Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Following the current US-Israel War on Iran is like some kind of bad dream in which you work to solve a problem and are relieved you finally figured it out, but then the same problem keeps popping up over and over again. The fact that the President is running an insider-trader routine nearly every weekend where he puts out bad news on Friday so stocks dip and then good news on Monday that makes the stocks rebound. But any way we look at it, pretty much every analyst that’s not an outright cheerleader for the war is saying that unless there is a substantive settlement soon – soon as in a few weeks – there’s going to be a major hit to the global economy than different (disastrous) wars like the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War did not produce.

A new article in the German Der Spiegel discusses what the author perceives as an intense power struggle within the current Iranian regime. This is understandable, since the current leader of Iran is Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the previous Ayatollah who died along with several other senior Iranian leaders in the decapitation strikes by the US and Israel early in the current war, has not been seen in public since that event. The official Iranian position is that he was wounded but is currently very much in charge. Iran pretty clearly had multiple layers in its chain of command who were ready to step in after the previous top leaders were assassinated. (1)

Reuter’s article speculates about whether the Revolutionary Guard, which in the Iranian system is considered a secular institution subordinated to the Supreme religious leader, is now moving into the dominant role within the Iranian system. Such suggestions should be regarded with caution. After all, the current war started after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convinced a gullible Donald Trump that the Iranians were on the verge of overthrowing the current regime completely and that the US and Israel going to war against Iran would result in a near-term overthrow of Iranian regime to be replaced by something more malleable for Israel and the US. And, as the current war illustrates for the umpteenth time in human history that when a country is attacked, the people of that country tend to rally around their leaders in the short run. And often in the long run, as well.

John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1992:

Almost any military venture receives strong popular approval in the short run; the citizenry rallies to the flag and to the forces engaged in combat. The strategy and technology of the new war evoke admiration and applause. This reaction is related not to economics or politics but more deeply to anthropology. As in ancient times, when the drums sound in the distant forest, there is an assured tribal response. It is the rallying beat of the drums, not the virtue of the cause, that is the vital mobilizing force. (2)

Dexter Filkins did a long profile in 2020 of the now-deceased Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Filkins relates that when Khamenei achieved that position in 1989:

The job gave Khamenei nearly absolute power: control of every branch of the government, command of the armed forces, and supervision of the judiciary. He proved to be a nimble and energetic autocrat, creating a parallel structure for each institution. “This is how he kept everyone weak,” Mehdi Khalaji, a former Shiite cleric in Iran who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said. Khamenei also oversaw the country’s largest concentrations of wealth: an array of institutional funds, built on property seized from the Shah’s élite, which came to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. (3)

That aspect of the late Khameini’s structuring of the government and its power centers is important background for evaluating the claim that Reuter makes about the IRGC, to which he refers as the Pasdaran (it’s also called Sepah). It is a branch of the Iranian armed forces, though it reports directly to the Supreme Leader. But, similar to the multiple capabilities of the various armed forces branches in the US, the various branch have overlapping types of functions. The IRGC itself is formally considered a terrorist group by the US and several other Western governments.

As an analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a month before the current war began on February 28 puts it:

The IRGC is also highly influential in Iran’s national politics. Many corps veterans have moved on to senior government roles, including in the cabinet, parliament, and provinces. The corps has meanwhile enriched itself with billions of dollars by running illicit commercial and financial networks around international sanctions. Many regional experts expect the IRGC to play a pivotal role in selecting a successor to the aging Khamenei, which could further consolidate the group’s power and increase barriers to political reform. (4)

One implication of that structure is that the IRGC is very much part of the current regime. Reuter’s article might be taken to suggest that a shift to a more dominant role by the Pasdaran could produce some kind of qualitative “regime change.” But Reuter cautions against any such interpretation:

But the omnipresent power of the Revolutionary Guards suggests that the changes of course [within the government] are not the result of a dispute between two power blocs - with a dangerous vacuum at the top - but rather maneuvers so as not to alienate the most radical regime supporters.

The actual line of conflict in Iran has long been between the regime as a whole and the majority of the population, which has been rapidly impoverished because of the previous mismanagement, the sanctions, and the consequences of the war, and is likely to take to the streets again sooner or later.

But the anthropological impulse that Galbraith described is a strong one, even when a major portion of the population hates the existing regime. And the Iranians are very much aware that they were attacked by an illegal war of aggression on the part of the US and Israel – neither of which were regarded as particularly friendly to Iran before the war.

The CFR analysis a month before the beginning of the current war observed:

The IRGC has … become a central player in Iran’s domestic politics, evolving into what CFR’s Ray Takeyh has called the most important organization in the country. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—who led the IRGC during the Iran-Iraq War—has appointed former IRGC commanders to top political posts, and former guards in parliament tend to advocate a hard-line foreign policy, as well as support for developing a civilian nuclear program.

Because the IRGC marches in lockstep with the supreme leader’s policy positions, its powers at times seem to outshine that of Iran’s president, who does not control any of the armed forces and has relatively few powers of his own. (Only men have been president, and whether Iranian law requires this is unclear.) Although the president has sway over domestic policy—he controls the national budget, for example—his influence over foreign policy is limited. [my emphasis]

So, whatever power shifts may be happening within the ruling structures in Iran, it’s not as though the IRGC has been some completely separate power center within the regime. And pro-American or pro-Israeli, they definitely are not.

Reuter’s description of the IRGC as controlling half or more of the country’s economy raises interesting questions how to understand their economic system. Can we say that half their economy has been “nationalized”? That it’s an oligarch-dominated kleptocracy? A theological kleptocracy dominated by oligarchs?

This is an explainer video from April by Middle East Eye on the IRGC which presents it as a major element of the governing structure. It also provides a reminder of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, in which the US backed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against Iran, in a war Iran clearly won, at great cost to itself:

Notes:

(1) Reuter, Christoph (2026): Die unheimlichen Herscher. Der Spiegel 30:17.07.2026, 56-57. My translation to English.

(2) Galbraith, John Kenneth (1992): The Culture of Contentment, 166-167. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

(3) Filkins, Dexter (2020): The Enemy Is Here. New Yorker 05/25/2020, 28-39.

(4) The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Council on Foreign Relations 01/30/2026. <https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/irans-revolutionary-guards> (Accessed: 2026-17-07).

The Iran War disaster, authored by the US and Israel, proceeds

The US and Israel began the current war against Iran on February 28. It’s a conflict that has already damaged the world economy and the prewar order (such as it was) in the Middle East.

Israel has been pursuing a goal of regional hegemony in the Middle East. It aims to remain as the dominant regional military power with the ability to periodically attack neighboring countries in “mowing the grass” operations of the kind it has been running for decades in Gaza and Lebanon. It prefers a neighborhood of “failed states” that are unable to put up any substantive military opposition to whatever Israel decides to do. It has long since seen Iran as the most threatening regional adversary, which is why politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu has been advocating for the US to go to war against Iran. Netanyahu’s goal is not to have stable, responsible regimes that can be good neighbors. His goal is for Israel to be surrounded by failed states that Israel can periodically attack militarily with relative impunity.

Wars like the current one can result in important things changing quickly. A particular factor in the current situation is that the President of the United States is physically and mentally unfit for the job, with his cognitive health visibly deteriorating. The Trump 2.0 regime is also seemingly unique in US history in its inability to conduct normal diplomacy. The Lebanese international relations scholar Gilbert Achcar has some important observations about how the lessons the Trump – or at least the Trump team - seems to have taken from the Iraq War. Though in the current war, they have reverted to basically the neocon approach, with the results that we are now seeing unfold.

