US-Israel War on Iran – until 2029?

I shocked myself listening to a PBS segment a few weeks ago in which David “Bobo” Brooks said he wouldn’t be surprised if the current war with Iran is still going on in January 2029. (1) I’m so used to rolling my eyes at what Bobo has to say about wars, I was surprised that my immediate reaction was, well, he could be right about that!

Given the negative effects of a continuing war on the world economy, that seems hard to imagine. But we could be looking at just that. Scott Lucas recently commented on how the war is continuing and spreading: (2)

The problem is that the only way of avoiding a years-long war is for the US to pull out of the war. Robert Pape in the podcasts below talks about why that turns out to be a difficult decision for leaders to make.

But Trump did make a decision to do just that in Afghanistan in the withdrawal agreement he negotiated with the Taliban in 2020, during his first term. Sylvie Kauffmann reported for Le Monde English:

To begin with, Trump negotiated his withdrawal agreement with the Taliban on his own. Alone, meaning not only were Western partners not consulted, but even the Afghan government was excluded from the talks, a Taliban condition that the US president accepted.

The main concern for the Republican president was to succeed where Barack Obama had failed. He wanted to boast in his 2020 campaign for re-election that he was bringing the boys home. The details of the deal mattered little. [my emphasis] (3)

It was a sloppy deal, which didn’t even involve the US client government in Afghanistan, only the US and the Taliban. But it was left to the Biden Administration to implement the withdrawal in 2021. And Trump is still trashing Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan on terms Trump himself agreed to. Would the actual withdrawal itself have been better executed if Trump had been re-elected? Theoretically it’s possible, though it’s hard to imagine. Impossible to imagine, actually.

Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan described the withdrawal as follows:

The president [Biden] had deep conviction on this issue. He thought we had to end the era of forever wars. Whenever he posed the question, how and when does this end, other than with the US just deciding we are calling it, he did not get a satisfactory answer. The answer tended to be one more year and then one more year, and then, finally, President Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that set the date of May 1 2021, for all American troops to be out of Afghanistan. And that was the situation president Biden confronted when he came in. So he had a choice: he could either let May pass and go back to war with the Taliban, at which point he would have had to add troops because Trump had drawn us down to 2,500. So send more forces to fight and die in Afghanistan in the war’s 20th year. Or choose to follow through on a withdrawal, which we then executed over the next four months.

And for President Biden, part of this overall story of renewing the sources of American strength was also taking the massive strategic liability of an endless war in which America was spending blood and treasure and bringing it to a close. And you said it all went wrong. What I would say is that the withdrawal had significant challenges and tragedy, the loss of 13 American service members. But, sitting here today in 2025, I would be happy to debate people who say, no, no no, we should still be in Afghanistan. [my emphasis] (4)

That was a case where just deciding to leave was the only real way from keeping on with an indefinite war that was doing nothing for American interests. Obama as President could have and should have pulled US forces out – but that’s another story. So just pulling out of a forever war is something that Trump knows about.

The huge difference between that war and the current one against Iran is that Afghanistan did not have the ability to bring on a worldwide depression. And the Iran War has involved numerous countries in the Middle in direct combat operations, including Israel. A US exit from the war on terms that will fully restore traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait being blocked by Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen will have to involve the US putting some substantive restraints on Israel. Iran has been demanding that an agreement would have to include Israeli withdrawal from territory it is illegally occupying in Lebanon and Syria.

And one weakness that the US, Israel, and their allies have is the present shortage of missile interceptors. Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently observed recently:

[T]he U.S. arsenal is depleted. Some elements are quite depleted. We looked at seven munitions that have been heavily used in the war against Iran. Half of them, we've used a quarter to a third, and about half of them, we've used half of the available inventories, and that creates a what we call a window of vulnerability. There are alternatives, but the alternatives involve greater risk. So it will take several years - one to five - to replace these and then another several years after that to get to where the war planners want to be. …

There are the air and missile defense munitions, Patriot is probably the one most people have heard about. And then there are long-range attack munitions. Tomahawk is probably the one that people have heard of. [my emphasis] (5)

In other words, it would require some complex diplomacy by the Trump 2.0 regime. And we haven’t seen much evidence that they are capable of such a thing. So, we really could be looking at Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb Straits still closed in January of 2029. And much, much more regional damage in between. Having a US Administration with no actual strategic concepts for foreign policy and no evident ability to conduct normal, competent diplomacy is really a problem.

Israel, of course, remains a major factor and influence on US policy in the Middle East. Given that the Israeli goal for years has been to weaken all potentially rival government in the area while annexing more and more territory contingent to Israel, the current Israeli government is presumably happy about the level of destruction and disruption the US-Israel War on Iran has brought about.

Another legacy from Trump 1.0 is, of course, the cancellation of the JCPOA, the solid nuclear agreement that the Obama Administration negotiated with Iran. Trump in his first term, acting in concert with the demands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pulled out of the agreement which acted as an effective guarantee that Iran would not acquire a nuclear weapon.

Robert Pape has been doing a lot of interviews this year on the Iran War, which he has been wargaming for years and consulting for the US military on the topic. He presents a sobering picture of the present stance of the Trump 2.0 regime on the war. (6)

In the second podcast at the same YouTube channel, Pape addresses the ways in which Russia has also been affected by an escalation trap in the Russia-Ukraine War, another conflict which Trump 2.0’s lack of strategy and competent diplomacy hasn’t been able to stop. (7) Despite Trump’s infamous campaign promise to stop that war on his first day in office.

Notes:

(1) Brooks and Marcus on the Iran conflict becoming a 'forever war'. PBS NewsHour YouTube channel 07/25/2026. <https://youtu.be/PfqRRLcWFRQ?si=EOu5wMWAnbzxHH8t> (Accessed: 2026-27-07).

(2) US War on Iran Becomes An "Uncontained War" Across Region. Scott Lucas Worldview YouTube channel 09/12/20206. <https://youtu.be/ZLZts79_egU?si=EUIN1PsoYD6ZYcCG> (Accessed: 2026-12-09).

(3) Kauffmann, Sylvie (2025): The 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, a solo decision. Le Monde English 06/19/2025. <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/history/article/2025/06/19/the-2021-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-a-solo-decision_6742489_157.html ?srsltid=AfmBOoqoZzZqKT2R4Qagmuopae2deEzfszOHkMvfDtK0r6ILSRpMI008> (Accessed: 2026-27-07).

(4) Rachman, Gideon (2025): Transcript: A foreign policy debrief with Jake Sullivan. Financial Times 05/29/2025. <https://www.ft.com/content/515f4d78-be95-4e09-9be2-8663d0f6d2ec?syn-25a6b1a6=1> (Accessed: 2026-27-07).

(5) Defense strategy expert reviews how the Iran War drains vital U.S. missile inventories. NPR 07/25/2026. <https://www.npr.org/2026/07/25/nx-s1-5904597/defense-strategy-expert-reviews-how-the-iran-war-drains-vital-u-s-missile-inventories> (Accessed: 2026-27-07).

(6) Iran War Expert EXPOSES Trump ESCALATION TRAP!!! (1 of 2). Legal AF YouTube channel 07/26/2026. (Accessed: 2026-26-07).

