1) [my emphasis]

Since then, Netanyahu’s government has continued to bomb, shoot and displace Palestinians in Gaza pretty much on a daily basis and is supporting a violent, murderous campaign of stealing land from Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank. And now driving out 700,000 or more Lebanese from their homes in what looks very much like a plan to annex a big piece of southern Lebanon. (2) Israel occupied southern Lebanon from 1982-2000, a period also known as the First Lebanon War. It was not a happy experience for either side.

Trump, March 12:

The US president made the comments before a speech and press conference in Florida where he sought to emphasise that the US military campaign would be ending soon amid mounting concerns from Republican allies. “I think the war is very complete, pretty much,” he said in a phone call with CBS News. “They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force.”

During the press conference, in which he delivered a contradictory and confusing forecast for the war, he evaded a reporter’s question about whether that meant the war could end this week. “No, but soon. I think soon. Very soon.”

When reporters asked him to clarify whether the war was “very complete”, or, as the US defense secretary said, “this is just the beginning”, Trump told reporters: “I think you could say both … It’s the beginning of building a new country.” [my emphasis] (3)

So the war then was very complete – kinda, sorta. It wasn’t going to end that week but sometime very soon. Now wait, it was both very complete and also just the beginning.

The current Iran War began in February 28 with the US and Israeli bombing of Iran, thus beginning an illegal war of aggression whose end is not likely to come soon.

Western views tend to stereotype Iran’s clerical regime as a fanatical theocracy. They do have a theocracy. But it has shown itself to be capable of some adroit pragmatic diplomacy.

The US and Israel are both operating on reckless aspirations that are cheered on by serious Jewish-Zionist extremists in Israel and Christian nationalists in America.

Scott Lucas gave this assessment of how clueless the initial US-Israeli assumptions looked to be as of March 9, just over a week into the war, reflecting on how clueless the goal of regime change seemed to be: (4)

This is an update from Mr. Establishment-Foreign-Policy-Figure Richard Haass from March 13, expressing astonishment about how unprepared the Trump regime seemed to have been for the very foreseeable negative consequences of the US-Israel attack. He also talks with his interviewer Katie Couric about the surprising lack of preparation of US public opinion by the regime for this invasion. (5)

It continues to be one of the most surprising things about this war that their was no visible surge in support for it in the US at the start. Before now, even the dumbest and most illegitimate wars got an initial upward blip. Not this one.

Netanyahu’s authoritarian regime in Israel doesn’t seem to have any problem with public support for the war. The well-informed gadfly Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote on March 12:

The media is not only in the service of the Israel Defense Forces spokesperson but also in the service of the military censor.

With this kind of media, there's no point in fighting for a free press, because the media itself is not on the side of freedom. The fact is that no one ordered it to hide what was really happening in the Gaza Strip for 2 1/2 years, and no one ordered it to be proudly obedient. [my emphasis] (6)

In an earlier column during this war’s first week, Levy reflected on how Israeli society, in his view, has become essentially a state constantly at war:

It's wartime again, with the war, yet again, coming to solve Israel's existential problems once and for all.

It will again be declared a stunning victory at first, with everyone applauding, with [even opposition leader] Yair Lapid writing that we are a strong and united nation and with analysts competing over who can laud Israel's brave feats more, all of this until the next satisfying venture.

Again, almost all Israelis are convinced that there is no war more justified or successful than this one, and "what choice did we have?" and "what do you propose?" as in all of Israel's wars. This cheering could already be heard in TV panels on Friday evening, with salivating panelists eagerly waiting for this moment as if they were waiting for the Messiah. The release came Saturday, lasting only until the next round of pleasure, which will arrive earlier than expected. (7)

Israel is clearly aiming to turn Iran into a fragmented “failed state,” a decades-long ambition of Bibi Netanyahu’s. Lubna Masarwa wrote during the war’s first week:

Many Israeli media sites have also wondered whether history was repeating itself. Avri Gilad, a veteran television personality on Channel 12 News, hosted his programme on Tuesday dressed as a pilot.