As Achcar summarized it in February:

Trump’s second-term neo-imperial policy combines a cynicism that some have mistaken for honesty with a policy of brute force in the service of a worldview that displays a taste for both supremacism (America First) and Lebensraum – the ‘Donroe doctrine’, a new version of the Monroe Doctrine that claimed the Americas as the US’s exclusive preserve. [my emphasis] (1)

In May, Sania Faisal El-Husseini describe Israel’s current policy as follows:

U.S. and Israeli strategies toward the three fronts; Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon, show clear similarities. They pursue a single objective: eliminating any remaining political opposition to Israel in the region and preventing the emergence of any future material force that could challenge it. While a truce exists with Iran [as of May 22], economic and political pressure continues. Negotiations are also being used to secure gains under pressure, mainly related to Iran’s weapons capabilities and its future power. Likewise, despite the ceasefire reached in Gaza, the targeting, killing, and blockade of Gazans by the Israeli occupation continue. At the same time, pressure on Hamas persists through negotiations aimed at achieving its full disarmament. The same pattern appears in Lebanon. Although Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire agreement, it has largely remained nominal, much like in Gaza. The Israeli military continues targeting civilians, villages, and towns in southern Lebanon, while negotiations with the Lebanese government are used to pressure it toward the disarmament of Hezbollah. [my emphasis] (2)

The goals described in the now-defunct memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran included demands that Israel withdraw from territories in Lebanon (and implicit in Syria) that it current illegally occupies. Israel has never committed itself to that and won’t without major pressure from the US. Which the Trump regime shows no willingness or even the diplomatic ability to bring about such a result:

... the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

El-Husseini writes of Israel’s goals in the current war:

In Iran, Israel is not seeking only to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities. It is also seeking to keep Tehran under prolonged military, economic, and political pressure, or to bring about regime change. Israel views Iran as the center of threat production. Since the Iranian Revolution, Tehran has adopted the rhetoric of “exporting the revolution” and supporting the “oppressed.” This was translated in practice through support for its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. [my emphasis]

As many commentators have noted, Iran has been Netanyahu’s White Whale.

Meanwhile, journalistic soothsayers are trying to detect what the leaders of the US and Israel have in mind in the current situation. Journalists covering the war are assuming that Axios is the current favorite outlet for the Trump regime views of the conflict, and in particular the reporting of Barak Ravid. On July 17, Ravid writes:

Among the options being considered [by the US] are bombing Iranian infrastructure facilities like power plants, conducting more attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in order to bury Iran's enriched uranium even deeper, and bombing the Pickaxe Mountain underground site that is suspected to be a facility in the making.

Trump hasn't made a final decision yet, but he appears willing to escalate the war to cause enough damage that the Iranian regime will open the Strait of Hormuz and accept Trump's nuclear demands. (3)

Amos Harel, a military analyst for Haaretz, presents a picture that sounds suspiciously like, things aren’t looking good any way we take it:

Following several weeks of gradual escalation, there are growing signs that the war between the United States and Iran may intensify and expand. For the time being, it still appears that the two countries have no interest in drawing Israel into a renewed confrontation in the Persian Gulf. This may nevertheless happen, whether because of an inability to contain the confrontation to the Gulf region or due to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political considerations – mainly, his dire domestic situation.

The truth is, besides a decisive American victory over Iran, which is not in sight, Israel has little to gain from an expanded and prolonged war. The U.S. doesn't need it for now, and it seems that Iran is wary of involving Israel at this point, since Tehran, apparently, is not interested in a broader confrontation: Israel is considered to be an unpredictable actor. [my emphasis] (4)

That second paragraph is a bit enigmatic. Of course Israel is deeply involved in the war and will continue to be. And Iran’s leaders perceive this the current conflict as a war for national and regime survival. They would be foolish not to. And their ability to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is a powerful advantage. And it’s not their only advantage.

Robert Pape has been one of the Cassandras of the current war. This is an July 16 interview with Deutsche Welle, including the unfortunate fact that the world is facing an “oil inventory cliff”: (5)

Maybe some Christian Zionists can explain to us why the escalating disaster is all part of God’s Divine Plan. But it’s hard to see how we can blame God for this very human-created disaster.

Notes:

(1) Achcar, Gilbert (2026): US: an old-new imperial doctrine. Le Monde Diplomatique (Feb 2026). <https://mondediplo.com/2026/02/05us> (Accessed: 2026-18-07).

(2) El-Husseini, Sani Faisal (2026): Israel: From neutralizing the frontline states to neutralizing the Axis of Resistance. Middle East Eye 05/22/2026. <https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260522-israel-from-neutralizing-the-frontline-states-to-neutralizing-the-axis-of-resistance/> (Accessed: 2026-19-07).

(3) Ravid, Barak (2026): Scoop: U.S. sending dozens of refueling planes to Israel as Iran escalation looms. Axios 07/17/2026. <https://www.axios.com/2026/07/17/trump-iran-israel-refueling-planes> (Accessed: 2026-19-07).

(4) Harel, Amos (2026): Even as Ground Invasion Looms, U.S. and Iran Want Wild-card Israel Out of the Fight. Haaretz 07/19/2026. Gift link: <https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2026-07-19/ty-article/.premium/israel-may-be-dragged-into-a-u-s-iran-fight/0000019f-76e7-d969-afdf-f6e781ae0000?gift=4fbe229f26434dbf8462b5e7454f4331> (Accessed: 2026-19-07).

(5) Why Trump is taking a risky bet on Iran, but could lose on all counts. DW News YouTube channel 07/16/2026. <https://youtu.be/ze9fLTI2eE0?si=ERyBdxvkpbkkq-SI> (Accessed: 2026-19-07).

TrumpCarthyism, 2026

In a presentation I embedded in a previous post, historian Heather Cox Richardson talked about how anticommunism became a particular polemical tool in US politics. (1)

Trump’s address on July 16 about voting reminded me of how much he’s a re-run of his mob-lawyer mentor, Roy Cohn (1927-1986), who also had served as chief counsel for Joe McCarthy’s infamous Senate witch-hunt committee.

Trump's mentor would have been proud of his protégé’s speech last night. McCarthy focused heavily on alleged collusion by officials with Chinese Communists. Now Trump is saying Chinese Commies are subverting our elections.

So, we have China to blame for Trump getting elected again in 2024?

A reporter once asked Harry Truman if he had heard a comment McCarthy had just made. His response: "I don't know anything about it, but if McCarthy said it, it's a damn lie, you can be sure of that." (2)

That’s a good standard for Trump‘s claims, too!

Starting just after 25:00 in this July 9 video, Heather Cox Richardson reminds us that the politics of “anticommunism” in the US predate the Bolshevik Revolution. And, not surprisingly, the 19th century version had much to do with white racism. And so does the Donald Trump 2026 version.

(27:36) But then you also have what people are looking at with this idea of left-wing terrorism that the administration is pushing and that's the attempt to criminalize the idea of political opposition to Trump with the argument that those people who are standing against him are communists.

Now I want to call out here there is something circulating on social media saying that it looks like a Trump post from Truth Social and it looks like he is saying he's going to put communists in jail. That is fake. That is not real.

All right. It looks real. It is not real. And if you see things like that and people are reacting hugely to this because it's not outside the realm of possibility. ...

Facts matter, as Richardson’s comment there reminds us.

Now, that being said, Trump very clearly is doubling down on the idea that his opponents are communists. This is really interesting from a psychological perspective for Trump because Trump really, if you think about him, which I have done more than I want to, let me tell you. But his great moment in the sun, you know, the moment when he was on top of the world was the 1980s. And much of his mindset remains in the 1980s. and his glee with which he has glommed onto the word “communists” in this moment just strikes me once again of him being back in the 1980s and ever so happy to be there.

But for the rest of us, the threat of communism is just gone. I mean the for most Americans at this point you don't even haven't really lived in a you in a world that was dominated by the great Communist powers and even powers that are nominally Communist now are really not fully Communist any longer but he clearly thinks that that's such a frightening word that people will react crazily to it. And this is interesting for me because the idea of communism and socialism in the United States is very different than it is in … the concept of international communism.

This shouldn’t be taken as a reason to credit Trumpista anticommunism with some kind of goodwill in their effort to make Medicare For All sound like the Second Coming of Pol Pot. It’s just as sleazy and dishonest as Joe McCarthy’s and Roy Cohn’s demagoguery.

We start to see people complaining about socialism and communism in the United States in 1871. That's before the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. 1871, and it comes out of the American South where white Democrats, formerly Confederates, don't want black voting. And what they say is that black, it's men at this point, black men are uneducated and they are poor. And if you let them vote, they're going to vote for politicians who will promise them roads and schools and hospitals and so on. And those can only be paid for by tax dollars. And because only white people have any property, that's going to mean a redistribution of wealth from white people to black people. And that's socialism.

And after the Paris Commune of March through May of 1871, they begin to call it communism. This is long before uh people are talking about imposing Marxists governments on the rest of the world. But in the United States, those ideas of socialism and communism went back to the idea of minority voting, racial minorities voting. And I think Trump - unconsciously, because I know he doesn't know this history - is tapping into that. Basically, it's something that an embattled white group of people has rolled out every time they want to make sure that minorities can't vote.

