MIDDLE EAST « nuclear-news

America’s Thelma & Louise Moment: Rubio Shows How Israel and Trump Drove Off the Cliff Together.

Israel is dictating foreign policy, with Trump’s throat-clearing, unwavering support for Israel attacking the country despite the American population not supporting this misadventure.

by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/04/americas-thelma-louise-moment-rubio-shows-how-israel-and-trump-drove-off-the-cliff-together/

Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged this week that the United States anticipated Israeli military action against Iran and believed it would trigger retaliatory strikes on American forces — a scenario that ultimately led Washington to join the offensive.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Rubio said U.S. officials “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” and expected it would “precipitate an attack against American forces.” He added that failing to strike first would have meant “higher casualties.”

This shows how Israel is dictating foreign policy, with Trump’s throat-clearing, unwavering support for Israel attacking the country despite the American population not supporting this misadventure.

Couldn’t Trump have been more like Biden and Harris, who scolded Bibi and yet allowed the genocide to take place in the first place?

Remember Biden’s delusion in claiming he had “done more for the Palestinian community than anybody.”

That assertion stands in sharp contrast to accounts from within his own administration. Maryam Hassanein, a former Interior Department political appointee who resigned, directly rejected that narrative.

“I think his legacy is the opposite,” Hassanein said. “He’s the president who’s done the most harm to Palestinians.”

To go off on a long tangent about the great foreign policy and immigration failures of the Biden White House would be too much to recount here. However, they were only revealing what is now clear as day: the Democratic Party is complicit in the empire. The question now is not whether that is true, but how to confront and change it.

What this demonstrates is something that has long been known: Israel is the United States’ ride-or-die friend. But at this point, it has become a Thelma & Louise moment — driving off a cliff and taking the whole world with them.

The remarks suggest the Trump administration viewed participation in the war as a preemptive necessity rather than an independent strategic choice. Critics argue the statement instead underscores Washington’s unwillingness to restrain Israel — even when U.S. forces would be drawn into direct conflict.

Netanyahu’s Long-Pursued Campaign

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly described the operation as the culmination of decades of advocacy for confronting Iran militarily. He said the strikes were carried out with “the assistance of the United States” and framed the campaign as something he had sought to achieve for 40 years.

The comments reinforced concerns among some analysts that Israel’s strategy effectively shaped U.S. decision-making.

Could Washington Have Prevented the Escalation?

Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer now with the International Crisis Group, argued that the U.S. maintains substantial leverage over Israel due to its military and financial support. According to data from Brown University’s Costs of War Project, the U.S. has provided over $21 billion in military aid to Israel since October 2023 and more than $300 billion in total assistance since Israel’s founding.

Finucane suggested that if Washington had strongly opposed Israeli strikes, it may have been able to delay or deter them. Whether Iran would have refrained from retaliatory action is a separate question, he noted.

Mounting Casualties and Political Fallout

The joint U.S.–Israeli campaign has resulted in significant casualties. Iranian authorities report hundreds killed, including civilians. U.S. Central Command confirmed American service members have also died in the fighting.

Meanwhile, members of Congress — including senior Democrats on foreign affairs and armed services committees — have requested clarification from the administration regarding the legal justification for the operation, its objectives, and what would constitute mission success.

The war marks the second major U.S.–Israeli confrontation with Iran in less than a year, deepening instability across the region and intensifying debate in Washington over executive war powers.

A Question of Agency

Rubio’s framing raises a deeper question: was the United States genuinely compelled by strategic necessity — or simply unwilling to restrain an ally intent on escalating the conflict? The truth is that Washington’s worldview has become increasingly unmoored from any sense of proportionality or restraint. This same person in Rubio has defended coilionelism.

The U.S. provides Israel with extensive military assistance and diplomatic cover, making it difficult to claim neutrality in moments of crisis. There was no imminent threat of an attack, and Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon — a point underscored by Tulsi Gabbard, but whats she know, shes just the Director of National Intelligence. The fact remains that a far smaller nation is effectively pulling the last global superpower into a widening regional confrontation — one that carries risks far beyond the immediate battlefield.

How this ends is anyones guess most likely not well but don’t worry you can still gamble on and profit from it.

March 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

President Trump Says He May Have ‘Forced Israel’s Hand’ Into Iran War

The narrative that Israel was ready to act alone has holes in it, considering Israel has relied on US air defenses to intercept Iranian missiles in previous conflicts, and POLITICO reported a few days before the war started that Trump officials thought it might be better for the “politics” if Israel attacked on its own at first, provoking Iranian attacks on US assets to justify US intervention.

The president made the comments in response to a question about Rubio saying the US launched the war because Israel planned to attack

by Dave DeCamp AntiWAr, March 3, 2026 0

Adding to the mixed messaging coming from the Trump administration regarding the war with Iran, President Trump suggested on Tuesday that he may have “forced Israel’s hand” when the conflict started.

The president was responding to a question about Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said on Monday that one reason why the US launched the war on Saturday was that Israel was planning to attack and that the US assessed Iran could respond with attacks. on US bases.

Senior Trump officials said the same thing during classified briefings with members of Congress on Monday, which was confirmed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and other lawmakers. “Because Israel was determined to act with or without the US, our commander in chief and the administration and the officials [in the Cabinet] had a very difficult decision to make. They had to evaluate the threats to the US, to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region in beyond,” Johnson said.