Gilad said a new chapter was being written in the Book of Esther: “It’s amazing that it comes after 2,000 years, and it’s really the same thing… the whole story closing on an astonishing historical scale.”

Bit by bit, Israel is changing the narrative that it exists because of the Holocaust. A new language is emerging that uses biblical stories to justify a vision of Greater Israel. ...

To western audiences, Israel still manages to present itself as a western democracy. It claims the religious fanatics are Hamas and Iran. But increasingly, Israel itself is fighting a religious war. [my emphasis] (8)

The war opened with a “decapitation strike” against Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This is a highly dubious practice, both in terms of international law – which the Trump regime despises – and practicality. There’s never a guarantee that the new leader that comes to power after the one assassinated will be preferably for the attacking parties.

As David Ignatius observed in Foreign Policy:

“Decapitation” is emerging as the American way of war, after two frustrating decades of unsuccessful “nation building” in Iraq and Afghanistan. A week into the Iran campaign with Israel, the United States’ goal seems to be destruction of Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure—with an ill-defined hope that a better regime will rise from the rubble.

It’s the strategic equivalent of a “fire and forget” missile. The goal is to destroy the Iranian regime’s leadership and structure of repression. Building a new Iran is an afterthought. “Maybe we’ll get lucky,” one key member of Congress mused to me. But U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed that this campaign has a low likelihood of creating a stable, modernizing government, according to people who have read the intelligence reports. (9)

Also from Juan Cole’s Informed Comment blog: Exit Strategy? We ain’t got no exit strategy! We don’t need no *stinking* exit strategy!! (10)

Jianlu Bi warned on the war’s fourth day:

… Washington has signaled a total divorce from the rules-based international order it once claimed to lead. The war in Iran is no not about preventing a nuclear breakout. Rather, it is about the systematic dismantling of a sovereign state’s leadership. However, the tactical success of these strikes may mask a strategic catastrophe. Although the United States hopes that striking the head will kill the snake, history suggests that in the Middle East, such vacuums are filled not by democratic reformers but by the most radicalized elements of the mid-level military cadre, now unmoored from any rational centralized control. [my emphasis] (11)

Two weeks into the war, Dahlia Scheindlin observed a sharp diversion of public opinion in Israel and the US:

Unlike the Gaza war, which was catastrophic for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's image, the majority of Israelis give him high marks over Iran. Over 60 percent of Israelis in the Israel Democracy Institute poll say they trust his handling of the war.

Americans, by contrast, have been asking themselves just why America is going to war, and the lack of clear answers has left the majority skeptical. A poll by NPR, PBS news and Marist last week (March 2-4) found that 56 percent of Americans were against the U.S. military action in Iran (as per the question wording), with just 44 percent for it. (12)

And she made this comment on the militarization of Israeli public opinion: “In the Israeli view, diplomacy is for amateurs and bleeding hearts – the only solution is war.”

She also calls attention to this opinion phenomenon among the supposed “isolationist” and “antiwar” Trump cult:

An NBC poll found 77 percent support for the U.S. military action in Iran, but the kicker there was that among self-identified MAGA Republicans (as opposed to conservatives or neoconservatives), support was highest, at 90 percent. Only 5 percent of MAGA respondents were opposed.

This is no MAGA split. Rather, it's a transnational convergence of support between U.S. Republicans, Israeli Jews and, surely, many in pro-Israel communities and their leaders around the world. [my emphasis]

Meron Rappoport at the end of the war’s first week made an interesting comparison of the present to 1956, when Israel, Britain, and France teamed up to try to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt:

[I]t marked the beginning of a war that Israel launched together with Britain and France, the major imperial powers of the time. As Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion put it just before the assault, the aim was to “reorganize the Middle East” and bring about the downfall of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose policies threatened British, French, and Israeli interests alike. (13)

He links that to the February war of aggression by the US and Israel against Iran: “ For the first time since 1956, Israel has gone to war alongside a major Western power — indeed, the world’s largest — whose secretary of state recently lauded the West’s imperial legacy at the Munich Security Conference.”