And she takes up one of my own pet peeves:

So, one of the things that you people ask me about every single week is that's that you know, old chestnut. We're not a democracy. We're a republic. Why is that? Where did that come from?

That comes from the John Birch Society in the 1950s and 1960s when they were trying to justify not permitting black voting in the United States. And what did they say? They said that black Americans were communists.

Now, in that period, there is overlap between communism and certain black activists in the United States. But there that's really not what the heart of that that equation is. Nonetheless, I think what Trump is doing when he talks about communism is he's basically saying us white guys have to stick together because anybody who's complaining about anything I do is one of them guys, right? And all the things that you can shovel into that bucket of Communism.

So, one of the things that people are identifying with this push for the White House to go after leftwing terrorism is to take opponents of Trump, those he is now calling communists and that he identified in September of 2025 as being terrorists, put them all together and use the American government to go after them. And that is a very, very real issue. You saw that in the Broadview 6. You saw that in the Prairie Land case where they took people who were simply protesting ICE, said they were a conspiracy and tried to throw the book at them, even if they didn't know each other, for being part of a conspiracy.

And that's dangerous. That is out there. And that's probably part of what's going on. It's not fairing well in the courts, by the way, with the exception of the Prairieland case, which is going to be appealed for sure because it's bonkers.  [my emphasis]

The Prairieland case to which she refers is the case in which protesters at an ICE facility in Texas which the Trump Administration charged protesters with felonies to use it as a model case for their efforts to declare all anti-Trump dissenters as part of an “antifa” terrorist conspiracy. As AP reports:

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department's list of foreign terror organizations.

Critics warn the case could have wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Short for "anti-fascists," antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations. (3)

In some ways, this is also a rerun of the McCarthy era because here we again having a particular organization being defined as a terrorist conspiracy or something similar. At least the post-World War II Red Scare had an actual (if small) organization, the Communist Party (CPUSA) out of which to construct a bogeyman. (4) Trump 2.0’s designation of “antifa” protesters as a some nationwide organization is completely bogus.

But the McCarran Act (Subversive Activities Control Act) of 1950 and the Communist Control Act (CCA) of 1954. The latter was sponsored by Congressman Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, who is generally remembered as some kind of liberal. The official name of the Minnesota Democratic Party, then and now, is the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL). The New York Times explained the year the CCA was passed:

The bill that has now become known as “the Communist Control Act of 1954” was promoted as a political coup by so-called Democratic “liberals” headed by Senator Humphrey of Minnesota, who is running for re-election this fall. The Democrats had been goaded for months, even years, by Republican demagogues charging them with “twenty years of treason” and the like; and this time they apparently decided that they could out-demagogue the Republicans. (5)

It was 1954, so the ultra-respectable New York Times saw the need to add this qualification:

In the present atmosphere, the Democrats reasoned, they would get credit for being more anti-Communist than the Republicans because they were proposing legislation superficially even more anti-Communist than anything the Republicans had come up with.

This was the same we’re-more-rightwing-than-the-Republicans tactic that Kamala Harris applied in her 2024 campaign to immigration enforcement, where her message was essentially: We’re trying to get more aggressive against all these here illegal aliens, but the soft-on-immigration Republicans won’t let us!

Returning to Harry Truman, he famously said in 1952:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. [my emphasis] (6)

Notes:

(1) Today in Politics-Explainer. Heather Cox Richardson YouTube channel 07/09/2026. <https://youtu.be/bxEawcvCle4?si=WMdkrG_F65NwgWr3> (Accessed: 2026-13-07).

(2) Truman 'Worried' Taft Is Losing; Reaffirms His Civil Rights Stand; TRUMAN 'WORRIED' ON TAFT'S CHANCES. New York Times 07/10/1952. <https://www.nytimes.com/1952/07/10/archives/truman-worried-taft-is-losing-reaffirms-his-civil-rights-stand.html> (Accessed: 2026-17-07).

(3) Stengle, Jamie & Marcelo, Philip (2026): 8 convicted of terrorism charges in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison. AP/PBS 06/23/2026. <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/8-convicted-of-terrorism-charges-in-texas-immigration-center-shooting-sentenced-to-decades-in-prison> (Accessed: 2026-17-07).

(4) This is not to imply that the legal actions and Red Scare measures taken were justified. 

(5) The Communist Control Act. New York Times 08/21/1954. <https://www.nytimes.com/1954/08/21/archives/the-communist-control-act.html> (Accessed: 2026-17-07).

(6) Truman, Harry (1952): Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action 05/17/1952. The American Presidency Project. <https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-national-convention-banquet-the-americans-for-democratic-action> (Accessed: 2026-17-07).

Is appointing weirdos as senior security officials a good idea?

Donald Trump has been selecting some very dubious characters for important security posts in the Trump 2.0 regime. That brings to mind a fairly recent experience from Austria.

[Trump] pulled Bill Pulte, the head of a housing agency with zero national security background, and made him acting Director over all 18 intelligence agencies. This is the man who accused a sitting Federal Reserve governor of mortgage fraud and pushed hardest to fire the Fed chair. The backlash was bipartisan. Republican senators said out loud they saw no qualifications for the job. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee warned he would bend the intelligence to fit what the President wants to hear. The fight even threatens the renewal of a major surveillance law. A Democratic House owns the Intelligence gavel. They will ask what a housing official is doing reading the nation’s secrets, and they will ask it on camera. (1)

MS NOW has this report on Pulte, including commentary by Jack Smith, who organized the prosecution of January 6 Trumpistas who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – prosecutions that were nullified by Trump’s shameless pardons (2):

Austria has borders with nine other countries (Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and Italy). All of them are part of the Schengen Treaty Area, which means there are normally no border checkpoints on roads between Schengen countries. So it's kind of important for Austria to have good intelligence sharing with those countries. In any case, Vienna still lives up to its stereotype as a magnet for spies because seat if the International Atomic Energy Commission has its seat there. And Austria's bank secrecy laws are even stiffer than Switzerland's so Austria is particularly attractive for various foreign sheikhs, mobsters, and oligarchs Looking to launder money.

Back four governments ago in Austria (2017-2019), the country's main intelligence organization, known as the BVT. The Interior Minister at that time was Herbert Kickl of the far-right "Freedom Party" (FPÖ). He had a Vienna police unit raid the BVT (the local police are part of the Interior Ministry) to see what intelligence it was gathering on domestic terrorists who might be sympathetic to the FPÖ. The FPÖ, now headed by Kickl, is one of those parties J.D. Vance is encouraging as a defender of white civilization is also very pro-Russian in its foreign policy.

Karen Kneisl, the Austrian Foreign Minister in that same government, moved to Russia after she left office and basically functions as a propagandist for Putin’s government now.

The Austrian Chancellor in whose government Kneissel served as Foreign Minister was Sebastian Kurz, who after leaving office joined Peter Thiel’s stable of sponsored politicians, to which Vice President J.D. Vance belongs.

When that government fell in 2019 due to its chronic corruption, the Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen had to appoint a new Cabinet and he specified he would never appoint Kickl as a Cabinet member again because his BVT raid had led some countries to not trust Austria to protect intelligence Sources. Just this year, Van der Bellen implied that neighbor countries still serious limit their intelligence cooperation with Austria as a result of that incident.

This is why it's a really bad idea to appoint a fool, a nationalist zealot, or an incompetent sleazebag to head the national intelligence agency. I'm just sayin'...

This is a short BBC report from 2023 on Karen Kneissl: (3)

Notes:

(1) Jackson, Mitch (2026): The Verdict Is In. He Won't Survive Two More Years. Uncensored Objection 07/15/2026. <https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-verdict-is-in-he-wont-survive?utm_source=publication-search> (Accessed: 2026-14-07).

(2) Intelligence chief Bill Pulte begins FIRING dozens of intelligence officials. MS NOW YouTube channel 07/03/2026. <https://youtu.be/4makitJU1bU?si=heKVOxt7xHV46PxK> (Accessed: 2026-16-07).

(3) Putin described as 'most intelligent gentleman' by former Austrian foreign minister. BBC News YouTube channel 12/07/2023. <https://youtu.be/1J1PYVDf9z4?si=ImXxij5aUpRxg6Nv> (Accessed: 2026-14-07).