(7) Iran War Expert REVEALS Trump's CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (2 of 2). Legal AF YouTube channel 07/26/2026. <https://youtu.be/oU_urdNNJJE?si=VFX4iTZc63W9GLV2> (Accessed: 2026-27-07).

Iran War punditry: A coincidental encounter with Bobo and Ruth on PBS

David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart are the two regulars on the PBS Newshour’s weekly wrap-up discussion of the news. This feature has been running for decades. On Friday, Ruth Marcus was sitting in for Capehart. I realized to my shock about two minutes into the segment that I’d hadn’t yet heard any groan-inducing banalities.

Back during the 2000s, it was common for the left-of-center blogosphere to refer to David Brooks as “Bobo,” after his 2000 book Bobos in Paradise. “Bobo” was supposed to be a nickname for “bourgeois bohemian.” But that longer phrase never really caught on, I’m sure not least because Americans have a hard time pronouncing “bourgeois.”

But the nickname did stick to Bobo himself for a long time and was part of his image of trying half-creative ways of making stale conservatives truisms sound not totally senseless. A project which never succeeded very well.

So it was like a blast from the past to me today when I called up the latest weekly wrap-up, (1) which had dropped away over time from my regular weekend fare. That’s why I was so surprised when the first things that Bobo and Ruth said didn’t sound hopelessly superficial. That could be because they’re stepped up their reporting a bit. Or maybe because even the flakiest attempt at legitimate news commentary sounds deeply profound in comparison to Donald Trump’s constant ravings.

Bobo says right at the start, “I try not to make predictions because I'm not a total idiot, but I do think -- it would not surprise me if this war were still going on in January of 2029, when Trump leaves office.” Which made me think that I hadn’t heard anyone vocalizing that, but it strikes me as an entirely plausible possibility. And he enlarged on the thought:

I just don't think he cares. I don't think he cares about the midterms. I don't think he cares about gas prices. I think he cares about legacy.

And he wants to see himself as a man who remade the Middle East. And he would not be the first U.S. president who had that illusion. And he talks about -- there's scuttlebutt today that the Cabinet is gathering to think maybe we should do a big massive expansion of the war.

I don't think we have the material to do that, like the missiles, all that kind of stuff. So it would not surprise me if this dragged on with this, what we have been seeing the last couple months, the missile, missile, missile exchanges, small exchanges, this, that, talk, non-talk.

And that could go on forever. And MAGA came into office saying we will have no more forever wars. Well, here we are.

Ruth responds by saying:

He's gotten us into the kind of forever war that he's pledged that he was going to avoid. And it's not even a forever war. It's like a Groundhog Day war, because we're in this same cycle of threats and then retrenchment and threats and retrenchment, and we have an MOU and we don't have it.

I don't actually see how this could continue, even if he wanted it to, through January of 2029. Is that what we have to get to?

I quoted Dan Drezner a couple of days ago writing with dismay, “I am … simply unprepared for a world in which [Bill] Kristol sounds way more radical than Ezra Klein.” And by that, he meant that Kristol seemed to be much further on the center-left of the spectrum than Ezra.

And I’m not prepared for a world in which Bobo and Ruth Marcus sound sensible and realistic!

Bobo even managed to give a good explanation about how the Trumpists actually do have a ground operation that is effective at turning out Republicans to vote and maintains a notably more cohesive party structure than the Democrats.

By the end of their 10-minute segment, I was leaning heavily toward the theory that I had somehow entered a parallel universe. But the sky outside hasn’t turned green on anything. And the physicists say that if there are parallel universes, it’s not possible to cross from into the other. So I’m left to wonder how this startling event happened.

Most foreign policy experts that I take seriously – John Mearsheimer and Robert Pape are two that pop to mind – are saying that there no obvious way that the United States can achieve anything in the immediate future that will look like a win for the US, though many of the Trump cultists will pretend to believe whatever he says about it. But it’s also obvious that staying in the war will also eventually end with the results being a loss and a major mess for the US, the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, and large parts of the rest of the world.

Former Vermont Sen. George Aiken is mainly remembered, at least outside his home state, as recommending that the Johnson Administration should solve the Vietnam with the formula, "declare victory and get out." That would still be the most sensible basic approach for the US in Iran. I hear commentators saying that Trump should just “take the L” [for “loss”] i.e., just pull out of the war.

But there’s another well-known foreign policy maximum that even Lyndon Johnson liked to use: It’s easier to get into a war than to get out of it. (Although I believe LBJ’s version was a bit more colorful.) In the case of the current US-Israel War on Iran, just pulling out won’t satisfy Iran’s demand for release of frozen Iranian funds or for some kind of real peace agreement with both the US and Israel that would include Israel surrendering territory it currently occupies back to Lebanon and Syria. And by blocking the Strait of Iran and having their Houthi allies in Yemen block Saudi Arabia from using the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Iran can do serious damage to large parts of the world economy. Iran may also insist on specific conditions

And the genuine incompetence of the Trump 2.0 regime’s diplomacy – if it even deserves the name of diplomacy in any normal sense – can’t be overlooked as a major problem. How can they get any kind of meaningful war-termination agreement on which both sides could agree would require diplomatic competence of a kind we have yet to see from Washington in this war.

MS NOW reports:

The Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual standstill because of President Donald Trump’s foolish war, and now, in what represents a new global energy price nightmare, Houthi militants in Yemen have begun to block a separate corridor [the Bab el-Mandeb Strait] that is critical for global oil shipping. On Thursday, oil surged past $100 a barrel for the first time since May in response to the news that the war with Iran is on the brink of expanding to a new front. And Trump’s promise to bomb the Houthis should they continue is unlikely to improve the situation.

Those Houthi militants, who are allied with and supported by Iran, announced Monday that they would were [sic] enacting a blockade in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait against Saudi Arabia. The Houthis said their blockade is retaliation for airstrikes against a Yemeni airport intended to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing. (Yemen’s Saudi-backed government claimed credit for the attack.) On Thursday, the Houthis said they had attacked two Saudi oil tankers and successfully warned 10 more to turn back. (Saudi Arabia’s official news agency confirmed at least one tanker was hit.) (2)

Notes:

(1) Brooks and Marcus on the Iran conflict becoming a 'forever war'. PBS Newshour 07/24/2026. <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brooks-and-marcus-on-the-iran-conflict-becoming-a-forever-war> (Accessed: 2026-25-07).

(2) Allem, Zeeshan (2026): The Houthis’ commandeering of a Red Sea strait is a huge deal. MS NOW 07/24/2026. <https://www.ms.now/opinion/houthis-red-sea-ship-strait-oil-bab-al-mandab-trump-iran> (Accessed: 2026-25-07).

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).

Two wars with no obvious quick ends in sight

The US is facing huge risks from two current wars, one of whose risks are more immediate and acute for Europe. Both the Russia-Ukraine War and especially the US-Israel War on Iran would require at a very minimum competent diplomacy from Washington to resolve. And that factor is very much in short supply at the moment.

The Iran disaster

There is obviously a good chance that the negotiations with Iran will not lead to a permanent settlement or even an end to the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz oil traffic. The clock is ticking and it sounds like in three or four weeks, much more devastating economic effects of the oil blockade will be making themselves felt.