US President Dwight Eisenhower blew the whistle on that stunt. It had a long-lasting impact on Britain, which has tried hard not to find itself on the opposite side of an international conflict with the US. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s somewhat dodgy stance on the current Iran War is a reflection of that lasting reorientation.

This time, the US doesn’t look nearly so cautious as it did in the Suez crisis back then:

The Israeli army has described the joint assault with the U.S. military [against Iran] as a “preemptive strike,” but, as in 1956, this too is a lie. Few seriously believe Iran was on the verge of attacking. The current war is a war of choice, initiated by the United States and Israel, just as the Sinai campaign was decided in advance by Israeli, French, and British leaders.

 In the fourth week of the war, Mouin Rabbani did this nearly hour-long interview with Middle East Monitor on the situation with the Iran War and how the toxic relationship between Israel and the US under the Trump regime has developed into a real mess for the US and the Middle East. (14)

Although he’s being too generous to the Trump regime when he comments, “Yes, this is an Israeli war. Let’s not pretend the Israelis haven’t done everything within their power for decades to bring about precisely the situation we’re in today. And they bear full responsibility for it.” But he does go on to talk about US responsibility, as well.

Israel does bear full responsibility for their actions which Rabbani describes correctly there. But let’s not let the US and the current regime off the hook for our major responsibility. This is an illegal war of aggression initiated by Israel and the United States. The US also bears full responsibility for its actions, too.

Ilan Pappé noted on March 12 that he current war, Israel is “a power not acting according to a ‘Western’ rational and humanist approach to politics but a fanatical ideology. Those determining the present Israeli strategy are explicit about its roots in the teaching of messianic Zionism and their vision of the present war as divine fulfilment.” (15)

Notes:

(1) Taft, Robert (2025): Trump dreams of ‘everlasting peace’ as acolytes drop heavy hints to Nobel committee. Guardian 10/09/2025. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/09/trump-nobel-peace-prize-gaza> (Accessed: 2026-25-03).

(2) Israel’s renewed war on Lebanon is about more than just Hezbollah. +972 Magazine 03/11/2026. <https://www.972mag.com/israels-renewed-war-on-lebanon-is-about-more-than-just-hezbollah/> (Accessed: 2026-252-03).

Kubovich, Yaniv(2026): Israel to Hold Southern Lebanon, Block Residents' Return, Defense Minister Says. Haaretz 03/24/2026. Full link: <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-03-24/ty-article/israel-to-hold-southern-lebanon-block-residents-return-defense-minister-says/0000019d-1f6a-d7c1-a59f-df7b2cd60000?gift=884f5b6bb20949a1b844a5d0fcbf4074> (Accessed: 2026-252-03).

(3) Skopeliti, Clea (2026): Trump says Iran war is ‘very complete, pretty much’ as economic toll rises. Guardian 03/12/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/10/first-thing-trump-iran-war-very-complete-pretty-much-economic-toll> (Accessed: 2026-17-03).

(4) Trump is ‘panicking’ - and now risking his own demise - Scott Lucas. The Trump Report YouTube channel 03/09/2026. <https://youtu.be/Q1B1Biwpge0?si=slFYtesQwVr4DFaC> (Accessed: 2026-09-03).

(5) War of Choice: Iran Latest. Katie Couric YouTube channel 03/13/2026. <https://youtu.be/o42Sh6MgCJk?si=4gRET4Aux2xbPYRs> (Accessed: 2026-29-03).

(6) Levy, Gideon (2026): The Israeli Media Are First and Foremost IDF Soldiers. Haaretz 03/04/2026. Full link: <https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2026-03-12/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-israeli-media-are-first-and-foremost-idf-soldiers/0000019c-de91-d3d8-afdf-ffbb61590000> (Accessed: 2026-14-03).

(7) Levy, Gideon (2026): War Is the Opiate of the Israeli Masses. Haaretz 03/01/2026. Full link: <https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2026-03-01/ty-article-opinion/.premium/war-is-the-opiate-of-the-israeli-masses/0000019c-a5ed-db6a-a7bc-efff7e690000> (Accessed: 2026-14-03).