Counting European armed forces (It’s trickier than one might think!)

In posting about the size of the largest European and NATO armed forces – those concepts may be the same if we consider Türkiye as European – I’ve been relying on a ranking that put Poland as having the largest active-duty army and Spain as having the largest active-duty-plus-reserves number.

After spending some time checking the current numbers, I am reminded that there are different ways to count troops. And war-readiness is not identical to number of troops. War readiness depends of course on what potential war we’re talking about, e.g., a NATO war against Russia? A European and Canadian war to defend Denmark from an American invasion of Greenland?

So available military forces are a key measure. But numbers of troops alone don’t equate to military capability or readiness.

Here are rankings I put together based on three different sources:

None of those rankings show Spain as having the largest number of combined active and reserve forces. Nor Poland as number two in active-duty forces. And the Global Firepower count even shows Germany as easily having the largest number of active and reserve forces.

Counting methodologies differ, in other words. A count not included in the tables above, Paramilitary Personnel, is another challenge. The World Population Review count cites the same count for “paramilitary” personnel and total personnel. The New Union Post count shows only active and reserve-duty counts.

The criteria for counting “paramilitary” numbers probably includes different proportions according of people who could be quickly integrated into the regular military.

For instance, at least parts of urban police departments could reasonably be described as paramilitaries. But municipal police as such can’t be directed inducted to the armed forces. (And some significant portion of them may not be able to meet the physical requirements for the armed services.) And if we look at the United States, their military services have their own formal Reserves that can be immediately called into active service. The National Guard are primarily state militias, i.e., paramilitary units, that can be nationalized as paramilitary units. And Guard members can also be directly inducted to the regular forces.

The Global Firepower count provides a variety of measures, like the following for France 2026:

In the crisis (or averted crisis) early this year over Greenland, Britain and five NATO countries that are also EU members issued a public statement warning that they were prepared to stand by their mutual-defense commitments to Greenland: France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain. Türkiye, which ranks in all three counts shown above as having the largest active duty forces, is not an EU member state.

The Carnegie Endowment has this podcast about the considerations current facing European countries now that Trump has severely undermined NATO and has taken a more downright hostile position against the European countries who are still nominally its allies. (1)



Notes:

(1) How Europe Fights Russia Without the U.S. Carnegie Endowment YouTube channel 07/10/2026. <https://youtu.be/AzE8YPufrvg?si=aGMmtQR91e66OwsA> (Accessed: 2026-14-07).

The Mamdani approach to governance may be catching!

Le Monde English reports:

A little more than two weeks after being elected mayor of Paris on March 29, Emmanuel Grégoire kicked off the first major initiatives of his term. The Socialist, who won the municipal elections heading a left-wing coalition (excluding the radical-left La France Insoumise), has called a Paris City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 14, with four priorities on the agenda. According to information obtained by Le Monde, the initiatives to address include sheltering people living on the streets, the housing crisis, after-school care and the possible sale of the Parc des Princes stadium to Paris Saint-Germain (PSG).

On these last two issues, the new mayor of the capital immediately signaled a break with his predecessor, Anne Hidalgo, who had allowed these matters to stagnate during her final years in office. [my emphasis] (1)

Yes, Paris also has a socialist mayor. From the current Socialist Party (PS) that has been around since 1969, co-founded by François Mitterrand, which served as President of France from 1981-1995. The PS is part of the Socialist International, a formal but loose alliance of various social-democratic parties, which includes Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE). Of course, socialist politics in France was around long before 1969!

Parliamentary governments like those in Europe tend to have multi-party systems, which means that their national, regional, and local governments are often governed by coalitions of parties rather than a single one. This system often seem inscrutable to Americans. And Europeans often find the two-party systems that tend to predominate in Europe and America at least equally puzzling.

But both Britain and the US have winner-take-all electoral districts, also known as first-past-the-post systems. In other words, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if it’s not a majority. That was also the case in the 2024 US Presidential elections, where Trump won with less than a majority of the popular vote. (It was close, but not a majority.)

The reason that tends toward a two-party system can be explained by thinking of a vote on an ideological spectrum – although actual voters’ choices are messier than that. But take an example of a Congressional district in which 60% of voters are “left” or “center-left” and the other 40% “right.” If there are two left/center-left candidates in a general election who split the left-leaning 60% among themselves, while all of the 40% of “right” voters vote for a single candidate, the large left-leaning majority gets no Representative, while the 40% with the right-leaning majority gets to be the Representative.

This creates an obvious practical incentive for the “left” to each consolidate around one candidate who is closer to their general orientation. We could make a similar example with urban vs. rural preferences.

The recent emergence of a stronger democratic-socialist faction inside the US Democratic Party, mostly famously represented by Zohran Mamdani, follows a similar electoral logic. There are Democrats to this day who blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore’s critical loss of Florida in the 2020 Presidential race. As later studies showed, the actual election results reflected something different. For one thing, polls showed that Nader voters in Florida were more likely have take vote from Shrub Bush rather than from Gore. (Go figure!) And the later, statewide media consortium’s count of the statewide vote showed that Gore actually did win the election.

The Democratic Socialists of America have tended, like Mamdani did, to focus on winning within the Democratic Party in primaries and campaigning as Democratic nominees in the general elections. Such a dynamic is not unique to the Democratic Party. In 1964, the George Wallace Democrats and the howling-at-the-moon Goldwater Republicans were ideological soulmates. Although some of those impious Mean Libruls might question the “soul” part of that description!

Failing some kind of currently unforeseeable events, it’s highly unlikely that any new party would rapidly displace one of the current two dominant US parties. The US party system began in the 1790s with the current Democratic Party (then called the Republican Party and soon the Democratic-Republic Party) and the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was basically decimated by the War of 1812 against Britain, because New England Federalist were widely perceived as sympathetic to the British. At the Presidential level, the Jefferson-Jackson Democratic Party had something like one-party rule for the first four decades of the 19th century. The current Republican Party was founded as a liberal, pro-democracy, anti-slavery party in 1854.

To the extent that we can equate the left-right spectrum of 1854 to today’s, the left-right alignment of the Democratic and Republican parties has completely flipped. Which is consistent with the ideological dynamic of countries with winner-take-all electoral districts as described above. (Politics is always messier than simply left-vs.-right. But that’s another part of the story.)

Politics is politics, so there will always be intra-party differences around issues, personalities, and priorities.

Back during the Cheney-Bush Administration, critics of it and in particular of their Iraq War started describing ourselves as part of the “reality-based community.” That’s an important foundation for any responsible and effective politics and policies.

What the successful DSA Democratic politicians like Mamdani and AOC and others are showing is that programs matter. A Medicare for All system is far better than private, corporatized media that can be owned and squeezed for every penny of profit by private-equity investors focused on short-term returns on investment.

And both sides within the party can reinforce the party messaging if they put their minds to it. DSA candidates can respond to criticism of “socialism” by saying things like, “Yeah, I’m a democratic socialist! That means I support Medicare for all and our public schools. My Republican opponent is opposed to both!”

The more traditional Dems can say, “I don’t call myself a socialist. But I support Medicare for All and our public schools. My Republican opponent is opposed to both. And I welcome the support of anyone who does supports them like I do.”

It does appear that with Trump’s explicit rhetoric this year calling the Democrats “communists” looks very much like an attempt to pump up a new, Joe McCarthy-type, sleazeball “Anti-Communism” campaign. Which is the kind of politics Trump learned from his political mentor, Roy Cohn. Who served as the lead counsel for McCarthy’s witch-hunt Senate Committee before he went on to become the top Mob lawyer in New York City. Democrats need to put some thought and energy into how they go about countering that without falling into the “don’t think of an elephant” trap George Lakoff warned about, i.e., reinforcing the other side’s narrative while trying to refute it.

Starting just after 25:00 in this podcast, Heather Cox Richardson reminds us that the politics of “anticommunism” in the US predate the Bolshevik Revolution. And, not surprisingly, the 19th century version had much to do with white racism. (And so does the Trump version!)

Notes:

(1) Bekmezian, Hélène (2026): Emmanuel Grégoire launches first four major initiatives of his term as mayor of Paris. Le Monde English 04/09/2026. <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2026/04/09/emmanuel-gregoire-launches-the-first-four-major-initiatives-of-his-term-as-mayor-of-paris_6752248_5.html> (Accessed: 2026-13-07).