The narrative that Israel was ready to act alone has holes in it, considering Israel has relied on US air defenses to intercept Iranian missiles in previous conflicts, and POLITICO reported a few days before the war started that Trump officials thought it might be better for the “politics” if Israel attacked on its own at first, provoking Iranian attacks on US assets to justify US intervention…………………………………… https://news.antiwar.com/2026/03/03/president-trump-says-he-may-have-forced-israels-hand-into-iran-war/

March 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran Is Morally Superior To The United States

Caitlin Johnstone, Mar 4

Iran is better than the United States. The United States is worse than Iran.

This is true not because Iran is especially good, but because the United States is especially evil.

.Iran isn’t blanketing a major metropolis with military explosives, killing over a thousand people including hundreds of children. The United States is doing this with its partner in crime Israel.
Iran isn’t continuously bombing and invading countries around the world, toppling governments, circling the globe with hundreds of military bases, targeting civilian populations with siege warfare and brandishing nuclear weapons at its enemies in the name of securing planetary domination. Only the United States is.

The US empire is the single most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth, by an extremely massive margin. No one else comes anywhere remotely close. Not Iran. Not anybody. Every government in the world is morally superior to the most evil government, and the most evil government is the United States.

Whenever I say this I get US empire apologists going “We’re only the ones fighting the wars and dropping the bombs because we happen to be the ones with the power to do so!”

But that’s false. The US isn’t the world’s most vicious government because it happens to be the most powerful, it’s the most powerful government because it’s the most vicious. It’s the power structure which was willing to do whatever it takes to rule the world, no matter how profoundly evil.

Genocides. Starvation sanctions. Nuclear brinkmanship. Imperialist extraction. The deliberate creation of failed states and humanitarian catastrophes. Policies designed to keep entire regions in a continuous state of division and strife. The United States and the globe-spanning empire structured around it have inflicted depravities upon our species which cry out to the heavens for vengeance. If you could truly comprehend the scale of the suffering it has created over the years, even for a second, you would never stop screaming.

Another objection I’ll encounter when I make these observations is “Well, I’d rather live in the US than Iran!”
And it says so much about the western worldview that people think this is an argument. Sure it’s probably nicer to live in the United States than Iran, especially now, and certainly ever since the US has been deliberately strangling the Iranian economy with the explicitly stated goal of making its citizenry so miserable they wage a civil war against their government.

But it’s so revealing that westerners see someone saying Iran is better than the United States and think it’s a statement about where they personally would prefer to live, because it shows how completely invisible US warmongering is in their worldview. Washington’s acts of mass military slaughter simply do not count as immoral or abusive behavior in their eyes, because they are being inflicted on foreigners overseas. So they automatically assume the comparison is asking which country would make your feelings feel nicer to live in as an individual.

The fact that the US government happens to export the majority of its abusiveness to other countries outside its own borders doesn’t make it any less murderous and tyrannical, it just means the people bearing the brunt of its savagery happen to live in other places. Their lives don’t matter any less than American lives, and only a warped, American supremacist worldview would feel otherwise.

The US government is quantifiably morally inferior to the Iranian government. It is quantifiably more tyrannical, more murderous, more destructive, and more megalomaniacal. It is the very last power structure on earth that should have any say in who leads Iran and how the Iranians ought to conduct their affairs. It is not morally qualified to be making those decisions.

March 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

Iran says Natanz nuclear site hit in US-Israeli strikes

Iran’s sprawling nuclear facility at Natanz was struck during U.S. and Israeli military operations against the Islamic Republic, Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday.

Again they attacked Iran’s peaceful, safeguarded nuclear facilities yesterday,” Reza Najafi told reporters at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s 35-nation board of governors. Asked by Reuters which facilities were hit, he replied: “Natanz.”

Reuters 2nd March 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iran-says-natanz-nuclear-site-hit-us-israeli-strikes-2026-03-02/

March 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

NewsReal: Historic Miscalculation? US & Israel ‘Decapitate Iranian Regime’, Yet Iran is Striking Back HARD

Sott.net. Mon, 02 Mar 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/504928-NewsReal-Historic-Miscalculation-US-Israel-Decapitate-Iranian-Regime-Yet-Iran-is-Striking-Back-HARD

And so it begins. This time it isn’t ‘kayfabe’ and ‘negotiated strikes and counter-strikes’. The ‘peace president’, when announcing joint US-Israeli strikes against Iran on 28 February, said it would just take a few days, and gloated that he ‘took out the regime’ by targeting top Iranian leadership, including Ayatollah Khamenei. But Iran’s swift and massive response – bombing 11 countries housing US and Israeli military bases and installations, including a British base in Cyprus, EU territory – now has Trump saying the war will ‘last for weeks’…

What did they think was going to happen, that Iranians would ‘rise up and take power from their oppressors’? The Americans appear to have truly believed their own propaganda. In reality, Iranians are defiantly rallying in support of their country, and government, while Muslims across the region are preparing to potentially join the fray and do as Iran has always sought: remove all American military forces from the Persian Gulf, if not the Middle East as a whole.

It’s too early for predicting such an end-game, but in the meantime, it appears that, in the absence of Iranian popular support for US and Israeli ‘regime intervention’, the strategy could switch to attacking the people of Iran and the country’s infrastructure, ‘punishment’ for not ‘capitulating’.

March 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

This Illegal US-Israeli Attack on Iran Is Also an Assault on the United Nations

As Henry Kissinger famously said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be its friend is fatal.” We can add that to host US military bases and CIA operations is to turn your country into a vassal state.