(9) Ignatius, David (2026): The Dangerous Rise of Decapitation Warfare. Foreign Policy online 03/06/2026. <https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/06/iran-war-united-states-military-decapitation-warfare-middle-east/> (Accessed: 2026-09-03).

(10) Benjamin, Medea and Davies, Nicholas (2026); The War on Iran - and Washington’s Missing Exit Strategy. Informed Comment 03/08/2026. <https://www.juancole.com/2026/03/washingtons-missing-strategy.html> (Accessed: 2026-26-03).

(11) Bi, Jianlu (2026): Tehran’s Decapitation and the End of an Era. Foreign Policy in Focus 03/04/2026. <https://fpif.org/tehrans-decapitation-and-the-end-of-an-era/> (Accessed: 2026-11-03).

(12) Sheindlin, Dahlia (2026): Israelis and Americans Have Wildly Different Opinions on the Iran War. Does It Matter? Haaretz 03/10/2026. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2026-03-10/ty-article/.premium/israelis-and-americans-disagree-wildly-on-the-iran-war-does-it-matter/0000019c-d7a4-db40-abbd-f7fd4d750000> (Accessed: 2026-11-03).

(13) Rappaport, Meron (2026): Israel’s last war alongside an imperial power backfired. This one could, too. +972 Magazine 03/05/2026. <https://www.972mag.com/israels-last-regime-change-war-backfired-this-one-could-too/> (Accessed: 2026-29-03).

(14) Trump, Iran and Israel’s War Without End. Middle East Monitor YouTube channel 03/25/2026. <https://youtu.be/z4yKFu_A6Ic?si=qOA8FLbFmAj1G75f> (Accessed: 2026-25-03).

(15) Pappé, Ilan (2026): On the Warpath. Savage Minds 03/12/2026. <https://savageminds.substack.com/p/on-the-warpath> (Accessed: 2026-29-03).

Peace President Trump and his escalation trap in his Iran War

President TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) gave Iran a two-day deadline to Iran last Saturday which he waived on the deadline day (Monday) and setting a new five-day guideline. Depending on whatever math calculations go on in his head, that could mean Friday or Saturday as the new date to do something more disastrous than what he’s had so far.

This is another discussion featuring David Rothkopf, Rosa Brooks and Ed Luce taking a look at the current risks in Trump’s latest war: (1)

Robert Pape seems to be one of the most popular people in the political podcast world if what the YouTube algorithms are showing me. But he’s well worth listening to. And he thinks that we’re very close to taking the next step in what Pape calls the escalation trap. And he’s been wargaming something very like the current one for years now. (2)

Now that what the “realist” foreign-policy theorists called the “unipolar moment” is over, it would be nice to think that the US would have fewer wars than we’ve had since, well, pick your favorite post-1945 date. But that kind of transition to a more responsible approach to US foreign policy would require consecutive years of a solid strategic foreign policy. That will not have as long as the Orange Anomaly is still President.

How sad is the current decision-making by the Trump regime? Amos Harel describes the current US practice of war politics as reality-show TV:

The U.S. administration entered this war, with Israel's vigorous encouragement, with only a partial plan and apparently only a limited understanding of the way decisions are made in Tehran. It seems that Trump had thought that this would be another Venezuela – a short and stunning blow followed by an almost guaranteed success.

In his frequent public appearances, the U.S. president creates an alternative reality for his listeners, one that doesn't jibe with the reality on the ground. As far as he's concerned, Iran has already been completely defeated, its army destroyed and its regime replaced "two or three times" following Israel's assassinations of its senior figures (which Trump takes retroactive credit for). The president is now talking about a precious gift the Iranians supposedly offered him in the energy sector – likely referring to the permission for several tankers to pass through Hormuz. Trump added that if he were a gambler, he would bet on an imminent deal. [my emphasis] (3)

Finally, Patrick Strickland also has some worthwhile observations on the help that Trump said he was sending to Iranian regime opponents: “What Washington calls help is often disastrous and the U.S. has a long history of offering (and refusing) to help Iran.” And he gives a short recap of such past “help” that the US has provided to the Iranian people.