(2) Today in Politics-Explainer. Heather Cox Richardson YouTube channel 07/09/2026. <https://youtu.be/bxEawcvCle4?si=WMdkrG_F65NwgWr3> (Accessed: 2026-13-07).

The protracted, prolonged stalemates and (the small) prospects for breakthroughs on the front lines of the Russia-Ukraine War

Tim Judah opened an article on the conflict between Ukraine and Russia in 2015 as follows:

Last September [2014], a few weeks before Ukraine's general election, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, then as now prime minister, issued a pamphlet listing his aims. One was stark: "To get through the winter." Given that rebel soldiers in the eastern part of the country paint "To Kiev!" on their tanks, that Ukraine relies on Russia for much of its energy, and that its economy is in dire straits, it is nonetheless safe to say that he has succeeded. The rebels, despite inflicting two major recent defeats on the government forces, have not advanced significantly. Winter power cuts in regions unaffected by the war were short and survivable. Also, while the current cease-fire, agreed to on February 12, is not expected to last, Ukraine and its government have not collapsed, nor do they show any signs of being on the brink of doing so, as some of the Russian media keep saying hopefully. (1)

Suspicions that Moscow has in mind taking over the capital. Ukraine is economically weak. The pro-Moscow rebel advance is going very slowly, though their patron country Russia has a much bigger economy and military than Ukraine. The Ukrainians are bearing up under war-related hardships. The Russian media are exaggerating the progress of their partisans.

That part of the story sounds very familiar here in 2026, over a decade later.

A map accompanying the article shows Crimea marked to show that Russia had occupied and formally annexed, with the pro-Russian rebels controlling significant parts of the oblasts (provinces) of Donetsk and Luhansk. Since the war expanded with the overt Russian invasion of February 2022, Russia currently holds around 20% of Ukrainian territory, including large parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

Russia still claims Crimea as part of its own territory, although Ukraine has been very successful in drastically limiting the usefulness of the Russian Black Sea fleet that has based out of Crimea. They have also done some serious damage to oil refineries in Crimea, which is strategically significant in damaging Russia’s wartimes economy. Whether physically reoccupying Crimea would be a meaningful strategic top priority at the moment is another question. But Ukraine after more four years of an active Russian invasion still maintains control of the “fortress belt” in Donetsk (2), which is a major strategic defensive priority for them. Which is a sign of determination on both sides of the war of attrition.

As of Tim Judah’s 2015 report, Russia was pursuing a less aggressive advance than they adopted in 2022, seven years later:

On January 24 a salvo of missiles lasting less than a minute hit Mariupol, killing thirty. Then nothing happened. In theory the rebel forces could isolate and surround the city if they moved westward to link up to Russian soldiers moving out from Crimea; but this would leave the rebels and the Russians with lang supply lines and lang lines to defend. None of this is impossible, but it would be very difficult and for Putin a huge gamble. If they have not done it until now, then maybe they will never do it.

Whether legal or not, whether NATO countries accepted it or not, there is every reason to believe that their aim at that point to ensure that Ukraine did not become a NATO member state. NATO in 2008 had recklessly declared that both Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members of NATO, even though neither at the time were even close to meeting the criteria for NATO membership. Russia staged a military conflict in Georgia in 2008, which left them in control of part of what Georgia rightly claimed as its sovereign territory. The Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014 and its illegal annexation as part of Russia, also put Russia in control of an important piece of Ukrainian territory, too. That in itself complicated any prospect of Ukraine becoming a NATO member, since it was not in de facto control of all of its territory.

There were other options available to Washington and to Moscow on how to proceed from there. The US could have recognized that Russia for the immediate future would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. Russia could have undertaken intensified preparations for a military conflict without annexing Crimea. That could have also made a reasonable call after they had annexed the peninsula that Russian control of Ukraine would limit indefinitely Ukraine’s ability to join NATO and foregone the at-first informal and later-official declaration that they considered parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson to be Russian territory.

Judah reported in 2015, “In Kiev, the mood is gloomy. Most people realize that they are in for a long conflict.” Sadly, we can still say that today. He continued, “Mykola Kapitonenko, an adviser to parliament's foreign affairs committee, said that suing for peace now would be tantamount to accepting a deal ‘in which Putin is offering, 'I stop the war and you come under my control’."

The most likely prospect here in 2026 looks very similar: an eventual armistice of some kind in which the lines of the current war of attrition are frozen in place. The formal resolution of the borders would then be punted to some unspecified future time. The Korean Peninsula is a reminder of how long such lines of demarcation can endure. But how long it will take for both sides in the current war to reach such a conclusion would be very hard to estimate at the current moment.

And this observation from Judah’s piece is a sobering reminder:

So Ukraine is in a race against time. If Putin's goal is simply to destabilize the country, rather than actually take more territory from it, then its angry people [i.e., keeping Ukrainian unhappy] suit his aim. His problem is that the longer the war drags on, the worse it is for Russia's economy and future too. Will he react by discreetly moving to help the rebels even more or by moving to delicately extricate Russia from the conflict? Only zealots who see Putin as some sort of messiah still believe that he is not fueling it. For the rebels themselves and their supporters, the reality is that militarily the campaign has stalled, at least for now.

(Also, how many Russians ever actually saw Vladimir Putin “as some sort of messiah”?)

That reminder of how both Ukrainian and Russian public morale had been holding up during the year after Russia’s seizure of Crimea is a caution about whether “morale bombing” on both sides is likely to bring any sudden resolution of the conflict here over 10 years later.

It’s worth noting that the philanthropist and democracy advocate George Soros (a major bogeyman for the far right) wrote about optimistically about sanctions, also in 2015:

The sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and Europe for its interventions in Ukraine have worked much faster and inflicted much more damage on the Russian economy than anybody could have expected. The sanctions sought to deny Russian banks and companies access to the international capital markets. The increased damage is largely due to a sharp decline in the price of oil, without which the sanctions would have been much less effective. Russia needs oil prices to be around $100 a barrel in order to balance its budget. (It is now around $55 a barrel.) The combination of lower oil prices and sanctions has pushed Russia into a financial crisis that is by some measures already comparable to the one in 1998. [my emphasis] (3)

That’s an important reminder that sanctions can cause real pain for the sanctioned country. But when the sanctioned parties see a particular conflict (rightly or wrongly) as critical to their national security and even their survival, sanctions often prove disappointing in the effects on the countries being targeted.

In the prolonged stalemate, the Russia-Ukraine War is starting to look like an excerpt from the 1993 film Groundhog Day, in which the same day keeps replaying itself over and over and over.

This is a worthwhile discussion of the war with the economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and a leading economic journalist, Wolfgang Münchau who was also a co-editor of the Financial Times Deutschland. Varoufakis brings up the Turkish attack on Cyprus in 1974 and the prolonged frozen conflict that followed as a relevant example to help understand the current situation in Ukraine. (4)

Varoufakis has been keeping an eye on the European trends with military industries in the current international situation which is creating strong pressures for European rearmament. We need to be hearing commentaries along this line. It’s another case that multiple things can be true at the same time. In this case, it can be true that Europeans have a realistic need to restructure and their militaries due to the distancing of the US from NATO; and that it will doing so will be expensive; and that shifting money from domestic programs could free up funding for more military spending; and that doing the latter instead of raising income and wealth taxes on billionaires is a really bad idea.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) posts weekly updates on the battlefield situation. Here are their eight relatively granular “key takeaways” for Saturday, July 11. (5)

1. The recent, intensified Ukrainian strikes against Russian seaborne gasoline tankers in the Sea of Azov have reportedly forced Russia to close some maritime routes.
2. Starboard Maritime Intelligence data indicates a possible 55 percent decline in vessels with active automatic identification system (AIS) transponders in the Sea of Azov between June 30 and July 11.
3. Intensified Ukrainian strikes against seaborne vessels may have prompted Russian vessels to alter their behavior in the Sea of Azov in any of several ways consistent with the Starboard data and AIS signal anomalies.
4. Russian consumer gasoline prices are skyrocketing amid Ukraine’s intensifying long-range strike campaign against Russian oil refineries and gasoline producers.
5. Russia appears to have been engaged in a hacking operation that targeted civilian cameras across NATO countries and in Ukraine.
6. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky authorized the creation of two new commands within the Ukrainian Armed Forces on July 10.
7. Russian forces launched six Iskander-M and S-400 ballistic missiles, four Kh-59/69 guided cruise missiles, two Kh-31 anti-radar missiles, and 121 drones against Ukraine overnight.
8.  Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area, and Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Novopavlivka direction. [my emphasis]

For anyone not already familiar with considerable detail about the military actions in the war, perceiving the implications of these items is pretty difficult. It’s helpful to be alert for phrases like “have reportedly,” “indicates,” “may have prompted,” and “appears to have been engaged in.” I’m not criticizing ISW for using such phrases; on the contrary, it’s good practice to indicate what is well-established and what has not been clearly confirmed. And their website includes more detailed daily information than the daily “key takeaways.”