Klye Kulinski takes an 18-minute look at what the White House is putting forward this week on the US-Israel War on Iran. (Note: Kyle often uses not-appropriate-for-the-office language, though not so much in this segment.) And gives us a disturbing glimpse at what a train wreck the Trump 2.0 regime is on war policy. (1)

This war is certainly a joint folly of the Trump Administration and the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is also the case that Israel has been pushing for the war. And Netanyahu himself has been doing so for decades. But Donald Trump is the President, and he bears full responsibility for his bad decisions. Kyle speculates plausibly that Israel, among other things, is exercising blackmail against Trump.

Netanyahu's Israel is following an aggressive policy against its Middle Eastern neighbors with the goal of making and maintaining itself the unquestioned regional hegemon there, with Syria, Lebanon, and Iran reduced to failed states. They are currently pushing to have the Sunni Islamist government in Damascus fight on Israel’s behalf inside Lebanon against the Iran-allied Hizbollah. in It is also pursuing an expansionist policy in line with the explicit from-the-river-to-the-sea policy of Netanyahu’s Likud Party and his current governing coalition, including a continuation of the overtly genocidal policies against Palestinians Israel has pursued since the October 7 attack in 2023.

But, reckless and illegal as much of that policy is, at least Israel is pursuing a goal that is in their perceived national interest. That doesn’t mean that it fully rational. It’s not. The Netanyahu version of Zionism is highly ideological and religious. It also has huge inherent risks for Israel itself, not least of which that its prospects are dependent on the military and diplomatic support of the United States.

But the current US-Israel war against Iran carries huge risks for America, as we see in the current blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. And the economic damage to the US and the whole world is already serious (2) and may very well get much worse. Whatever substantive benefit the US might in some ways take from this is very hard to perceive at the moment.

The Trump regime’s current stance is looking awfully like a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis. That’s a better metaphor than, say, “sleepwalking.” Because everyone can see the train running full speed down the tracks directly in front of us.

The Russia-Ukraine Forever War

The war that began with the direct Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has gone on for over four years. By all accounts, the lines of conflict between the Russian occupiers and Ukrainian forces have not shifted in really significant way since the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023. It’s still a war of attrition with Russian forces deeply entrenched in the four provinces (oblasts) of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The province of Crimea that Russia seized in 2014 has been subject to heavy and effective Ukrainian attacks. But the success of the Ukraine’s drone-based warfare against the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, Crimea’s significant as the main base for that fleet is largely nullified for the moment. Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine establishes full control of Crimea while the other four provinces are still largely under Russian control, it’s hard to see how that would much improve Ukraine’s position in the war over the other occupied provinces.

John Mearsheimer, who has been often-depressingly correct about Ukraine’s position in the war since 2022, has also been pointing to signals that Russia has been signaling that it may stage a direct attack on a NATO country to pressure Europe (and the US, which is still providing some support for Ukraine) to limit its support for Ukraine.) How serious are they about the hinted threats? It’s hard for the public to know. But it’s not an entirely frivolous one. And though the Europeans are generally pretty hawkish in their rhetoric and have been hailing the Ukrainian strikes deeper into Russian territory, we have to hope and assume that they are paying close attention to their options for response in such a case. Because Ukraine is not part of NATO. Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are. As overused as the word “credibility” is in foreign policy debates, any direct Russian military attack on a target inside the territory of a NATO ally really would mean that the Western response would provide an important test of the alliance’s credibility.

Mearsheimer has recently been emphasizing that the US position in relation to Iran is remarkably weak. But he has also been saying that the Russians have been very slowly advancing on the front lines inside Ukraine recently. (3) The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been doing daily updates on the military situation in the war.

And their recent updates seem consistent with Mearsheimer’s, like that he gives toward the end of this recent interview, which also discusses the Iran War. (4)

The German academic journal Osteuropa has also been keeping a war diary of the Russia-Ukraine War. While it tends to put an optimistic face on Ukraine’s prospects, they also reflect the view that of Russia making very slow progress in the war of attrition in Ukraine in Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. A July 1 update finds:

Overall, the Russian army is thus continuing its summer offensive despite Ukraine's successful air strikes on the supply lines in the rear area. This is certainly possible because it has set up camps in the area close to the front that Ukraine has not yet discovered. Ukraine has also not yet succeeded in eliminating Russia's strategic bomber fleet, which continues to cover the Ukrainian army's offshore positions with a carpet of heavy glide bombs. The situation at the front remains tense. Ukraine has not yet outdone all of Russia's trump cards.

Russia's military bloggers are showing themselves to be extremely concerned about the situation of Moscow's troops in this area [in the Zaporizhzhia oblast]. They fear that they could not only have to give up the positions they took in January 2025 at the price of thousands of soldiers killed, but also lose Vasylivka [also in Zaporizhzhia], which has been controlled [by the Russians] since March 2022. (5)

There has also been a confusing spate of discussion recently about the supposed success of Ukraine’s drone strikes deeper inside Russia and the alleged weakness of the Russian economy. It’s generally true of humanity, despite our long history of armed conflict, that most people would really prefer not to have wars. And that ordinary people gripe about the deaths and lesser inconveniences that come with wars. There are exceptions, of course, like our Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth. But fortunately, most people are not drooling warmongers, despite the reflexive support that people tend to give wars being waged by their own country, at least in the early weeks of a conflict. (The majority disapproval in the US of the Iran War from its beginning on February 28 on is a dramatic exception. Maybe even an anthropological exception.)

But Russia is also having a military-Keynesianism moment, with boosted military production contributing to generally low unemployment. There are reports of shortages and hardships, but I find it hard to evaluate their significance for the Russian war effort. And Russia does have a far larger population and economy than Ukraine’s. Ukraine has understandably touted its success in striking targets in Moscow and St. Petersburg, including war-related infrastructure like oil refineries. And Ukraine’s partisans in the West seem to be convinced that those attacks are increasing public discontent against Putin’s government.

Of course, Russia is also bombing civilian centers in Ukraine, too. And Ukraine is still carrying on the war into its fifth year.

It’s really a remarkable thing how much faith so many pundits and people who generally should know better have in ability of attacks on civilian areas to “break the will” of the civilian population. Bombing from airplanes began in 1912 during the First Balkan War and was practiced by both Germany and Britain in the First World War.

After the war, an Italian named Giulio Douhet wrote a book called Command of the Air (1921), which was extremely influential on airwar theorists in the interwar period, in which he expressed faith in the effectiveness of deliberately bombing civilian targets on breaking the will to resist of the enemy’s civilian population. One could even say a religious faith:

A people who are bombed today as they were bombed yesterday, who know they will be bombed again tomorrow and see no end to their martyrdom, are bound to call for peace at length. It may be two weeks, two months, or six months, depending upon the intensity of the offensive and the stoutness of the people’s hearts. [my emphasis] (6)

Bombing to destroy the morale of enemy civilians was known as “morale” bombing during the Second World War. Now it is more commonly described as a “punishment campaign.”