And he talks about the course the Trump regime has been pursuing since he achieved Everlasting Peace In The Middle East five months or so ago:

Since returning to office in January 2025, he has relaunched the long, lethal American tradition of military intervention abroad. “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into,” he said during his inaugural speech. Over the next year, though, he proceeded to bomb seven countries, threaten a slate of nations from Latin America to Europe, and even kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. All the while, he bragged of supposedly ending eight wars.

It’s always important to keep in mind that the Trump brand of America-First, allegedly isolationist policy about is hardcore, lawless, militaristic unilateralism. The foreign-policy version of smash-and-grab robberies. With the twist in Trump’s case that it couples a Mob-boss, protection-racket mentality with an off-the-charts level of financial corruption, at least by historical American standards. (4)

Notes:

(1) Searching for an Offramp to a Reckless, Irresponsible War. The DSR Network 05/25/2026. <https://youtu.be/L4IpetXky_c?si=HVbxzqg4dsrRGlXs> (Accessed: 2026-25-03).

2) “Many Will Die:” Military Expert Warns of Iran Escalation Trap. Amanpour and Company YouTube channel 03/25/2026. <https://youtu.be/Ghs03B9lkrw?si=V78fA_PaCo_I5nwT> (Accessed: 2026-25-03).

(3) Harel, Amos (2026): Ending the War Hinges on Bridging the Gap Between Trump's Delusions and Iran's Resolve. Haaretz 03/26/2026. Full link: <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-03-26/ty-article/.premium/ending-war-hinges-on-bridging-gap-between-trumps-delusions-and-irans-resolve/0000019d-26ce-d8a3-abff-3eee16bd0000?gift=47e0fe4758bf4aac9a75e659dc8bea04> (Accessed: 2026-26-03).

(4) Strickland, Patrick (03/22/2026.): Why Donald Trump Just Can’t Stop Going to War. TomDispatch 03/22/2026. <https://tomdispatch.com/why-donald-trump-just-cant-stop-going-to-war/> (Accessed: 2026-26-03).

Deciphering the Peace President’s, uh, diplomacy?

Anne Applebaum, the historian (and long-time spouse of the current Polish Foreign Minister Radislaw Sikorski) gives an excellent brief description of how Peace President Trump’s strategic diplomacy works:

Donald Trump does not think strategically. Nor does he think historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. He does not think about how his behavior in one place will change the behavior of other people in other places.

He does not consider the wider implications of his decisions. He does not take responsibility when these decisions go wrong. Instead, he acts on whim and impulse, and when he changes his mind - when he feels new whims and new impulses - he simply lies about whatever he said or did before. (1)

Even when bad Presidents like Dick Nixon and Shrub Bush said something that sounded confused and/or goofy, it was plausible to assume that they were stressed out or distracted about something else. In the Orange President Reality TV Show, who knows what to think when that happens?

Paul Krugman gives his laconic take on the Peace President’s latest mystery public diplomacy on the Iran War. He doesn’t go into a lot of diplomacy or strategic theory considerations. He basically just bluntly describes the obvious, that Trump didn’t know what he was getting into when he joined Israel in starting the Iran War. (2)

The Trump Report features an interview with a British general, Chip Chapman, who does go into more specific issues involving military options in Iran: (3)

Also on The Trump Report, Robert Pape, one of the leading historians on bombing campaigns, gets more into the weeds of the actual strategic challenges the Trump and Netanyahu regime are facing with Iran now. (4) (Although the title they gave the video - “Deploying troops could be Trump's only hope …” - isn’t a very representative one.) He talks about how an assumption that has been repeatedly proven wrong in actual experience for more than a century: the idea that one country can achieve regime change in another by massive bombing alone.

Notes:

(1) Applebaum, Anne (2026): Everyone but Trump Understands What He’s Done. 03/17/2026. The Atlantic 03/17/2026. <https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/trump-iran-war-allies/686423/> (Accessed: 2026-23-03).