Their eighth point doesn’t try to flag the Russian and Ukrainian advances as game changing observations. But it is consistent with the Groundhog Day nature of the war of attrition right now: small advances and retreats by both countries with heavy casualties.

ISW’s more expanded explanation of Point 5 about the hacking tells us the following:

The Telegraph reported on July 10, citing the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) that Kremlin-based hackers have been spying on NATO military bases in Europe by hacking into civilian cameras pointing at military equipment transportation routes to identify the types of weapons Ukraine received. The Dutch intelligence services reported that the Russian operation targeted European NATO members states, including the Netherlands, and Ukraine. The Telegraph speculated that hackers likely accessed civilian doorbell systems to monitor weapons transportation routes.

That all sounds plausible to me. But there is no indication how different that situation on July 11 may have been from what NATO and Russia are doing all the time. Of course, intelligence agencies try to hack each other. And sometimes the hacks may be very significant. But without more detail or collaborating reports, it’s hard to tell how serious they are.

Notes:

(1) Judah, Tim (2015): Ukraine: Inside the Deadlock, 18-20. New York Review of Books 05/07/2015.

(2) Beaumont, Peter et. al. (2026): Kill zones and drone nets: a journey through Ukraine’s fortress belt. Guardian 07/03/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/jul/03/kill-zones-drone-nets-journey-ukraine-fortress-belt> (Accessed: 2026-11-07).

(3) Soros, George (2015): A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine, 22-24. New York Review of Books 02/05/2015.

(4) The Ukraine comeback isn't what they're telling you. Econoclasts and UnHerd YouTube channel 07/10/2026. <https://youtu.be/BTix_mCIiWg?si=tGu5AfsYrgBtpdj_> (Accessed: 2026-11-07).

(5) Key Takeaways. Institute for the Study of War 07/11/2026. <https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-11-2026/> (Accessed: 2026-12-07).

More thoughts on the Graham Platner allegations

I don’t have any particular insight on the end of Graham Platner’s Democratic Senate candidacy in Maine. As of this writing, he has “suspended” his campaign and says he will formally end his campaign on Monday the 13th, the last day he can formally end his campaign and not appear on the ballot.

It’s safe to say that Platner has led a “colorful” life so far: prep-school kid, Marine veteran who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Army National Guard reservist, a security contractor guarding the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, local government activist, PTSD sufferer, an SS-Death’s Head tattoo, and troubled relationships with girlfriends.

His history of “sexting” other women when he was married obviously wasn’t the most discrete thing to do.

“Both-sides-do-it arguments” are often fairly tacky even when they are legitimate. But it’s also important to note that the current President and Republican cult leader Donald Trump is an adjudicated sex abuser (via the E. Jean Carroll civil case). And he himself claimed to have been the best friend of a guy named Jeffrey Epstein who is infamous for, well, everyone knows why he’s infamous.

The Nazi (?) tattoo

I’ve searched online for an image of Platner’s SS Totenkopf (“death’s head”) in its original form before he had it altered. I’ve come up blank so far.

This is the image that Platner himself displayed to the CNN affiliate WGME of the altered tattoo:

The only image I’ve found – a very blurry one -was this one of a screenshot from a Pod Save America report in a 2025 report from the Portland Press Herald: (1)

This is an image of an SS-Totenkopf from a newly-published Austrian book on rightwing extremism, which notes that it's a prohibited image under Austrian anti-Nazi laws: (2)

The dark image above of the earlier version of his tattoo vaguely looks like the same shape as to the image banned in Austria. But I honestly can’t tell. Before this controversy, I would have thought the image was creepy, and I would have wondered if it might be some kind of far-right political symbol. But I wouldn’t have immediately identified it as neo-Nazi image like, say, a swastika. When I think skull-and-crossbones, it’s more the classic pirate’s jolly roger image that comes to mind:

If anyone has a link to a clearer image of Platnner’s original tattoo, please post a link in the comments.

Euronews last year reported, “Platner said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007 when he was in his 20s and in the Marine Corps.” (3) Not being a connoisseur of far-right symbolism, I would have thought the banned SS-Totenkopf image above would have looked with a “skull with hands” rather than a skull-and-crossbones. But it’s creepy, as one might expect of banned Nazi symbols.

The abuse allegations

In a recent post, I linked to a discussion by Ryan Grim and Saagar Enjeti on the significance of the rape accusation from a former girlfriend of his that effectively ended his candidacy and quoted a mea culpa Bluesky post from Noami Klein for not having done “due diligence” on the earlier claims about Platner. Ken Klippenstein also posted what he a deliberately non-apologetic “apology” on his Substack, in which he wrote:

The allegations published yesterday that Senate nominee Graham Platner sexually assaulted a woman are different from the previous scandals.

For one, they’re credible, based on Facebook messages from well before Platner entered politics. They’re also the first time Platner has been publicly accused of sexual assault. That crosses a line that tattoos, sexting and Reddit posts just do not. (4)

My reaction was very similar, based on the fact that the assault allegations included contemporary documentation in the form of electronic messages, including to her therapist, who declined to comment to reporters on the matter.

Klippenstein also wrote about people apologizing for their earlier skepticism about the accusations against Platner:

All of these people took the present accusations against Platner seriously and promptly addressed them (and good on them for that). But it’s unclear to me what exactly they’re apologizing for other than not being clairvoyants able to foresee this week’s accusation before it happened.

I wrote earlier this year about publication accusations of rape that had been made against the late union organizer and Latino leader Cesar Chavez:

[C]ertainly 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.

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.

But the fact is that “oppo research” – looking for negative things to say about political opponents – is very much a part of today’s politics. And yesterday’s, too. In his 1884 Presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland had to deal with charges that he had fathered an “illegitimate” child by raping a woman, which the Republicans used as the basis of their campaign slogan, “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” (5)

The accuser, Nan Britton, later wrote a memoir. And Cleveland’s paternity has apparently been confirmed by DNA studies. (3)

Cleveland’s Presidency is remembered for instituting the federal civil service system, which was a good idea. But otherwise, he was a really reactionary President.

Graham Platner has denied the rape allegation publicly made against him. But his decision to drop out of the race could be taken as a tacit admission on his part. Although it is important to note that his accuser did not file rape charges at the time. That doesn’t mean her claim is false. It just means it has not been formally adjudicated.

Remembering the Al Franken case

It’s worth remembering that former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken denied sexual harassment accusations against him by a woman who had performed with him on a USO tour. (None of which involved rape accusations.) Franken even asked the Senate Ethics Committee to do a formal investigation. His fellow Senate Democrats Kirstin Gillibrand severely criticized him over the allegation. Franken decided to resign his Senate seat (2017), a decision he later said that he “absolutely” regretted. As the BBC reported:

"Differentiating different kinds of behaviour is important," [Franken] said. "The idea that anybody who accuses someone of something is always right -that's not the case. That isn't reality."

Ms Tweeden declined to comment to the New Yorker.