The effect predicted by Douhet of such campaigns has never happened. (7) There was even experience already from the First World War to indicate that was a false hope. British and German civilians did make demands on their government after such attacks: demands to provide better protection from such attacks and to retaliate in kind on the enemy side. Seeing one’s neighbor wrecked and your neighbors and family members killed and wounded by enemy bombing doesn’t tend to make people eager to surrender to the side that dropped the bombs, even if they hate their own government for whatever reason. They also have maximum incentive to cooperate actively with their neighbors and their own government for civil defense purposes.

Without pretending to be thoroughly familiar with the war reports, it’s hard for me to imagine that the long-range Ukrainian bombing inside Russia is substantively affecting Russia abilities to fight along the front lines of the war of attrition.

Notes:

(1) Iran GHOSTS TRUMP As White House PANICS In War Briefing To Congress! Secular Talk YouTube channel 07/01/2026. <https://youtu.be/2yh4r8BFQsM?si=5zgMEY7aCxCM7Oug> (Accessed: 2026-07-02).

(2) The Iran War Broke The American Empire. Owen Jones YouTube channel 06/21/2026. <https://youtu.be/L_ucoGhwxCs?si=-XBHH9iemS_af2Q6> (Accessed: 2026-07-02).

(3) Mearsheimer DIRE WARNING On Russia/Ukraine. Breaking Points YouTube channel 06/23/2026. <https://youtu.be/Q-AiLUd4E8Q?si=ZnwQ1uclV1etSkD1> (Accessed: 2026-07-02).

(4) Prof. John Mearsheimer: Making Sense of Iran’s Victory Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom YouTube channel 06/30/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/XtINoZon8as?si=HGHWeDztZIcr-xA3> (Accessed: 2026-07-02).

(5) Mitrokhin, Nikolay (2026): Wechsel der strategischen Initiative. Osteuropa 07/01/2026. <https://zeitschrift-osteuropa.de/blog/wechsel-der-strategischen-initiative/> (Accessed: 2026-07-02). My translation to English.

(6) Douhet, Giulio (2019 [1921]): Command of the Air, 245. Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press. (1921 Reprint of 1921 edition)

(7) See: Pape, Robert (1996): Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Davis Biddle, Tami (2002): Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing 1914-1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The US, Israel, and the MOU with Iran

We do have an official Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran. It establishes a 60-day period of discussions designed to lead to definite agreements. The version published by Haaretz and Reuters continues this wording in the first if 14 points.

Commentators have noted the symbolism of the US and Iran official signing this agreement in Versailles, the site of the German acceptance of the Versailles Treaty in June of 1919. It was a humiliating moment for Germany, who was the loser in the agreement. And the Treaty itself is genuinely recognized as having been a terrible one from the viewpoint of preventing a future war.

At the moment, many politicians and news analysts are noting that in that analogy, the US is in the position of Germany, having started a war in partnership with Israel and is now essentially surrendering. It’s a valid point and critics are right to point out how it acknowledges in practice what a spectacular failure the war has been for the US and Israel since they began it on February 28.

The MOU text provided by the US even contains 14 numbered paragraphs, which surely some diplomats involved recognized as a remainder of Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points that he had hoped to make the basis for the peace treaty at Versailles.

Trita Parsi cautions antiwar critics about framing that point in such a way that it gives surface validation to the neocons, whose only objection to the MOU is that it could stop the war they want to see continued.

The criticism coming from some Democrats is particularly disappointing because it echoes the same bad-faith tactics Republicans deployed against the JCPOA in 2015. To be sure, Trump has invited some of this treatment. He spent years attacking Obama’s agreement with a barrage of misleading arguments and exaggerated claims.

But that does not make it wise for Democrats to return the favor.

Trump currently owns this failed war, but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war. Trump’s disaster will become theirs as well. (1)

He has this advice for opponents of the war:

Rather than attacking the terms of the MOU, Democrats should pressure the administration to protect it from those who are determined to see it fail. The main external threat is the Israeli government and Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsession with sabotaging any opportunity for Iran and the United States to bury the hatchet.

Instead of relying solely on angry phone calls and public rebukes of Netanyahu, supporters of ending the war should press Trump to act now: suspend military aid to Israel and curtail military and intelligence cooperation. Such measures would limit Israel’s ability to reignite the conflict and dispel any notion in Tel Aviv that Washington will automatically follow Israel into another war. If Israeli leaders understand that the United States will not be drawn into a future conflict on their behalf, their incentive to start one in the first place will be significantly reduced. [my emphasis]

The MOU is not a peace settlement. But the alternative for the US right now in not using the opportunity to push forward to one based on the MOU’s 60-day timetable is basically a choice between resuming the war (Israel’s and Netanyahu goal) or risking Iran continuing the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely.

Trita on Substack Notes focuses on the potential political appeal of making a successful peace agreement with Iran:

However, Israel can be expected to work intensely during the MOU period to sabotage any peace deal. And is already doing so.

But the MOU itself states:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), declare 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. [my emphasis]

To make Israel comply with a ceasefire with Lebanon, Washington will almost certainly have to actually cut off a significant portion of US aid to Israel and be willing to back that up with a basically complete halt if Netanyahu’s government doesn’t cooperate. Since Netanyahu’s critics in the current Israeli election campaign are criticizing him for not being hard enough with the US, Iran, Lebanon and with the illegal ethnic cleansing and land theft in Gaza and the West Bank, keeping Israel on-side with the ceasefire will require more determination and diplomatic skill than Trump has ever shown in his dealings with Israel so far.

David Hearst speculates that scuttling this deal will be a significant challenge for Israel, although they certainly are trying to do so already:

The pieces of the jigsaw of Israel’s regional strategy that could survive Netanyahu’s strategic setback - the land that Israel has occupied and cleansed of its inhabitants in Gaza, South Lebanon and Syria, the undeclared security pact with Abu Dhabi, the use of Somaliland as base of forward projection - all these remain.

The project could be continued at any time. But what Netanyahu has lost is the interest of the current US president in backing this dream.

It will be a long time before another Israeli prime minister will be allowed to sit opposite a serving US president in the situation room under the White House, as Netanyahu did with Trump on 11 February, this year, and spin him a bunch of lies. [my emphasis] (2)

After decades of both parties in the US celebrating Israel as a loyal and valuable ally of the US, that’s a hard argument for even Israel’s most devout supporters among in Congress to make coherently. The US support for Netanyahu’s literally genocidal response to the October 7 attack in 2023 drastically changed Israel’s image in American politics and implicated the US in that grotesque war. Now going along with Israel on the Iraq War has turned into a serious strategic setback for the US and further alienated the traditional European allies – who Trump doesn’t want to be allied with any longer anyway. Plus, it demonstrated how little meaning American security guarantees to its Arab allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar may actually have.

Israel has even been saber-rattling against Türkiye, which is a NATO ally even though they can’t count on the Trump 2.0 regime’s support in a conflict. But the European NATO members do take their NATO commitments seriously. And with the US-Iran MOU:

Trump once again counted Turkey, alongside Pakistan and Qatar, among the countries that had significantly helped secure a memorandum of understanding with Iran. He also adopted an increasingly combative tone towards Israel.

... Turkish officials activated contingency plans along the eastern border with Iran to prevent a possible wave of refugees from entering the country. Secondly, Israeli officials had been pushing plans to use Iranian Kurds to spearhead an insurgency in western Iran.