(2) Adventures in Fantasy Diplomacy. Paul Krugman YouTube channel 03/23/2026. <https://youtu.be/Tc120RAcx48?si=e2HAqOrl2bfNZ4sr> (Accessed: 2026-23-03).

(3) Trump claims Iran breakthrough-Tehran denies it as exit slips away. The Trump Report YouTube channel 03/23/2026. <https://youtu.be/OU6qD53eRTc?si=LGLCk1v4OCWqArZJ> (Accessed: 2026-23-03).

(4) Deploying troops could be Trump's only hope for saving his presidency in Iran. The Trump Report YouTube channel 03/19/2026. <https://youtu.be/uISOkWuM3bA?si=lwfzaYc8juZaDdOR> (Accessed: 2026-23-03).

Iran war spreads to Iran’s South Pars oil field

The Iran War continues to escalate. Israel’s goal, which has been Benjamin Netanyahu’s dream for decades, as he himself recently said.

For at least three decades, Netanyahu had spoiled for a fight with the theocratic regime committed to Israel’s annihilation. Successive US administrations and his own security establishment had frustrated him, deeming it too risky to take on a country with a population more than nine times larger than Israel’s. Now, with Trump back in office, Netanyahu’s dream was within reach. Styling himself as Israel’s Winston Churchill, he enlisted the world's biggest military to make it come true. [my emphasis] (1)

It seems clear from the actions we see and from what experienced analysts like John Mearsheimer are saying that Israel’s goal is to turn Iran into a fragmented “failed state.” Netanyahu is aiming at creating a situation in Iran analogous to Israel’s longtime policy in Gaza, which they cynically call “cutting the grass.” Which basically means in additional to the daily violence they impose in Gaza and the West Bank, they periodically conduct a larger military operation to kill Palestinians and destroy more of the infrastructure of daily life in Gaza.

They do this of course with weaponry and substantial financial support from the United States and from various European countries, including Germany. Israel and its American supporters, notably including the far-right Christian Zionists who have made a fundamentalist prediction of the end of the world, which is crassly anti-Semitic at even a superficial look, a reason to support hardline Israeli policies and even genocide against Palestinians.

Israel just attacked the South Pars field in Iran, their most important gas field. Netanyahu at the moment seems to be leading an addled Donald Trump around by the nose. As a result, Trump has put the United States into a war for which it didn’t properly prepare either militarily or diplomatically. And Iran currently is in the position of having “escalation dominance.”

The Middle East Institute, a think tank heavily funded by oil companies and Arab oil state and state, has an article by Chuck Freilich, the editor of the Israel Journal on Foreign Affairs and a former Israeli deputy national security adviser, writes two days before the latest attack on the South Pars field:

As things stand now, the joint US-Israeli war risks ending in military victory but becoming a strategic failure. For Iran’s regime, merely surviving an armed conflict with the US constitutes victory. If it further succeeds in preserving its remaining nuclear capabilities, including the 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (sufficient for 10 bombs) still buried in the rubble of the June 2025 war, and at least some missile capabilities, which it will surely rebuild rapidly in the post-war period, this will be the icing on the cake.

For 30 years Israel dreamed of a scenario in which the US might go to war with Iran, with the minimal objective of removing the existential threat posed by its nuclear program, and ideally to topple the regime. Now that this scenario has emerged, a failure to achieve both of these objectives would be a significant strategic setback for the US and carry dire ramifications for Israel. [my emphasis] (2)

Freilich notes that Iran holds the escalation dominance at this state of the conflict. He suggest that one way for the US-Israel side to reverse that situation would be to close the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian oil shipments, which are currently going through. How that would prevent Iran from blocking other countries from using the Strait.