As pressure from his colleagues escalated, Mr Franken recounted a late-night meeting with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in which Mr Schumer issued an ultimatum: Mr Franken must quit or the minority leader would rally the entire Democratic caucus to call for his resignation. (4)

Franken had distinguished himself in the Senate as a “fighting Dem.” As Jane Mayer wrote in a long 2019 profile:

Only two years ago, Franken was being talked up as a possible challenger to President Donald Trump in 2020. In Senate hearings, Franken had proved himself to be one of the most effective critics of the Trump Administration. His tough questioning of Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, had led Sessions to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, and prompted the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. [my emphasis]

And she notes the perils of a public rush to judgment in such cases:

Franken’s fall was stunningly swift: he resigned only three weeks after Leeann Tweeden, a conservative talk-radio host, accused him of having forced an unwanted kiss on her during a 2006 U.S.O. tour. Seven more women followed with accusations against Franken; all of them centered on inappropriate touches or kisses. Half the accusers’ names have still not become public. Although both Franken and Tweeden called for an independent investigation into her charges, none took place. This reticence reflects the cultural moment: in an era when women’s accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment are finally being taken seriously, after years of belittlement and dismissal, some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny. “Believe Women” has become a credo of the #MeToo movement. [my emphasis]

Mayer’s article makes it very clear that not only did the accusations made against Franken fell far short of anything that most people (or prosecutors) would call physical abuse or even sexual harassment.

The point of all this is that facts matter. For the individuals involved on both the accused and accuser’s sides.

Notes:

(1) Billings, Randy (2026): Graham Platner says he will remove a Nazi-linked tattoo. Bernie is standing by him. Portland Press Herald 10/21/2025. https://www.pressherald.com/2025/10/21/graham-platner-addresses-tattoo-linked-to-nazis/> (Accessed: 2026-10-07).

(2) Kranebitter, Andreas et. al. (2026): Handbuch Rechtsextremismus in Österreich, 65. Falter: Vienna.

(3) Guilbert, Kieran (2025): US Senate candidate Graham Platner gets new tattoo to cover one with Nazi links. Euronews 10/22/2025. <https://www.euronews.com/2025/10/22/us-senate-candidate-graham-platner-gets-new-tattoo-to-cover-one-with-nazi-links>(Accessed: 2026-10-07).

(4) Klippenstein, Ken (2026): My Graham Platner Apology. Ken Klippenstein Substack 07/07/2026. <https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/my-graham-platner-apology> (Accessed: 2026-09-07).

(5) Serratore, Angela (2013): President Cleveland’s Problem Child. Smithsonian Magazine 09/26/2013. <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/president-clevelands-problem-child-100800/> (Accessed: 2026-09-07).

(6) Dotinga, Randy (2015): Warren Harding: the world takes another look at scandalous claims. Christian Science Monitor 08/19/2015. <https://www.csmonitor.com/Arts-Culture/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0819/Warren-Harding-the-world-takes-another-look-at-scandalous-claims> (Accessed: 2026-07-09).

(7) Ex-US Senator Al Franken regrets resigning over sexual misconduct claims. BBC News 07/22/2019. <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49074194> (Accessed: 2026-07-09).

(5) Mayer, Jane (2019): The Case of Al Franken. New Yorker 07/29/2019, 30-45.

Are we in the era of NATO 3.0?

I don’t recall seeing anyone use the term “NATO 3.0” until now. Or maybe I heard it and didn’t pay attention to it until now when the Polish Foreign Minister is using it:

Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister and a former defense minister [and husband of the American-Polish historian and political analyst Anne Applebaum], outlined the transformation of NATO after it was founded in the aftermath of World War II.

“NATO 1.0 was a clear defense against Soviet aggression and expansionism, and NATO 2.0 was a post-Cold War search for purpose,” he said in an interview, with the alliance looking outside North America and Europe and after Sept. 11, especially, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Russia was seen as a possible ally and certainly less of a threat, and some European NATO members effectively disarmed, he said.

But with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China’s rising ambitions and Washington wanting to shift resources to Asia away from Europe, Mr. Sikorski said, “NATO 3.0 will mean that Europe will take more of the burden for conventional defense and the U.S. will be more of a cavalry-over-the-hill kind of ally.” (1)

It’s true that for a time after 1989 NATO leaders actually did see Russia as “a possible ally.” The Kosovo War of 1998-1999 largely put an end to that hope. NATO formal declaration in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of NATO finished it for sure.

The exclusively defensive nature of NATO has never been an entirely accurate description, even in the pre-1989 decades. The “Cold War revisionist” historian William Appleman Williams elaborated a more nuanced view long ago in his famous book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (1959).

The EU vs. Disinfo website, which is not so hot on the whole “nuance” thing, not surprisingly dismisses the idea that NATO may not always have been a “purely defensive” alliance. It even insists that the post-1989 expansion of NATO wasn’t really an expansion: “the claim about NATO ‘expansion’ misrepresents the process of NATO enlargement. NATO does not ‘expand’ but considers the applications of candidate countries that want to join.” (2)

NATO countries in blue, 1990 (CNBC):

NATO countries in blue and light blue as of 2022 (CNBC) – Finland became a full member in 2023 and Sweden in 2024:

So, NATO didn’t expand, you see, it just got bigger and added more countries – including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all three of which were former Soviet republics.

It is possible for officially government-sponsored information services to provide, you know, accurate and quality reporting. But EU vs. Disinfo sticks closely to sloganeering.

It’s not surprising that the Polish Foreign Minister would stick to the official position that, “NATO 1.0 was a clear defense against Soviet aggression and expansionism.” But, in yet another case where multiple things can be true at the same time, NATO did organize itself around a military posture of defense and deterrence of a possible Soviet invasion. It was also the single largest element of American “force projection” and American strategic political influence. The fact that the US-NATO confrontation over decades with the Soviet Union was called the Cold War is an indication that it was not entirely a peaceful and benign one on either side.

It is also true that the Red Army never came pouring through the famous “Fulda Gap” to conquer West Germany. The Berlin Airlift confrontation also never came to a shooting war, but that was before the formation of NATO. Despite various incident like the Cuban Missile crisis and backing different sides in what were sometimes called “proxy wars,” the NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation stayed within the bounds of “peaceful coexistence.”

Deciphering the diplomatic reporting

I’m inclined to think “NATO 3.0” is a good name for the time since the Trump 2.0 regime took office in 2025. Though diplomatic conventions require some rhetorical dancing around even for the New York Times, it’s clear. One is that NATO members know that they cannot count on the United States to honor its mutual-defense commitments to them in case of military attack, even military attack by Russia.

Another is that the physically and mentally ailing Trump sees NATO as a kind of mob “protection racket” controlled by him. He made that clear in 2024 when he was running for President again:

Listen, NATO was busted until I came along. I said everybody’s going to pay. Are you still going to protect us? I said, absolutely not.

They couldn’t believe the answer. They asked me that question, one of the Presidents of a big country stood up, said “Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?”

He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” [I said,] No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want! You gotta pay! You got to pay yuh bills! (3)

The NATO members do not pay a membership fee to hire the US to protect them. There are agreed-upon targets for national spending based on a percentage of their GDP, which is really an arbitrary standard in terms of military preparedness but easy to calculate. And since other NATO members and NATO war plans rely heavily on US weapons systems, US defense contractors actually do make a lot of money from European military spending. That’s a big reason why, despite Trump’s general hostility to Europe, the Times reports

Though, of course, we know from long experience now that Trump does expect to get personal profits for himself, his family, and his cronies from his actions as President. So he really seems to understand NATO as a mob-style protection racket. As David Cay Johnston says repeatedly, “Donald Trump is the third-generation head of a four-generation white-collar crime family.”

The confrontation with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House early in his second term was a major signal to NATO allies that he didn’t much care about their concerns. Even more so, the experience early this year of European allies finding themselves having to prepare in concrete and immediate terms to a hostile military invasion from the US directed at NATO ally Denmark to seize Greenland as American territory also focused European’s leaders’ attentions in a very sharp way. And Trump has renewed his military threats against Denmark/Greenland and Canada just recently.

As we see in the Times article, in diplomacy-speak, the NATO countries talk about reassuring Washington on NATO burden-sharing and keeping the US engaged with European defense. What’s actually going on is that know they have to make collective-security arrangements that do not depend on active US participation. That’s a big task, it’s very complicated, and it’s very expensive.

According to the report, many NATO members seem to be using 2029 as a key moment for which to prepare:

Time may be short to prepare. German and many NATO officials say a battle-hardened Russia would be ready for a war against NATO by 2029, so the pressure is on Europe to become more “war ready,” as the Germans say, and on the United States not to create unnecessary vulnerabilities in the meantime.

As always, diplomats and war planners have to consider both the capabilities and the intentions of potential adversaries. That date presumably has more to do with projected Russian capabilities. Of course, we are hearing constantly from Ukraine’s boosters that the Russians are faring badly in the current war, so we have to wonder how strong their appetite for an even wider war even three years from now really may be. And we are constantly seeing optimistic (and likely overblown) claims that Russia’s economy is being badly damaged by the war.