Ankara was worried that the use of Kurdish groups could affect its own peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and push Turkey into a Syria-like scenario, in which Kurds based near its border took control of territory and posed a security challenge [to the Syrian state from its viewpoint].

As Israeli and US attacks on Iranian targets intensified, so too did rhetoric from within Netanyahu's cabinet that "Turkey is next after Iran", heightening concerns in Ankara about the potential spillover effects of a collapse in Iranian state authority. [my emphasis] (3)

Michael Nilshtein at Ynet Global looks at the current situation from an Israeli perspective:

Decision-makers are trying to present the difficult situation created by the bad agreement with Iran, the Lebanon entanglement and the crisis with Washington as a “collective challenge.” The damage and the threat are indeed national, but the failure that led to them stems from the policy of a leadership that does not enjoy internal consensus. …

In the face of the multi-front strategic trap in which Israel is sinking, only one achievement remains to wave about: the seizure of territory on three fronts and the claim that this has changed reality and strengthened Israel’s security. Some in the government are even promising to move toward expulsion, annexation and settlement in areas that were taken, in other words, imposing a sectoral vision disguised as “a project that serves us all.”

This is exactly the point at which the public must prove that it has learned the lessons of October 7 and challenge the assumptions handed down to it from above with such certainty. It must ask what the meaning is of a prolonged presence in all the territories that have been captured, what security and diplomatic price that presence carries, and whether there is a sober alternative in the form of bringing local and foreign forces into hostile areas while preserving freedom of action against the enemy. [my emphasis] (4)

Netanyahu’s current strategic approach involves establishing military hegemony of Israel in the Middle East, with weak regimes in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria; permanent Israeli control and eventual annexation of Gaza and the West Bank; and, periodic “mowing the lawn” attacks on its neighbors to keep their governments weak. Israel is also illegally occupying territory in southern Lebanon and conducting an ethnic cleansing operation there, as well. It has also annexed the Golan Heights and other Syrian territory.

So, achieving international stability in the Middle East and orderly passage through the Strait of Hormuz means that the US will have to restrain Israel, now and for the foreseeable future, from its habitual military aggressions against its neighbors.

And in that sense, American national interests are in serious conflict at the moment with the self-definition of Israeli national interest on which the Israeli government is currently operating.

But if the first couple of days of the 60-day ceasefire in the MOU are any measure, it’s going to be a major challenge to keep up with which side is saying what about who violated it when and how.

John Mearsheimer, perhaps defying Trita Parsi’s advice, argues that the MOU represents “unconditional surrender” on Trump’s part. (5)

Notes:

(1) Parsi, Trita (2026): Trump ended his idiotic Iran war. Good. Responsible Statecraft 06/18/2026. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ends-war-critics/> (Accessed: 2026-20-06),

(2) Hearst, David (2026): Trump's U-turn on Iran war has ended Israel's Middle East dream. Middle East Eye 06/17/2026. > (Accessed: 2026-20-06),

(3) Soyhu, Ragip (2026): Turkey emerges unscathed from the Iran war. Middle East Eye 06/17/2026. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-emerges-unscathed-iran-war> (Accessed: 2026-23-06).

(4) Milshtein, Michael (2026): Israel’s self-inflicted trap: How fantasy gave way to strategic retreat. Ynet Global 06/21/2026. <https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/ry11hglrffl> Accessed: 2026-23-06).

(5) Prof. John Mearsheimer : Israel Undermining US/Iran Deal. Judge Napolitano-Judging Freedom. YouTube channel 06/20/2026. <https://www.youtube.com/live/YNME3CUvYpk?si=VDLFjoEQfYKK0VoC> (Accessed: 2026-21-06).

How does a Netanyahu ceasefire work?

Like this: they cease, we fire.

Iran is continuing to demand a settlement with Israel agreeing to stop invading and attacking Lebanon. This is not promising:

Haaretz, 4:36PM 06/19/2026:

Haaretz, around 45 minutes later:

Has the US-Israel War on Iran ended? (Hint: No)

The US-Israel War on Iran was a massive blunder for US foreign policy. Various commentators like Robert Pape are saying this may be the biggest US strategic defeat in the history of US foreign policy. Not in terms of lives lost, of course. But in terms of the failure to achieve the political goals of the war and in terms of a great increase in Iran strategic clout.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon discusses the current situation in an interview with Maddie Hale of The Trump Report. (1)

Dan Perry – optimistically assuming the war is now over – writes:

A war that began with immense ambition has ended with profound setbacks for both the United States and Israel.

With an emerging U.S.-Iran peace agreement, what initially appeared to be a historic demonstration of military dominance evolved into a vivid illustration of the limits of both Israeli and American power. The conflict also exposed profound failures in strategic competence within that alliance. Washington and Jerusalem planned effectively for the initial decapitation strikes, but were unprepared for the economic and geopolitical consequences that followed.

The result is a war that may ultimately strengthen the Iranian regime politically, despite the damage it suffered militarily; has weakened international perceptions of American military might; and has diminished both Israel’s own strategic circumstances and its most important alliance. [my emphasis] (2)

Israel remains a wild card in the war. Iran is demanding that Israel pull out of Lebanon and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is carrying on the conflict there. Netanyahu’s goal is to make Israel the undisputed hegemon in the Middle East that will have the freedom to periodically attack its neighboring countries: “mowing the grass” periodically, as Israel describes its many colonial military operations in Gaza.

The US and Israel have divergent goals here. Netanyahu’s government wants the US to continually support its military attacks on its neighbors including Iran. That is not in the US national interest. And the public opinion polls in this election year show broad public support in Israel for an even more aggressive policy against Iran and the Palestinians. The blatantly illegal and violent aggressions against Gaza and the West Bank are continuing, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians proceeds. So even if Netanyahu is not able to stay as Prime Minister after this year’s elections, there is no obvious immediate prospect that a new Israeli government would back away from the attempt to have the US continue to back an aggressive Israeli military policy against its neighbors and its colonial possession in Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, Trump just bizarrely suggested that he wanted the current Islamist government of Syria under former Al-Qaida and ISIS terrorist leader Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Zvi Bar'el explains what a ridiculous idea that is – though that certainly doesn’t guarantee that Trump and Netanyahu won’t give it a try. It’s a New York real estate negotiating approach to the Middle East:

The president of the United States, in a moment of honesty and based on his experience as a real estate entrepreneur, presented his new plan for solving the war in Lebanon. "If Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job, Syria will do the job," Donald Trump said on Tuesday, referring to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, during a meeting with the Qatari prime minister at the G7 meeting in France.

"He's [al-Sharaa] very capable. And he's been very good for me. He's protected everything that I've asked for… And if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, he'll do the job."

That's how it is in a business where time is money. When a construction project takes too long to complete and results in too many houses being needlessly demolished, there's no choice but to replace the contractor. Israel should have been alert to the fact that Trump doesn't see eye to eye with it about the Lebanon theatre, which has rapidly turned from an Israeli battleground into a bargaining chip for Iran in a game Trump has already forfeited. [my emphasis] (3)

He also reminds us, “Lebanon is an inseparable part of the tangible guarantees Tehran is demanding as proof that the U.S. can meet its commitments.”