The international order that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt helped to build after the catastrophe of WWII was founded on a simple and profound idea – that law and respect, not force, should govern relations among states. That idea is now being destroyed by the very nation that did most to promote it in founding the UN. The irony is bitter beyond measure.

Jeffrey D. Sachs Sybil Fares, Mar 02, 2026, Common Dreams, https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/united-nations-israel-us-attack-iran

On February 16, 2026, one of us (Jeffrey Sachs) sent a lett er to the UN Security Council warning that the United States was on the verge of tearing up the United Nations Charter. That warning has now come to pass. The United States and Israel have launched an unprovoked war against Iran in flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter, without authorization from the Security Council, and without any legitimate claim of self-defense under Article 51. They are trying to kill the UN Charter and the international rule of law, but they will fail.

At the Security Council on February 28, 2026, the US and its allies directed their condemnation not at the American and Israeli aggression, but at Iran. One US ally after the next condemned Iran for its retaliatory attacks yet absurdly failed to condemn the illegal and unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran. This performance by these countries was disgraceful and turned reality completely upside down.

The truth is that the devastation of the war will not directly affect the so-called West: their children will not suffer traumas or death, and their countries will not be set ablaze. The victims of this attack are the people of the Middle East. They are the expendable ones who suffer from Western arrogance, abuse of power, and addiction to war.

We close with two observations. First, the United States will not achieve global hegemony or kill the UN. The world is too large, too diverse, and too determined to resist domination by any single power, much less one with 4 percent of the world’s population. The world outside of the US and the countries it occupies want the UN to live and thrive. The US attempt will surely fail, but it may cause immense suffering before it does.

Second, if Israel continues its addiction to war and occupation, it too will not survive. That addiction represents a mix of theocracy and post-traumatic stress. Part of Israel believes that it is the biblical kingdom of the 5th century BC. The other part lives in the traumatic memory of the Holocaust, and so is determined to kill any perceived adversary rather than learn to live together with it in peace. The Israeli Ambassador’s twisted defense of Israel’s brazen attack on Iran, as usual, cited the Bible and Auschwitz as the two justifications. These are Israel’s two perennial references, but not the real world of today.

The joint US-Israeli attacks were described by Trump as necessary because Iran “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.” This is of course a flat lie. As the letter of February 16 recounted, Iran agreed a decade ago to a nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. It was Trump who ripped up the agreement in 2018. In June 2025, Israel bombed Iran in the midst of US-Iran negotiations. This time too, the Israel-US war plans were set weeks ago when Netanyahu met with Trump, and the negotiations underway between the US and Iran were a charade. This seems to be the new modus operandi of the US: start negotiations and then aim to murder the counterparts.

It is easy to understand why the US allies behave in the embarrassing and self-abasing way they did at the UN Security Council. In addition to the United States, eight of the other fourteen Council members host US military bases or grant the US military access to local bases: Bahrain, Colombia, Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom. These countries are not fully sovereign. They are partially governed by the US. The US military bases house CIA operations, and the host countries constantly look over their shoulder to try to avoid US subversion in their own countries.

As Henry Kissinger famously said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be its friend is fatal.” We can add that to host US military bases and CIA operations is to turn your country into a vassal state.

As an absurd but telling example, the Danish ambassador parroted every US talking point, pointing her finger at Iran for its aggression as if Iran had not been attacked by the US and Israel. She completely forgot that such humiliating vassalage to the US will not play well for Denmark if the US occupies Greenland.

The truthful voices at the Security Council came from the countries not occupied by the United States. Russia explained correctly that the so-called West (that is, the countries occupied by the US) is engaged in victim-blaming when it points its finger at Iran. China reminded the Council that the crisis began with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, not with Iran’s retaliation. Somalia’s ambassador, speaking on behalf of several African member states, truthfully portrayed the source of this recent escalation. The UN Representative of the League of Arab States spoke brilliantly about the root cause of Israel’s mad aggression: the denial of rights to Palestinian people, and Israel’s use of mass murder and regional war to prevent the emergence of a State of Palestine.

When Iran retaliates against US military bases in the Gulf, it is exercising its inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. We must remember that the US and Israel are openly and repeatedly assassinating Iran’s leaders, with the aim of overthrowing its government. When states murder a foreign head of state and attempt to destroy the government, the target of those threats is entitled under international law to defend itself.

The US-Israeli bombing murdered not only Iran’s Supreme Leader and several top government officials, but also more than 140 young girls in their school in Minab. These young children are the victims of a horrific war crime. The countries today that gave a pass to the United States and Israel for these killings—notably Denmark, France, Latvia, the United Kingdom, and of course the US —are also complicit in this war crime.

This UN Security Council emergency meeting will likely be remembered as the day the United Nations ceased to function from its headquarters on American soil. An international organization dedicated to the peaceful settlement of disputes cannot credibly operate from a country that wages illegal wars, threatens member states with annihilation, and treats UN Security Council resolutions as disposable instruments of convenience. For the UN to survive, and we need it to survive, it will need several homes around the world—in Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and others—honoring the true multipolarity of our world.

Let us be clear about what the United States and Israel are pursuing. The US objective is not the security of the American people. The objective is global hegemony. The attempt is to destroy the UN and the international rule of law—an attempt that will fail. Israel’s objective is to establish a Greater Israel, destroy the Palestinian people, and assert its hegemony over hundreds of millions of Arabs across the Middle East (from the Nile to the Euphrates, as US Ambassador Mike Huckabee recently asserted).