Claims like the following always deserve a critical look: “European armies do not have enough troops, U.S. and NATO officials agree. For example, the British Army is at its smallest since Waterloo in 1815, with fewer than 70,000 full-time, trained personnel.”

Figures like that don’t tell us much. Imperial Britain also had a huge navy at the time. But no air force, no satellites and cyberwar resources, and no drones. Comparison of raw numbers of active-duty soldiers between 1815 and now tells us nearly nothing about actually present preparedness. And, also speaking of Ukraine, haven’t we been hearing constantly over the last year how Ukraine’s drone technology is revolutionizing warfare?

This also caught my attention:

NATO has been built to be led by an American supreme commander, with simultaneous control over American troops in Europe. The continent has competent generals, but no clear European command, since each ultimately reports to their own country’s political masters, said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official and director of the main defense industry trade body in Europe. Although European officials are normally either deputies to Americans or have an American deputy, overall command should remain with Washington, he argued.

“If there is only one American soldier left in Europe, it has to be” the American supreme commander, Mr. Grand said.

I’ll give the Times credit here for actually mentioning that “former senior NATO official” they quote is currently head of the biggest European defense industry lobbying group. It’s way too common for media not to mention when they are interviewing former generals that they are currently working for a defense industry or defense lobby.

And it wasn’t mentioned in the Times article. But Yanis Varoroufakis on Bluesky is not impressed with NATO’s decision to become have Peter Thiel’s Palantir play a major role in NATO operations.

The link he provides is to a July 7 article in the Times of London: Nato quietly puts trust in Palantir to move troops and identify targets.

Notes:

(1) Erlanger, Steven & Jakes, Lara (2026): In NATO’s Next Act, Can Europe Lead? New York Times 07/07/2026. Gift link: <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/world/europe/nato-trump-rutte-ankara-turkey.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wFA.Z4ci.DFJskr8GTkSE&smid=url-share> (Accessed: 2026-08-07).

(2) DISINFO: Claims that NATO is an exclusively defensive alliance are stupid and shameful. EU vs. Disinfo 07/01/2022. <https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/claims-that-nato-is-an-exclusively-defensive-alliance-are-stupid-and-shameful/> (Accessed : 2027-08-07).

(3) Donald Trump says he 'would encourage' Russia to attack non-paying Nato allies. BBC News 02/11/2024. <https://youtu.be/x7HE6bCe24g?si=oFwUApvvtDdQwtHM> (Accessed: 2026-08-07).

Quick hits: current politics, radical-right Catholicism, immigration, J.D. Vance and theocracy

Ryan Grim and Saagar Enjeti have a very good discussion on the latest turn in Graham Platner’s scandal in the Maine Senate election. They discuss the issues in evaluating the latest sexual assault claim against him and why there are good reasons to take it seriously, including how Platner himself responded to this latest development. (1)

Naomi Klein posted this on Bluesky the latest twist with Platner:

Woody Guthrie documentary

There is a recently-released documentary narrated by Rosanne Cash called “Woody Guthrie and the Ghost of Tom Joad Today.” The PBS link says it will be available there until 2029. TRIGGER WARNING: It’s very sympathetic to immigrants. Near the end we even see a banner that says, “God loves immigrants.” If you adhere to whatever the opposite of “woke” is supposed to be these days – Asleepism? – I promise you won’t like it! (1)

Russian saber rattling

This is part of the “new normal” with Russia and Europe:

In Swedish defence plans for 2025-30, a surprise attack on Gotland – either by air or sea aimed at setting up air and naval defence zones in the vicinity of the island – was named as one of seven potential situations that require prioritised planning. According to Swedish defence chiefs, from Gotland it is possible to control sea and air operations in the Baltic sea region and to control the entrance of reinforcements to Baltic states.

For now, there is not an immediate threat of a “conventional attack” [by Russia] on Gotland [an island that is part of Sweden], said [Swedish army commander in Gotland] Col. Andreas] Gustafsson, with espionage and sabotage more likely, but it cannot be ruled out. The island could be particularly vulnerable in the event of a ceasefire or peace deal with Ukraine, he said, in which case Russian forces could be quickly redispersed towards Finland and the Baltic states. “The risk is always that Russia becomes desperate. The more pressure Russia is under, the more desperate they can be as well.” (2)

Lincoln Republican Stuart Stevens on the perils of “consultant-itis” for the Democrats

Stuart Stevens, a longtime Republican campaign consultant, is one of the Never Trumpers that encourage the Democrats to use aggressive messaging against Republicans and a framing that doesn’t stay mired in repeating lists of “kitchen table” issues. (3)

As I always say about the Republican Never Trumpers, they encourage the Democrats to be aggressive in their campaigning. That’s because the Never Trumpers are Republicans, and Republicans think it’s a good idea to fight for their own side. So when they switch to supporting Democrats, it seems normal to them that Democrats should also fight for their own side and not get caught up in bland clichés like “No Red America, No Blue America” (Obama) or “The fever will break” (Biden).

J.D. Vance and “Catholic integralism”

One rightwing Christian idea with which our Opus Dei Vice President J.D. has shown some sympather is called “Catholic integralism.” Frank Cocozzelli explains: (5)

Simply put, it is the anti-pluralist belief that the Catholic faith should be the basis for civil law. Taken at face value, its application often violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Even the conservative writer George Weigel (whom I’ve often criticized) asked the question, “Haven’t we seen this before?” He then observed how this belief embodies the authoritarian of fascism.

Unlike Trump’s running mate, I believe in the separation of church and state. It is not because I am hostile to religion — far from it. I am a practicing Catholic, albeit one that dissents from several Church positions such as reproductive rights, stem cell research and prohibitions against married as well as female clergy. Instead, it is because government should not become the enforcer of any particular creed. That is the true essence of religious freedom.

Like with many such factions, there are variations. In this case “Neo-Integralism.”

This [Neo-Integralism], although itself a manifestation of [Catholic] Traditionalism, is strongly focused on the USA, distinguishes itself from the rest of the Austrian traditionalists in terms of personnel and is characterized above all by a more closed edifice of ideas, at the center of which stands the subordination of secular to spiritual authority - namely the papacy. Accordingly, Catholic Traditionalism is not based on a uniform ideology. But in its fundamentalist form, many of the actors [involved in it] nevertheless overlap, apart from Neo-Integralism in the core contents they propagate. (6)

To emphasize the main point, Neo-Integralism favors not just a “Christian Nation” but want secular governmental authority to be subordinated to the Catholic Church.

Someone should ask J.D. about this. I’m pretty sure there are quite a few American Christian Nationalists who support the Trumpist Republican Party who might have some concerns about making the Catholic Church the supreme governmental authority!

Notes:

(1) Dems ABANDON Platner After Devastating SA Allegations. Breaking Points 07/07/2026. <https://youtu.be/Xd1NfY1oOH4?si=M2G2n-pP1DEt-Quq> (Accessed: 2026-07-07).

(2) Woody Guthrie and the Ghost of Tom Joad Today. PBS 06/25/2026. <https://www.pbs.org/video/woody-guthrie-and-the-ghost-of-tom-joad-today-ynvxeh/>

(3) Bryant, Miranda (2026): ‘The risk is Russia becomes desperate’: the Swedish Baltic Sea island preparing for invasion. Guardian 07/05/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/05/gotland-russia-sweden-ramps-up-defence-baltic-sea-island> (Accessed: 2026-07-07).

(4) Stuart Stevens: Democrats Need to Attack Harder. Lincoln Square YouTube channel 07/06/2026. <https://youtu.be/91bWM44ZmFo?si=eG04-vZ1nK6CIl_2> (Accessed: 2026-07-07).

(5) Cocozzelli, Frank (2026): Catholic Integralism, J.D. Vance And Me, (First of Two Essays). Daily Kos 07/21/2024. <https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/21/2256324/community/Catholic-Integralism-J-D-Vance-And-Me-First-of-Two-Essays/> (Accessed: 2026-01-06).

(6) Reinfandt, et. al.: Religiöser Fundamentalismus und Rechtsextremismus. In: Kranebitter, Andreas et. at., eds. (2026): Handbuch Rechtsextremismus in Österreich, 359-360. Falter: Vienna. My translation to English.