This war will not be over until there is actually a peace agreement that all relevant parties support. And it appears in the current political climate in Israel that the US will only be able to assure Israel’s compliance will be to credibly threaten them with a loss of US military support, which is only likely to be credible now if the US actually does seriously and visibly restrict that support, not just threaten it.

Is the current US President capable of managing the kind of international diplomatic moves that would be required to really establish a stable peace?

Also: Illy Pe’ery provides a description of the Israel army’s public-information efforts, aka, official propaganda:

[A]s a recent investigation by The Hottest Place in Hell revealed, the military does not limit these methods to the realm of “personal enrichment.” Between October 2023 and December 2024, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit conducted a psychological operation targeting both Israeli and international audiences, under the guise of a “non-profit news organization” specializing in “fact-checking” claims surrounding Israel’s war on Gaza.

As part of that operation, dozens of videos promoting the Israeli military’s talking points were published without proper disclosure, while influencers in Israel and abroad were recruited to amplify messages dictated directly by the military. What was exposed at the time as a discrete initiative now appears to be part of a broader, long-term effort by Israel’s defense establishment to institutionalize influence operations on a national - and even international - scale. [my emphasis] (4)

Notes:

(1) Perry, Dan (2026): The Iran war ended terribly for the US, and even worse for Israel. Pittsburg Jewish Chronicle 06/17/2026. <https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/the-iran-war-ended-terribly-for-the-us-and-even-worse-for-israel/> (Accessed: 2026-18-06).

(2) Trump would be 'completely bonkers' to make this next move - Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. The Trump Report YouTube channel 06/17/2026. <https://youtu.be/vTUlEhn3dbY?si=_Ln7H55bbMuwCcSC> (Accessed: 2026-18-06).

(3) Bar’el, Zvi (2026): Trump Wants a New Contractor in the War on Hezbollah. Syria Doesn't Want the Job. Haaretz 06/18/2026. Gift link: <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-06-18/ty-article/.premium/trump-wants-a-new-contractor-in-the-war-on-hezbollah-syria-doesnt-want-the-job/0000019e-d7bf-d6a3-a5be-f7ff7ab30000?gift=1af2dbefa2984378890abeb5d6da4241> (Accessed: 2026-18-06).

(4) Pe’ery, Illy (2026): Revealed: Israel’s curriculum for ‘influencing public consciousness’. +972 Magazine 06/04/2026. <https://www.972mag.com/leaked-idf-propaganda-israel-intelligence/> (Accessed: 2026-18-06).

Early commentary on the latest memo-scheduled-to-be-signed event on the US-Israel War on Iran.

David Rothkopf was an editor and CEO of Foreign Policy magazine for several years. He does a podcast with two much younger reporters which give their commentary a kind of Grandpa-and-the-kids vibe that works well for them!

Here they talk about the proposed memorandum that would agree to work on setting up a deal between Iran and the US that may or may not still be on the table by the time this gets posted. (1)

Jeremy Scahill gives his take as of Monday on the latest memo-to-agree-to-talk-about-an-agreement. (2)

Notes:

(1) Peace in the Middle East...Maybe? The DSR Network YouTube channel 06/15/2026. <https://youtu.be/rXM0STBV8ZY?si=YJvPj3RLAFpU33l8> (Accessed: 2026-15-06).

(2) COMPLETE CAPITULATION': Jeremy Scahill Breaks Down Iran. YouTube channel 06/15/2026. <https://youtu.be/1kcBP3itmbM?si=CgUi1CQWUI8VXw2I> (Accessed: 2026-15-06).

The latest escalation in the Iran War

I’ve been around for several US wars. But at least from today’s perspective, it seems as if in earlier wars there was a plausible off-ramp that even Republicans could reasonably see as a plausible option.

In the current Iran War, the only option the US has to limit the growing catastrophe is to cut off all military aid to Israel until they agree to an enforceable peace treaty with Iran. And it seems completely unrealistic to expect the Republican Party to demand or even accept such a thing. And it seems at this point impossible to imagine the incompetent and seriously mentally impaired Donald Trump doing it as long as he’s President.

Another two and a half years of a Middle East policy of the kind we’ve had since Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu initiated their war of aggression against Iran on February 28 will have seriously catastrophic consequences for the entire world economy. And we’re now on the verge of having Middle East oil production capability radically reduced, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and numerous other major oil producers looking at radical damage to their oil infrastructure.

We’re on the verge of things becoming so bad that even the chances for insider traders to reap weekly financial windfalls may be drastically curtailed. (Patrick Wintour, Guardian)

Israel launched airstrikes early on Monday targeting central and western Iran in response to missile fire from Tehran, attacks that threatened to drag the wider Middle East back into a regional war.

Iranian state TV reported the sound of explosions being heard in the cities of Isfahan, Karaj, Tabriz and Tehran. A witness in Tehran described hearing at least one large blast somewhere to the west of the capital.

Iran closed the airspace around Tehran’s Imam Khomeini international airport – the main airfield in the country – after the Israeli attack.

Multiple explosions were heard over Jerusalem later on Monday as Israel said a new wave of Iranian missiles was incoming. The Israeli military said it “identified missiles launched from Iran” and was working to intercept the threat. (Guardian)

Iran has said that any US or Israeli strikes on major Iranian oil infrastructure would be met with attacks against oil infrastructure of other US Middle East allies. They have also threatened to attack desalinization plants, which those countries depend upon for potable water. That would be a war crime on Iran’s part, but it doesn’t mean they want do it. Which could be seriously catastrophic for the countries affected. As David Michel wrote during the first month of the current war:

The economies of the Persian Gulf countries depend on oil and natural gas. Their populations depend on desalinated water. Nature endows the Arabian Peninsula with scant freshwater resources. Consequently, all of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations lining the Gulf’s southern shores critically rely on desalination plants drawing seawater from the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. The war on Iran that began on February 28 puts these essential water systems at risk. Desalination facilities in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) suffered indirect damage from missile and drone strikes early in the conflict. Subsequently, plants in Bahrain and Iran have reportedly been intentionally attacked. Deliberate targeting of desalination infrastructure would represent a significant conflict escalation, potentially threatening vital water supplies for millions of people across the region. (1)

On the American side, this mess is the result of years of the US Republican Party indulging the politics of crackpots and bigots like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Reckless warmongering has left the world economy is a bad place, as Politico reports: (2)

Did the year 1989 actually happen, when it seemed practically possible to reduce preparations for wars and develop a much more peaceful world?

Simon Tisdall resorts to a sports analogy – which is at least better than talking about who “holds the cards”:

There are visionary statesmen and high-minded negotiators, pragmatic mediators and professional diplomats – and then there are meddling fools. As ceasefires implode, vast numbers of civilians die or flee, and wars Donald Trump started, fuelled or pledged to resolve rage unchecked, there’s no doubt which category he belongs to. In baseball parlance, in Ukraine, Iran-Lebanon and Israel-Palestine, Trump is “0 for 3”. He boasted he alone could cut deals and bring peace. He’s delivered neither. In striking out, he mostly makes matters worse. [my emphasis] (3)

If anyone is interested in seeing Trump’s Meet the Press meltdown from Sunday, it’s available on YouTube. Weirdly, it was held in a location where rain on the roof is very loud during the interview.