The United States’ delusional efforts at global hegemony are proceeding region by region. The US has recently claimed, in a wholly twisted supposed revival of the Monroe Doctrine, that it controls the Western Hemisphere and can dictate how Latin American countries conduct their economic and political affairs. The US kidnapped the sitting Venezuelan president to prove the point, and it now threatens to overthrow the Cuban government as well.

Today’s war against Iran aims to prove that the US similarly owns the Middle East. The war is part of a 30-year campaign, initiated by the Clean Break doctrine, to overthrow all governments that oppose US and Israeli hegemony in the region. Those joint Israel-US wars have included the genocide in Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank and the decades of wars and regime-change operations in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

One part of the US global plan is to commandeer the world’s oil exports and to weaken China and Russia in the process. The US seizure of Venezuela was designed to ensure American control of that country’s oil exports, especially to control the flow of oil to China. US sanctions on Russia aim to prevent Russian oil from reaching India and China. Now the US aims to stop the flow of Iran’s oil to China. More broadly, the US aims to control the entire Gulf region plus Iran to maintain its imperial dominance.

A state that depends on permanent war, permanent occupation and slaughter of the Palestinians, and the indefinite subjugation of millions of people has no viable future, and the policies that the United States is now pursuing on Israel’s behalf will accelerate rather than prevent that outcome.

The two-state solution, which the Council has endorsed repeatedly, offers Israel a path to peace. Tragically Israel rejects that. The result, eventually, will be the end of Israel itself in its current form, especially as the US population is rapidly turning against Israel’s violent theocracy and towards the cause of Palestine. Perhaps there will be one democratic state for both Arabs and Jews living in peace, together, with an end of apartheid rule.

These are harsh truths, but emergencies demand honesty. The UN is being murdered by Israel and the United States. The Security Council must rouse itself from their military occupation by the US, and remember that they are the stewards of the UN Charter’s promise to maintain international peace and security.

March 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US-Israeli War on Iran is NOT About Nuclear Weapons- It’s About Imperialism

March 1, 2026 By Ben Norton for Geopolitical Economy Report, https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/01/us-israeli-war-on-iran-is-not-about-nuclear-weapons-its-about-imperialism/

The United States and Israel are waging a war of aggression against Iran. This is not about nuclear weapons; it’s about imperialism.

Trump published a video on social media early on the morning of February 28, announcing, “The United States military began major combat operations in Iran”.

As the US and Israel brutally bombed Tehran, Donald Trump admitted that they want regime change.

Trump ordered members of Iran’s military to “lay down your weapons”, or “face certain death”.

The US president then called on Iranian opposition supporters to “take over your government”, claiming, “It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations”.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the war would overthrow the government in Tehran, to “cast off the yoke of tyranny and bring freedom and peace-loving values to Iran”. (Meanwhile, Netanyahu faces an ongoing arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, due to the genocidal crimes against humanity he committed against the Palestinian people in Gaza, with steadfast US support.)

Iran immediately retaliated, launching strikes in self-defense against multiple US military bases in Qatar, Bahran, Kuwait, and the UAE. The Pentagon’s largest base in the region, Al-Udeid in Qatar, was hit.

The absurd narrative that Washington and Tel Aviv are promoting is that they had to carry out “preemptive” attacks (which are illegal under international law), because Tehran supposedly seeks nuclear weapons.

This is nonsense. Iran signed the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2015, in which it agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons in return for the US and European countries lifting their illegal unilateral sanctions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admitted that Iran was abiding by the nuclear deal. Nevertheless, Trump unilaterally tore it up in 2018, during his first term as US president, in flagrant violation of international law (given that the JCPOA had been endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which even the US had voted for, under Obama).

Iran’s current president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is ironically a reformist who sought to negotiate another deal with the same US aggressors who sabotaged the previous one just a few years before.

When Trump entered office for his second term, in 2025, he oversaw several rounds of bad-faith “negotiations” with Iran. Then, during those talks, the US and Israel suddenly bombed Iran in June 2025. The Wall Street Journal admitted: “In Twist, U.S. Diplomacy Served as Cover for Israeli Surprise Attack”.

The same thing happened in February 2026. The Trump administration participated in fake “negotiations” with Iran.

On February 27, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who moderated the talks, said they had made “substantial progress”, and a “peace deal is within our reach”.

Mere hours later, Trump and Netanyahu launched a massive bombing campaign in Iran.

The reality is that the US and Israel do not want peace.

The goal of this war of aggression is clear: Washington seeks to topple Iran’s independent government and finally overturn the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which removed one of the pillars of the US empire’s “twin pillars” strategy in West Asia.

The US empire, and more specifically the large US corporations that it represents, want to control the plentiful resources not only in Iran, but in the entire region, which is home to the world’s top producers of oil and natural gas, as well as critical minerals and other important commodities.

Washington also hopes to cut off China’s access to its top energy providers.

Wesley Clark, a former top US general and NATO commander, revealed more than two decades ago that, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, imperial strategists at the Pentagon made plans to overthrow the governments of seven countries in West Asia and North Africa.

On the US empire’s target list was Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Washington succeeded in destabilizing governments in six of those seven. Iran is the last one standing.