He paints the following picture of a scenario that Israel might use to achieve escalation dominance and (though he doesn’t describe it this way) to turn Iran into a fragmented “failed state”:

Still a further step up the escalatory ladder would be to begin attacks on Iran’s civil infrastructure, including power, communications, financial, and transportation systems, and potentially other sectors as well. The US and Israel have so far refrained from doing so, primarily out of concern that this might cause a rallying around the flag effect, turn the Iranian public against them, and hamper the prospects of regime change. Some such attacks might prove necessary, however, in a final play for escalation dominance, should the already ongoing effort to weaken the regime and create a possible opening for the people to take to the streets by steadily destroying the regime’s instruments of repression — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the paramilitary militia Organization for Mobilization of the Oppressed (Basij), Iranian police, and other capabilities — prove insufficient to the task. Actual regime targets (for example, the parliament building) and other pillars of the ruling establishment, such as its means of communicating with the public (TV, radio, internet), might also be attacked. A broad cyber campaign would be a part of this next phase as well. [my emphasis]

We’re already seeing that rally-round-the-flag response in Iran. Ever since using planes to bomb an enemy became reality in 1912 with an attack by a Bulgarian pilot on a Turkish railway station during the First Balkan War, some air strategists to this day fantasize about mass bombing attacks on civilian targets will lead the population to revolt against their own government. There is enormous evidence over more than a century that this doesn’t happen. But for militarists, this kind of faith dies hard.

This is another reminder that the kind of nationalistic “isolationism” for which some of Trump’s rightwing admirers praise him – or used to! – is actually a form of unilateralism and militarism. Trump’s most important political mentor, the despicable Roy Cohn, was very much part of that McCarthyist fringe. (Cohn himself was the chief counsel for McCarthy’s witch-hung committee).

With Trump that gets transmuted into an Incredible Hulk comic-book version: “Me no like Iranians. Me drop big bombs. Big bombs go boom and kill lots of Iranians. Me win!”

We’re seeing in real time what the real-world version of that looks like. Apologies to the Incredible Hulk for dragging him into a degrading comparison like that!

US-Israeli military and strategic cooperation have never been so close, Israel’s standing in the US never so low. Given the war’s unpopularity in American public opinion, a further casualty of the conflict — and one that Israel can ill-afford — will be a significant hit to the bilateral relationship. This is amplified by the growing but unsubstantiated claims that it was Netanyahu who led Trump into the fight; there is no doubt that he has long hoped that the US would ultimately go to war with Iran ...

Freilich then goes on to say that, no, Netanyahu was trying to hold Trump back from doing it!

If you believe that, let me tell you about a hot new cryptocurrency investment that will triple in value in a few days after you buy it!

But he closes with, “Israel will have to weigh whether whatever gains were achieved vis-à-vis Iran were worth the price to its relationship with the US.” In other words, it’s clear that Israel’s wars are souring large numbers of American voters on the long-standing close alliance with Israel.

The Republican Party seems to be locked into that relationship. And many of them locked into the Christian Zionist ideology that helps to fuel religious fanaticism and warmongering. The Democrats have become more critical of Israel than at any time since Israel’s founding in 1948. But it will require real leadership among Democratic elected officials to avoid being drawn back into a de facto deference to Israel, even on occasions when their actions are contrary to the interests of the US or when they violate the laws against genocide.

Also from March 17, Christiane Amanpour and Tina Brown discuss the Iran War:

Notes:

(1) Coles, Isabel (2026): How Trump brought Netanyahu’s longtime dream of Iran’s destruction within reach. The Observer 03/15/2026. <https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/how-trump-brought-netanyahus-longtime-dream-of-irans-destruction-within-reach> (Accessed: 2026-19-03).

(2) Freilich, Chuck (2026): How the US and Israel can stave off strategic failure in Iran. Middle East Institute 03/17/2026. <https://mei.edu/publication/how-the-us-and-israel-can-stave-off-strategic-failure-in-iran/> (Accessed: 2026-19-03).

(3) Is The Iran War Spiraling Beyond Trump’s Control? Christiane Amanpour Presents YouTube channel 03/17/2026. <https://youtu.be/6q_ZesE0wqY?si=xUmoMaMkoWHMewbu> (Accessed: 2026-19-03).