Notes:

(1) Michel, David (2026): Could Iran Disrupt the Gulf Countries’ Desalinated Water Supplies? CSIS 03/19/2026. <https://www.csis.org/analysis/could-iran-disrupt-gulf-countries-desalinated-water-supplies> (Accessed: 2026-08-06).

(2) Politico EU 06/05/2026. <https://www.politico.eu/article/global-shipping-industry-prepares-for-permanent-disruption/> (Accessed: 2026-08-06).

Tisdall, Simon (2026): Trump’s failure to maintain ceasefires is part of the new world disorder – and ordinary people pay the price. Guardian 06/07/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/07/donald-trump-ceasefire-failure-ukraine-iran-gaza-lebanon-gaza> (Accessed: 2026-08-06).

Historical turning points: recognizing them is tricky, Iran War version

Turning points in history are tricky to recognize. And also tricky for historians to describe even when they all assume they were historical turning points.

The current US-Israel War on Iran has certainly become Trump’s biggest headache of the moment – although there are millions of pages of Epstein files yet to be released.

In scale, of course, the current conflict does not match the Vietnam war, which went on for years, led to the deaths of 58,220 US soldiers, and is often perceived as the totemic and unmatchable example of US hubris. By comparison with the Vietnam odyssey, Iran feels more like a day trip.

But in terms of consequence, it is still possible that the “excursion” will prove to be the bigger geopolitical turning point for the unrivalled superpower, the moment when the US will have to concede it mishandled a war not just because it had no convincing battle plan, but also no grand strategy to match how the contemporary world works. In an interconnected world, Trump believes progress is achieved through conflict, not cooperation. [my emphasis] (1)

In the thirty years or so after 1989, when the Warsaw Pact began to break apart quicky, the US was the single “hyperpower” in the world. This is also called the “unipolar moment.” But sometime around the start of the Trump 1.0 government, China had become powerful enough economically and militarily strong enough that it was a real “peer competitor” to the US, now sharing that status with Purin’s Russia, which is economically weaker than China but still has a nuclear military force on a level with those of the US.

The NATO alliance had been the single largest geopolitical “power multiplier” of the United States. But in Trump 2.0, the US has been taking a Javier-Milei-style chainsaw to US alliances and devastated the State Department, leaving us now in a situation where the Iran War is seriously damaging the entire world economy and the US diplomacy around that war hardly even deserves to be called diplomacy.

I don’t quote Fareed Zakaria very frequently, because his commentary is too often vague and superficial. But in this recent commentary, he makes a decent observation about the contrast between the first Trump regime (2017-2021) and the current one:

[T]his time, [Trump] has surrounded himself with people whose chief qualification is fealty. The less distinguished the resume, the better. Such people owe everything to him. Process has given way to impulse, procedure to instinct, government to gut. But the starkest difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is not policy. It is enrichment [i.e., massive corruption], its scale, its brazenness, its open contempt for restraint. (2)

Elections matter in democracies. And a near-majority of voters in 2024 selected the guy who David Cay Johnston consistently calls “the third-generation head of a four-generation white-collar crime family” to serve as President again.

And this really has pushed both allies and adversaries to start readjusting urgently to a world in which the US cannot be counted on as a reliable partner on geopolitical commitments and has to a large extent abandoned what we normally describe as diplomacy in managing foreign affairs.

The various foreign policy establishments are trying hard to reorient themselves in the new environment, as Wintour observes:

For the US foreign policy establishment, exemplified by the Council on Foreign Relations, the missteps in Iran are the final confirmation that Trump’s highly personalised, instinctive system of predatory diplomacy creates only more disorder.

Last week, the CFR launched a fundamental review of US strategy post-Trump. Its convener, Rebecca Lissner, has already warned the war “has delivered a potentially fatal blow to a US-led international order that was already on life support”. Allies are hedging, middle powers are forming their own coalitions, and regions once firmly in Washington’s orbit are shifting toward new power centres, she said. The former state department official Mira Rapp-Hooper was more brutal at Chatham House, describing it as superpower suicide. [my emphasis]

Notes:

Wintour, Patrick (2026): Could Trump’s Iran ‘excursion’ be a bigger global turning point than Vietnam? Guardian 05/31/2026. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/may/31/donald-trump-iran-excursion-vietnam-war> (Accessed: 2026-31-05).

(2) Trump's Iran, China & US actions have set 3 new stages-Fareed's Take roundup. CNN YouTube channel 05/31/2026. <https://youtu.be/qLhJuLAnY4M?si=7J1j7rh0noez_MXE> (Accessed: 2026-31-05).

Iran War Monthly Summaries: Month 3 (May 2026)

The current US-Israeli War on Iran began on Febuary 28, three months ago.

And there’s no obvious end in sight.

The International Crisis Group provides a useful summary of the current situation with the Strait of Hormuz. with helpful graphics:

The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is a contentious element in negotiations [I think that qualifies as understatement!] to end the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran and an issue of significant interest to countries nearby and far away.

The strait is an international waterway and the right to transit it is protected by international law. Nonetheless, Tehran’s influence over the strait is a tremendous source of leverage in its negotiations with the U.S. to end the war. Iran, which spent decades preparing for conflict with a conventionally superior adversary, made blocking shipping through the strait a major (though untested) component of its planning. After the U.S. and Israel launched their assault on Iran on 28 February – which is widely viewed as violating UN Charter prohibitions of the use of force – Tehran turned one of world’s most important waterways into a weapon. The U.S. has countered by imposing its own blockade of Iranian ports. Though a ceasefire that began on 7-8 April (depending on time zone) has tamped down the air war that began on 28 February, Iran and the U.S. continue to contest control of the strait.

Iran and the U.S. are both betting that they can inflict sufficient economic consequences on their foes to strengthen their position at the negotiating table, while mitigating costs to themselves. Meanwhile, the strait remains closed to most traffic, and the war’s global economic consequences continue to mount. [my emphasis] (1)

Trita Parsi discusses the current state of the war with Hasan Piker – who just got banned from the UK for criticizing Israel. (2)

In today’s news, Israel is striking Beirut again. The Israeli aggression against Lebanon – apparently with the goal of expanding Greater Israel into Lebanon – is part of the war with Iran. Lebanon’s main military force defending against Israeli attacks is the pro-Iran militia Hezbollah, not the much weaker Lebanese army. (3)

The Intercept reports on a pro-Israel influence operation directed by Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

A company run by former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, hired by the Israeli government to push pro-Israel views on a major conservative media network, has directed $13 million from Israel to several Republican digital strategy firms and allies, according to a previously unreported document filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Parscale was hired in part to influence major right-wing Christian media company Salem Media Group, where he is also an executive. His firm spent hundreds of thousands on ads with a Salem subsidiary. As part of the contract, Parscale’s firm also sent millions to other firms run by some of his closest political allies. …

Among those that received millions of dollars’ worth of payments related to the contract are ventures like SparkFire, an AI chatbot company leading a mass texting campaign, and a shadowy firm run by longtime mainstream Republican strategist Mike Shields. (None of the figures or firms in this story responded to requests for comment.)