With its war, the United States hopes to install in Tehran a puppet, like the son of the former shah, the murderous monarch who came to power following a CIA-orchestrated coup in 1953 against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

A Fox News correspondent reported that the CIA-linked US state media outlet VOA Persian is broadcasting propaganda in Iran in support of the so-called “exiled crown prince”, Reza Pahlavi, who has spent much of his life living in the US, and whose dictatorial father terrorized Iran, with staunch US backing, until the 1979 revolution.

Top US officials have been secretly meeting with the so-called “exiled crown prince”, the former Israeli intelligence officer Barak Ravid reported in January. On Twitter, Reza Pahlavi heaped praise on Trump, claimed “the Islamic Republic is collapsing”, and called for the Iranian people to help put him in power.

US imperial strategists believe the Iranian government is weak at this moment, and they are going for the jugular.

In doing so, the billionaire supposed “populist” Trump is fulfilling the dreams of the most ardent neoconservative hawks — even as he calls himself a “peace president”.

March 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Mendacious Rationales: The Lies Behind Operation Lion’s Roar

1 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/mendacious-rationales-the-lies-behind-operation-lions-roar/

Many in the United States would scarcely identify the difference between Iran and Iraq, both countries based on ancient civilisations so chronologically distant as to be fiction. If not Marvel, it’s not marvellous. But another fiction came into play towards the end of February as the United States and Israel reprised their role as world rogues and crockery breakers by attacking Iran for a second time in less than a year in a joint campaign called Operation Lion’s Roar and Epic Fury. Following the vulgar playbook on regime change used against Iraq in 2003 by the US-led forces, a variation of the same theme is being used against Iran.

The difference here is that neither the US nor Israel are willing to commit ground forces. They will kill key leaders and figures across the Iranian regime, leaving an inchoate resistance against the clerics to seize the day. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has apparently been killed, with US President Donald J. Trump calling him “one of the most evil people in history.” Israel also claims that the opening strikes killed seven senior defence and intelligence officials, including Khamenei’s top security advisor Ali Shamkhani, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Mohammad Pakpour, Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh and the chief of Iranian military intelligence Saleh Asadi.

The February 28 statement from Trump posted on Truth Social as an 8-minute video declared that the objective of the attack was “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” This was curious given the previous US-Israeli attacks in June 2025 that had apparently “obliterated the regime’s nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.” Then efforts were supposedly made on his part to seek a deal to prevent Iran ever pursuing nuclear weapons. “We tried. They wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. Again they wanted to.”

In this haze of confusion, Trump had concluded that Tehran had, after all, decided to “rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.” Their missile industry would be razed, the navy annihilated, the proxies crippled. Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard would receive total immunity if they laid down their weapons, “or you will face certain death.” As for the unspecified “great proud people of Iran,” they should stay sheltered as the bombing continued. When done, the government “will be yours to take.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement also confirmed the objective of ending “the threat of the Ayatollah regime in Iran.” That regime had domestically repressed its citizens, “instilled fear in the peoples of the region,” created a global terror network, “invested enormous resources to develop atomic bombs and tens of thousands of missiles intended, as it defined it, to erase Israel from the map of the world.” They armed “terrorist proxies.”

Even more stridently, and fanatically than Trump, Netanyahu restated those themes of existential threat and untrustworthiness so characteristic of the wicked Persian. Despite “a decisive blow” being struck against the regime and its proxies last June, “the wounded predator has not ceased its attempts to recover, for the same purpose, to destroy us.” (Evidently not that decisive, then.) Having stated every year for years that Iran would develop the means to destroy Israel within a short time, he came up with another fictional twist: not only were the tyrants “plotting to rebuild their nuclear and missile capabilities,” they were also placing them “underground, where we cannot reach them. If we do not stop them now, they will become invulnerable.”

The tissues of lies in both statements are impressive and incorrigible. Operation Midnight Hammer had seemingly not obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities, suggesting they had been ineffectual, indulgent or incompetent. And why bother keeping the US-Iranian dialogue on Teheran’s nuclear program going if a military solution proved inevitable? For a President who boasts about his ability to make deals, few are being brokered of late.

Both Israel and the US used the same verbal formulae as before: exaggerate the capabilities of Iran to build consensus for an illegal war; exaggerate a military prowess of such biblical force that simply does not exist. Again, there are too many chilling parallels to the pattern followed by the George W. Bush administration leading up to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq in March 2003. Imminent threats were very much part of the hysterical argot then in justifying the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Needing justifications plucked out of thin air, the US government sought propping evidence from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Tony Blair duly supplied the infamous 2002 dossier with the chilling claim that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so. (This nicely supplemented the fabricated claim that Saddam Hussein was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program with the purchase of 500 tonnes of yellowcake uranium powder from Niger.) The key official behind the dossier, the diligent arms expert David Kelly, committed suicide in despairing disgust, having been ordered to include the 45-minute claim. No such weapons were ever found, and a central rationale of the invasion collapsed. The United States, UK, Australia and a motley crew of coalition members were found to be brigands.

There will, no doubt, be some cheer within Iran at these strikes, notably from the young who have suffered at the hands of a clerical, authoritarian regime. Washington’s allies will snivel with coerced approval citing the brutality of Iran’s regime while ignoring breaches of international law they are condoning. (Australia’s response was particularly despicable.) The Shia-Sunni division will be tested, with various US bases and military assets already struck in the Gulf States by a regime trying to survive. The United Nations will continue being treated like a bed-ridden dowager whose influence was from another day, conduct more contemptible even than 2003 when many Western states did, at the very least, show solidarity in rejecting the use of force by the United States and its allies in the absence of a Security Council resolution. In the meantime, American diplomats who open their frontier-stretched mouths claiming interest for peace and negotiations should make everyone reach for the gun.