Israel initially directly hired Parscale’s firm, Clock Tower X, last September with a contract worth $6 million. The new filing reveals that his firm has received over $15 million from Havas Media Network, an international media company, on behalf of the Israeli state. (4)

Esther Solomon reports for Haaretz on Israel’s new choice for their general consul in New York:

Benjamin Netanyahu has turned a corner in his relations with American Jews. No, not to even pretend to rebuild ties with the liberal majority, but to spit in their faces.

Israel's prime minister is pushing the appointment of eye-poppingly far-right pundit and advisor Caroline Glick to the post of consul general in New York, home to the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Israel, according to a report by Liza Rozovsky in Haaretz.

If you're not already familiar with Glick, count yourself lucky. Her views on Israel and the Palestinians could be charitably termed "hardline": The Jewish people are indigenous to the Land of Israel, Palestinians are an invented people, and Israel should declare sovereignty over the whole West Bank. She laid out her "one-state plan for peace in the Middle East" in an eponymous 2016 book in English. The book's Hebrew title dispensed with the niceties and was entitled "Annexation Now." [my emphasis] (5)

She also recalls:

Years ago, Netanyahu decided to subvert U.S. political bipartisanship on Israel, tried to humiliate Democratic presidents while accepting humiliation from Trump, and constantly declared that evangelicals were better allies than U.S. Jews (except for the ultra-wealthy U.S. Jewish right-wingers who subsidize him). [my emphasis]

Trump and his cowboy Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth stepped into this mess bigtime. And finding a solution would be a difficult feat even for an Administration that was capable of conducing complex diplomacy. Maybe Pete can send the Iranian government a photo of his Crusader tattoo to convince them to make concessions.

Notes:

(1) The State of the Strait: The Role of Hormuz in the Middle East War So Far. International Crisis Group 05/29/2026. <https://www.crisisgroup.org/visual-explainers/hormuz/> (Accessed: 2026-01-06).

(2) Trita Parsi Breaks Down the Endgame With Iran. HasanAbi YouTube channel 05/30/2026. <https://youtu.be/LcloUmMPMWk?si=P-1KUEK49l-8DotK> (Accessed: 2026-30-05).

(3) Israel's Netanyahu orders military to attack targets in Beirut southern suburbs. Al-Monitor 06/01/2026. <https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/06/israels-netanyahu-orders-military-attack-targets-beirut-southern-suburbs> (Accessed: 2026-01-06).

(4) Cleveland-Stout, Nick & Sweet, Jacqueline (2026): Ex-Trump Campaign Chief Funneled Millions of Israeli Government Money to His Longtime Allies’ Companies. The Intercept 05/28/2026. <https://theintercept.com/2026/05/28/israeli-government-money-brad-parsc/> (Accessed: 2026-29-05).

(5) Solomon, Esther (2026): Netanyahu Won't Stop Spitting in American Jews' Faces. Haaretz 05/27/2026. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2026-05-27/ty-article/.highlight/netanyahu-wont-stop-spitting-in-american-jews-faces/0000019e-6a3d-d1b9-a9bf-fabdbf5b0000?gift=a4ab5dc94ff44e02b63b27c08503fc99> (Accessed: 2026-01-06).

The US-Israel War on Iran rolls on and does more and more damage

Israel is continuing Netanyahu‘s permanent-war policy. The government is aggressively pushing forward on further illegal settlements in the West Bank. And further undermining what legitimacy and governing authority the Palestinian Authority has there.

While Israeli land seizure orders are certainly not uncommon in the occupied West Bank, this case has alarmed residents and human rights organizations because the plots are located in Area A. This is the section of the West Bank where, under the Oslo Accords [of 1993 and 1995], the Palestinian Authority officially maintains full civil and security control; in Area B, the PA must coordinate security with Israel, while Area C, which comprises more than 60 percent of the territory, remains under full Israeli control. (1)

Iran has been insisting that any peace settlement has to include not only the US but also Israel and that it has to cover the Israeli invasion and war-making in Lebanon.

Zvi Bar’el reported on May 29:

Initial reports that Iranian and American negotiators had agreed on a memorandum of understanding that was awaiting U.S. President Donald Trump's approval didn't explain what was agreed, what remains in dispute, what the agenda will be for the talks slated to take place during a 60-day cease-fire, whether Iran is willing to let its highly enriched uranium be removed from the country or what it would get in return.

Apparently, the blows the countries have exchanged over the past week still aren't viewed as ending the cease-fire. Like the ones in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, this cease-fire has been characterized by an elasticity that is meant to reconcile the tactical need to demonstrate a resolute military posture, even if it has no strategic goal, with the need to avoid ruining the chances of the ambiguous diplomatic process. [my emphasis] (2)

That’s because Netanyahu and the Israeli supporters of his war policy don’t seem to make any practical distinction anymore between ongoing military operations and a ceasefire. Netanyahu’s goal is for Israel to dominate the region and take more territory in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. And probably more after that.

Bar’el also reports, “the Board of Peace is on the verge of bankruptcy due to lack of funding.” Wait, how is that possible? I thought other countries were giving Trump billions to serve on the Board. As The Independent reports:

Concerns were that the charter was so broad it amounted to an attempt by Trump to replace the United Nations (an institution he has made no secret of hating) with his own private members’ club. Trump had declared: “We can do pretty much anything we want to do.”

But fast forward to May, and as Trump overcomplicates an already impossibly hard peace deal in Iran, his Board of Peace brainchild is flailing.

It seems a bit broken: promised US funding has reportedly yet to materialise, other funds are frozen, and its mission is “stuck in limbo”. (3)

Yes, “a bit broken”!

But, hey, Trump’s really “ownin’ the libs,” huh?

And the finances of the board are going about as well as we would expect from a Trump grift:

At the time of its inauguration, Trump claimed lifetime membership of the board of peace could be bought for a hefty price tag of $1bn.

By February, states had pledged around $7bn for a Gaza relief package. Trump promised a further $10bn in US funding, although he did not say where that money would come from.

To date, “zero funds have been deposited” into the official fund, which is administered by the World Bank, and endorsed by the United Nations, according to the Financial Times.

Trita Parsi gives this brief update on Israel, Iran, and Lebanon: (4)

Notes:

(1) Zaish, Shata (2026): In first since Oslo, Israel seizing land for army base inside West Bank city +972 Magazine 05/27/2026. <https://www.972mag.com/oslo-israel-seizing-land-army-base-west-bank-city/> (Accessed: 2026-30-05).

(2) Bar’el, Zvi (2026): Trump Is Trapped Between Iran and Lebanon. Israel Could Pay the Price. Haaretz 05/29/2026. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-05-29/ty-article/.premium/trump-is-trapped-between-iran-and-lebanon-israel-could-pay-the-price/0000019e-7108-df34-a39e-712ab8be0000?gift=f4f7b1b59bfe4bfe970dc2bd937ba2ad> (Accessed: 2026-30-05).

(3) Trump’s board of peace is flailing – just like the president. The Independent 05/28/2026. <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/trump-board-of-peace-iran-gaza-b2984416.html> (Accessed: 2026-30-05).

(4) New regional logic: If Israel strikes Lebanon Iran strikes back at UAE. Middle East Eye YouTube channel 05/29/2026. <https://youtu.be/Dg02M6Ua95w?si=gp6ZMTY88XnC2x7P> (Accessed: 2026-30-05).