March 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid ‘Criminal Aggression’ by US, Israel

February 28, 2026 By Jake Johnson for Common Dreams, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/iran-demands-emergency-united-nations-action-amid-criminal-aggression-by-us-israel/

As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against “criminal aggression” and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.

The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday’s attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent “a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security,” reads the ministry’s statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began “in the midst of a diplomatic process.”

“The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war,” the statement continues. “Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy’s military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority.”

Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli “aggression against Iran” in a social media post, calling the assault a “violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force.”

“All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order,” Saul added.

March 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

UN nuclear watchdog says it’s unable to verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment

By STEPHANIE LIECHTENSTEIN, AP News, February 28, 2026

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has not allowed the United Nations nuclear agency access to its nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States during a 12-day war in June, according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Friday by The Associated Press.

The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency stressed that it “cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities,” or the “size of Iran’s uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities.”

Iran has four declared enrichment facilities, but the report warned that because of the lack of access, the IAEA “cannot provide any information on the current size, composition or whereabouts of the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran.”

The report stressed that the “loss of continuity of knowledge … needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.”

Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the IAEA and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003. The U.S. is seeking a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.

Highly enriched material should be verified regularly

The IAEA reported that Iran had informed the agency in a letter dated Feb. 2 that normal safeguards were “legally untenable and materially impracticable,” as a result of threats and ”acts of aggression.”

The confidential report also said Friday that Iran did provide access to IAEA inspectors “to each of the unaffected nuclear facilities at least once” since June 2025, with the exception of a power plant at Karun that is under construction.

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

IAEA joined Geneva talks

The IAEA reported on Friday that Grossi attended negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on Feb. 17 and Feb. 26 in Geneva at which he “provided advice” on the verification of Iran’s nuclear program. The report said that those negotiations are “ongoing.”

Thursday’s talks, the third round this year under Omani mediation, ended without a deal, leaving the danger of another Mideast war on the table as the U.S. has gathered a massive fleet of aircraft and warships in the region.

An Omani official said lower-level technical talks would continue next week in Vienna, the home of the IAEA. The agency is likely to be critical in any deal.

Iran says it is not pursuing weapons and has so far resisted demands that it halt uranium enrichment on its soil or hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Similar talks last year between the U.S. and Iran about Iran’s nuclear program broke down after the start of the war in June. Before then, Iran had been enriching uranium up to 60% purity. https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-enrichment-suspend-ccf574a324504b985f4b158f9d3d6941

March 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Exiled Iranian Denounces War: ‘The People Will Suffer, Not Gain!’

by ScheerPost Staff, 28 Feb 26, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/exiled-iranian-denounces-war-the-people-will-suffer-not-gain/

Behrouz Farahani, a political analyst and opponent of the Islamic Republic living in exile, condemned the US and Israeli military attack on Iran. Speaking to Middle East Eye about how Iranian opposition figures who also oppose the war are responding, he said:

“In this situation, we oppose both sides. This war is between an international imperialist power, the US, and its regional ally, Israel, on one side, and the reactionary regime of Iran on the other. We are against both sides and against this war.”

He added that opponents of the Islamic Republic who reject foreign intervention are mobilizing:

“We are calling for an immediate ceasefire and are organising anti‑war protests. This war will bring nothing but misery to the Iranian people. As we have seen before, its only result will be more pressure on ordinary people. This war will not help the Iranian people in their struggle against the Islamic Republic. Especially when one side is Israel and the other side is Trump.”

“When we have a president like Trump, who has openly said that his main concern is money, it is clear that this attack has nothing to do with improving life in Iran or helping its people,” Farahani said. “One of the main reasons for this war is that the Islamic Republic does not serve America’s economic interests in the region or globally.”

He stressed that this critique does not imply any support for Tehran:

“This does not mean that because the Islamic Republic is in conflict with American interests, it is a progressive or anti‑imperialist force. Not at all. Just as the Taliban in Afghanistan was a deeply reactionary force despite being in conflict with the United States, the Islamic Republic is also a reactionary force that has now been attacked by international imperialism and its regional ally.”

Farahani’s comments underscore what many critics argue is the real motive behind the escalation: a broad, opportunistic effort by the United States and Israel to secure regional dominance, energy access, and geopolitical leverage under the guise of confronting Iran.

March 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Trump Advisers Wanted Israel To ‘Attack Iran First’ For Better Optics: Politico

by Tyler Durden, Friday, Feb 27, 2026 , https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-advisers-want-israel-attack-iran-first-better-optics-politico

Politico is out with a crazy story on Thursday, but which will make sense to those following the trajectory of US foreign policy over the past couple decades plus.

Senior US officials want Israel to strike Iran before Washington launches a renewed assault in order to build domestic backing for war. Advisers to President Donald Trump are “privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike,” the outlet writes, citing two people familiar with the discussions.

“The calculus is a political one – that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first,” Politico continues.

The subtext here is that American troops would likely come under retaliation in whatever form such a serious escalation takes. Currently the US is drawing down troops from bases immediately in harm’s way, including reportedly in Qatar and Bahrain.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” one person familiar with the discussions said.

The mood in Washington is said to be that nuclear negotiations with Iran appear increasingly unlikely to succeed – despite some ‘positive’ headlines out of Geneva – and that “the primary question is becoming when and how the US attacks.”

The Politico report suggests Tucker Carlson has assessed it exactly right when days ago he complained, “What I really object to, what makes me mad, is when American leaders, whose job it is to represent Americans, are more loyal to a foreign country than they are to their own.”

Indeed the outlet goes so far as to emphasize that “There’s a high likelihood of American casualties. And that comes with lots of political risk” – according to the words of one of the officials interviewed for the story.

Once again the decision-makers are on the brink of throwing American troops under the bus for the sake of another bloody regime change war. They might heed the words of one soldier who over a decade ago expressed that the troops themselves are sick of the pointless ‘forever wars’..

Trump himself of course campaigned on starting no new wars, especially in the Middle East. Ironically he’s been bragging about ending seven conflicts globally, while standing on the brink of provoking and ordering a new large-scale war breaking out across the whole Mideast region.

March 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture

Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.

The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.

If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.

By Hanieh Jodat , Truthout, February 24, 2026

As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.

Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval……………………………………………………………………………………………..

A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.

And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. …………………………………………………………………………………

Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.

This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability…………………………………………………………………………… https://truthout.org/articles/a-war-with-iran-would-not-be-a-one-off-event-but-a-disastrous-ongoing-rupture/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=3e2745821e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_02_24_10_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-3e2745821e-650192793

March 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

“The Surgery of the World”: Netanyahu Arrives in Washington to Deliver the Final Blow to Diplomacy and Ignite a Major War.

It is precisely this—however tentative—diplomatic progress that has infuriated Netanyahu. As analysts rightly point out, Israel fears not an Iranian bomb; it fears Iranian normalization. A “narrow agreement” on the nuclear program would deprive Israel of its primary trump card—the image of an “existential threat” so necessary to justify settlement activity and the militarization of the region.

The essence of the visit, in fact, boiled down to blackmail. Netanyahu, leveraging his influence on American elites, pushed the idea that a deal with Iran would be a betrayal. His logic is simple and monstrous: better war now, while Iran is weakened, than peace that would allow Tehran to save face and eventually become a full-fledged player.

Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid, February 23, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/02/23/the-surgery-of-the-world-netanyahu-arrives-in-washington-to-deliver-the-final-blow-to-diplomacy-and-ignite-a-major-war/

The Israeli Prime Minister’s hasty visit to the White House is not a consultation between allies, but an armed intrusion into the negotiation process.

Under the guise of ensuring security, Netanyahu is demanding terms from Trump that Iran will never accept. The goal is singular: to bury any hope for a deal and drag the United States into yet another Middle Eastern bloodbath. Behind the façade of an “unbreakable friendship” between Washington and Tel Aviv lies a cynical spectacle where partners are ready to stab each other in the back for the sake of hegemony.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, hastily rescheduled for February 2026, is not a matter of diplomatic etiquette but an act of desperation and aggression. The Israeli Prime Minister rushed to the White House with one objective: to destroy the budding dialogue between the US and Iran that had just begun to emerge in Oman.

He brought with him a dossier of intelligence, his well-honed skill of disregarding American diplomacy when it suits him, and the firm conviction that the US is on the verge of a deal that would leave Israel vulnerable. The meeting with Trump, originally scheduled for February 11th, was abruptly moved up a week and took place shortly after the start of US-Iran negotiations. This was no routine consultation between allies; it was an intervention in the affairs of another state.

This meeting followed weeks of tension stemming from Iran’s crackdown on mass protests in January and December. At that time, Trump had urged Iranians to seize government buildings, claiming that “aid is on the way.” But it hasn’t arrived yet—apparently, it’s stuck somewhere.

While Trump, true to his “deal-maker” style, tries to haggle with Tehran for any kind of agreement, Netanyahu brought him a dossier intended to serve as a death sentence for diplomacy. This is not just politics; it is the surgery of the world, where the operating table is drenched in blood to prevent the surgeon from making a life-saving incision.

A One-Sided Game: What Does Israel Really Want?

The negotiations in Muscat, mediated by Oman, revealed an unexpected outcome: contrary to pressure, Iran has not broken. Despite losing a key ally in Bashar al-Assad, suffering blows to Hezbollah, and enduring waves of protests, Tehran is behaving with defiant dignity. Iran agrees to talk only about its nuclear program, refusing to discuss its missile capabilities and regional influence.

Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate solely on its nuclear program, rejecting attempts to limit its ballistic missile arsenal and its support for regional proxy forces. Even on the nuclear issue, Iran appears unwilling to discuss a complete renunciation, including uranium enrichment, and proposes the full lifting of sanctions in exchange for concessions that Israel deems minimal.

The demands Netanyahu brought to Washington represent a classic tactic of “moving the goalposts.”

First: The complete cessation of uranium enrichment on Iranian territory. A demand that not only violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but also constitutes political suicide for Iran.

Second: Restrictions on the ballistic missile program. For Tehran, this is its only means of deterrence since the US withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, demonstrating to the world the value of its signature.

Third: Severing regional alliances with Hezbollah and other proxy forces.

This is not a negotiating position. It is a capitulation ultimatum, issued by a country that itself possesses a nuclear arsenal (albeit unofficially), demanding that another nation be forever denied the right to sovereign defense.

Behind Closed Doors: Theater of War Without an Audience

The very format of the meeting is telling. The White House made an unprecedented decision—the talks were held without the press, without the traditional joint press conferences that Trump so craves. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth explicitly states this was done to conceal “disagreements.”

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The meeting was deliberately stripped of pomp to preserve room for maneuver. Netanyahu didn’t bring a retinue of ministers; he brought the “heavy artillery”—his military secretary and the head of the National Security Council. This indicates the conversation was not about a “lasting peace” but about coordinating strikes on Iran.

The outcome of this rush felt like a slap in the face. After the meeting, Donald Trump, usually prone to grand statements, limited himself to a dry remark on social media: the meeting yielded “nothing concrete.” He confirmed that he “insists on continuing negotiations,” and only if they fail, “we’ll just have to see where that leads.”

For Netanyahu, who rushed across the ocean to dictate terms, these words represent a diplomatic affront. Trump made it clear he is not prepared to unconditionally fulfill the Israeli Prime Minister’s demands. However, it would be naive to see this as a victory for common sense.

Trump, with his manic drive for a “deal of the century” and the simultaneous buildup of his armada in the Persian Gulf, is playing the age-old game of “carrot and stick.” But in Netanyahu’s case, this “carrot” is poisoned. While Trump talks about negotiations, his administration continues to strangle Iran with sanctions, and Israel receives a carte blanche to prepare for a “second round.”

Who Benefits from War?

Washington and Tel Aviv are playing a double game. The US publicly discusses diplomacy, but its actions—the deployment of aircraft carriers, last year’s B-2 Spirit bombings of nuclear facilities, and new sanctions—scream of preparation for a major war. Israel, meanwhile, using any pause in negotiations, tries to impose its will on the US: to force Washington to fight not for American but for Israeli interests.

As one Iranian politician aptly noted in an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, “The United States demands that Iran agree to a subordinate role within a US-managed regional order.” Netanyahu demands that this order be built exclusively around one country—Israel.

This is the central tragedy of the moment. Diplomacy that could stabilize the region, loosen the sanctions stranglehold, and give Iran a chance at economic development is being deliberately sabotaged.

Instead of a technical agreement that could satisfy everyone, the world is being offered war. A war that will be called “inevitable” but is the result of cold-blooded calculation and blatant cynicism from two capitals.

Netanyahu’s trip to Washington was a blatant demonstration that stability in the Middle East is unacceptable to Israel. They need chaos. They need an enemy. They need blood. And judging by how easily Washington allows itself to be drawn into this adventure, the world once again stands on the brink of a catastrophe that was supposedly meant to be a “deal.”

March 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s War of Choice: Oman Reveals Iran Agreement Was Imminent

February 28, 2026, by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trumps-war-of-choice-oman-reveals-iran-agreement-was-imminent/

Hours before U.S. bombs began falling on Iran, a quiet but extraordinary diplomatic revelation aired on American television.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi—the chief mediator between Washington and Tehran—stated plainly that a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran was “within our reach.”

It was not vague optimism. It was a detailed outline of concessions.

According to Albusaidi, Iran had agreed to something that went beyond the 2015 nuclear accord negotiated under Barack Obama—a deal later abandoned by Donald Trump. This time, Tehran had committed not merely to limits on enrichment, but to zero stockpiling of enriched nuclear material. No accumulation. No reserve. Full and comprehensive verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched,” Albusaidi explained, “then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”

In other words: the central justification for war was being diplomatically neutralized.

And yet, within hours, Trump announced military strikes on Iran and signaled a campaign aimed not at containment, but regime change.

The Timing Speaks Volumes

Oman has long served as a discreet intermediary in U.S.–Iran diplomacy. It is known for caution, not grandstanding. For Albusaidi to go public—on a flagship American news program—was highly unusual.

According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the move was unprecedented. Oman’s message was clear: diplomacy had produced real progress. Trump could have declared victory.

Instead, he declared war.

If Albusaidi’s account is accurate, then the administration’s claim that Iran “rejected every opportunity” to curb nuclear ambitions collapses under scrutiny. What was preempted was not an imminent nuclear breakout—it was a diplomatic breakthrough.

War of Choice, Not Necessity

The United States Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. No such declaration has been issued. International law permits force only in response to an armed attack or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met.

This is not a defensive war. It is a war of choice.

And it is a deeply unpopular one. A recent survey found that only 21% of Americans support initiating an attack on Iran under current circumstances. The public understands something Washington elites often ignore: wars in the Middle East do not remain limited, surgical, or contained. They metastasize.

The echoes of 2003 are unmistakable.

Diplomacy Sabotaged

The tragedy is not only that bombs are falling. It is that negotiations were ongoing. Additional talks were scheduled for next week. The diplomatic channel was open.

By launching strikes at the moment mediation was yielding results, the administration has sent a stark message—not just to Iran, but to the world: agreements reached through dialogue can be nullified by executive fiat.

This damages more than a single negotiation. It undermines the credibility of American diplomacy itself.

If zero stockpiling under full IAEA verification was indeed on the table, then the choice before Washington was clear: accept an enforceable nonproliferation framework—or escalate toward regional war.

The administration chose escalation.

The Broader Implication

Regime-change wars have a long and destructive history in U.S. foreign policy. They rarely produce democracy. They often produce chaos, extremism, and prolonged suffering—for civilians first and foremost.

The question now is not simply whether this war is legal or justified. It is whether it was avoidable.

The Omani foreign minister’s televised appeal suggests that it was.

Peace, he said, was within reach.

And then the bombs began.

March 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »