nuclear-news

Trump Willing to End War on Iran without opening Hormuz Strait?

Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump destroyed, had guaranteed that Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program could not be turned to military purposes. None of the rationales for the war ever made sense, and now the goal seems to be to return to the status quo ante, to get back to February 27, 2026. But you can’t.

Juan Cole, 03/31/2026

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Trump has reportedly told aides that he wants to end the Iran War within four to six weeks and that he has realized that attempting forcibly to reopen it would take far longer.

Having degraded Iran’s military capabilities, Trump hopes that future diplomacy will help reopen the Strait and that other countries will take the lead on those negotiations (!)

If wishes were fishes we’d all have barrels full.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview to Al Jazeera in which he said,

It isn’t clear that Rubio is in the loop on Trump’s war aims, and Trump himself appears to say things so as to move the stock market and enable insider trading for himself and his cronies, so it is hard to know what emphasis to place on these bipolar pronouncements. On Sunday Trump was blustering about invading Iran with ground troops or destroying all its power and desalinization plants. Now on Monday evening he want to cease bombing in a few weeks and walk away.

Rubio’s three goals are silly. Iran has never had much of an air force or navy. And while its ballistic missile launchers have been reduced in number, the country still seems to have large numbers of Shahed drones that can be launched from the back of a Toyota truck or from underground emplacements, and Iran still seems to have lots of these drones. It even still has lots of missiles, and hit an Israeli oil refinery at Haifa with one on Monday. The likelihood is that with Chinese and Russian help Iran will be able swiftly to replace those launchers, and it probably is manufacturing hundreds of new drones a week even as the war drags on.

Iran never had a nuclear weapons program and the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump destroyed, had guaranteed that Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program could not be turned to military purposes. None of the rationales for the war ever made sense, and now the goal seems to be to return to the status quo ante, to get back to February 27, 2026. But you can’t.

The political problem for Trump is that Iran’s strategy of taking the world’s oil and gas hostage has worked. Those fuels are characterized by inelastic demand — people who drive gasoline cars to work need gasoline, whether it costs $2.70 a gallon or $4 a gallon or $7 a gallon. They cannot easily switch to another fuel. I mean, over time they could buy an electric car or move closer to their work, but we’re talking this month and next month. Not only is demand inelastic but supply is, as well.

You’ll hear commentators talking about how America has its own petroleum. This is not true. The US consumes a little over 20 million barrels a day of petroleum and other liquid fuels. It produces 13.6 million barrels a day.

We make up the nearly 7 million barrel a day difference with imports, above all from Canada but also from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Iraq and Colombia.

So although the US may produce more petroleum than any other country, it uses it all itself, and then some. It is not a swing producer. Saudi Arabia is a swing producer because it can produce a lot of oil that it does not use and so can export a lot or a little, having an outsized impact on prices. The US cannot do that. And Saudi Arabia’s exports have been much reduced by Iran’s blockade. What elasticity exists in the oil supply comes from swing producers and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait cannot play that role right now. Supply is therefore inelastic over the short to medium term.

So American’s gasoline and diesel goes up when everybody else’s does, since the producers have a choice of markets to sell into and they will sell to the highest bidder. Americans, contrary to the lies Big Oil tells, are not self-sufficient in gasoline, and their pocketbooks are going to take a big hit on energy prices if this war goes on.

The war has not only taken oil off the market (we won’t be getting any from Iraq since its fields are closed now) but Israeli and US strikes on Iran, and Iranian strikes on the Gulf Arab states, have damaged oil and gas facilities. The French estimate that a third of Gulf refining capacity has been taken off the board because of damage to facilities. Let me fill you in on something: crude petroleum is worthless. It only acquires a value when it is refined into products like gasoline or diesel that can power vehicles or fuel power plants.

That refining capacity is not going to miraculously recover when Trump finally ends this pointless war. Rebuilding will take time. Depending on how long the hot war continues, you could see petroleum stay above $100 a barrel for the foreseeable future, which will take between 0.3% and 0.4% off GDP growth. The US was already anemic at a projected 0.7% GDP growth rate this year, which high petroleum and gas prices could whittle down to nothing. Or we could even go into a recession.

Moreover, the potential is there for more damage to oil rigs, refineries and terminals, and the risk increases with every day the war continues.

Americans haven’t felt the full pain yet because the markets have imperfect information or are paying too much attention to Trump’s jawboning. But industry insiders are worried about $200 a barrel petroleum (it was about $70 before the war), and are worried that elevated prices can be foreseen into the future.

So all of a sudden, as Trump begins to get heat from his MAGA base about gasoline prices and about a costly foreign war and now the prospect of boots on the ground — all of a sudden Trump wants to walk away within a month and let Iran have the Strait of Hormuz until such time as some other countries can talk Tehran out of it!!

Filed Under: Donald Trump, Featured, Iran, Natural Gas, Petroleum, War

About the Author

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Distinguished University Professor in the History Department at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook

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

Implications of a Possible US Ground Invasion of Iran

Abbas Hashemite, March 30, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/03/30/implications-of-a-possible-us-ground-invasion-of-iran/

Following Iran’s strong retaliation, the United States is mulling a ground invasion of the country. However, it would have significant implications for the US.

Escalation Amidst Diplomacy

Despite ongoing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and Israel attacked Iran, violating international rules and norms. Most of Iran’s top-level military and civilian leadership was assassinated in the US and Israeli attack on February 28, 2026. In retaliation, Iran targeted Israeli cities and its nuclear and energy infrastructure, along with key US military facilities in the region. Iran also closed the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global maritime oil trade, which increased global inflation as energy and oil prices surged worldwide.

Since February 28, Iran has been continuously targeting Israeli and US interests in the Middle East. Iran’s strong retaliation against the United States and Israel and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz have exasperated US President Trump. Surging global inflation due to his unnecessary “war of choice,” as Americans call it, has made him desperate to secure a deal over the issue of closure of the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump’s frustration is evident from his simultaneous statement about continuing the war and ending it through diplomatic negotiations.

Contradictions in Strategy and Leadership

Due to increasing contradictions between Trump’s rhetoric and actions, people around the world are curious about the future of this war. Following President Trump’s statement regarding talks with Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli attacks on Iran would continue. On March 25, the Zionist Prime Minister even ordered the Israeli military to speed up its air campaign for the next 48 hours against Iran to destroy as much of its arms industry as possible. Similarly, the US Central Command, on the night when Trump talked about negotiations, reported that air strikes against Iran were carried out extensively.

The cost of the US-Israel and Iran war has already spiraled out of control. The Gulf countries are still unable to recover from the shock of this unexpected war. Amongst all this, a ground invasion of Iran would prove catastrophic for the world, and it would push the war into an ‘irreversible’ phase. Once the United States starts the ground invasion of Iran, it would become nearly impossible to stop the war, and the detrimental impacts of this war would increase manifold. For such an invasion, a clear objective and aim of the war need to be defined first. However, the US and Israeli leadership have failed to define a clear objective of this war.

Shifting Goals and the Risks of Ground War

Initially, the US and Israel stated that their goal was to remove the Islamic regime and end the country’s nuclear and missile program. However, after their failure to spark a native uprising against the Ayatollah regime and Iran’s strong retaliation, President Trump’s objective has apparently shifted towards opening the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan’s Minister of Defense, Khawaja Asif, also mocked the US by stating, “The goal of the war seems to have shifted to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.” This shifting objective of the war indicates that the US policymakers are unable to define a clear aim of the war they started at the behest of Israel.

The absence of a clear objective has resulted in a military posture that no longer aligns with the initially stated goals of the war, disrupting US military planning. The ground invasion of Iran would not be possible with a few divisions, but it would require a complete military ecosystem. Iran has already mobilized one million soldiers to counter a possible US ground invasion of the country. Therefore, deploying insufficient military forces in Iran would create an imbalance, resulting only in casualties of the US soldiers. With the increasing number of military casualties, Trump’s political stature will also diminish, as the argument that “the US troops are sacrificing their lives for Israel” will strengthen.

If the United States seeks to control the Strait of Hormuz and nearby islands, it would compel Iran to respond with full military might, as it is ready to sacrifice its own energy infrastructure, which has already been significantly damaged by Israeli and US attacks. Similarly, a ground invasion of Iran through the Kurdish region is also impossible for the US, as it would result in a protracted war between the two sides. A prolonged war between the two sides would further increase the economic cost of this war.

Therefore, a ground invasion of Iran, especially under the current circumstances, is impossible. President Trump’s popularity in the US has already declined to a record low after his involvement in this Israeli war. A ground invasion of Iran would further increase political hardships for Donald Trump. However, if he continues to pursue a conflicting policy stance regarding the Iran war, it would be impossible to halt the war diplomatically and further increase mistrust between the two sides.

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

Thousands of Iranians Who Live on Kharg Island Face Possibility of US Invasion

US media talk about the island’s civilians as if they are a military problem, if they talk about them at all.

By Séamus Malekafzali , Truthout, March 30, 2026, https://truthout.org/articles/thousands-of-iranians-who-live-on-kharg-island-face-possibility-of-us-invasion/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=3106eddc85-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_03_30_09_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-3106eddc85-650192793

Over the past month of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, Donald’s Trump mission has creeped from vowing that he’s “not putting troops anywhere” to backing himself into an escalation that makes the chance of ground invasion far more likely. As many as 17,000 American troops could be gathering in preparation for an operation to land on, and potentially even seize, any number of Iranian islands in the embattled Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Kharg Island, deep in the Gulf and near the coasts of Kuwait and Iraq, is the isle the Trump administration has most clearly placed in its crosshairs. Media reports have suggested the administration is also considering other special operations, such as a complex raid to seize enriched uranium from Isfahan. But taking Kharg is now being touted by some of the same hawks who pushed for the initial U.S. military action in Iran as a new central goal of the war, an opportunity to acquire significant leverage that the United States can and must take. “We did Iwo Jima,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said to Fox News on March 22, “We can do this.”

Other islands closer to the strait, like Larak, an island off Iran’s southern coast, have been more critical to Iran’s ongoing blockade of oil tankers. But 80 to 90 percent of Iran’s own crude oil exports — which have increased since the war began — run through Kharg, making the island’s oil terminal deeply important to the functioning of Iran’s economy, in wartime or otherwise. Over the past few weeks, the American government, ever-obsessed with seizing the oil of other nations as recompense, has attempted to make Kharg into its plaything. On March 13, the U.S. conducted airstrikes on the island and sent a volley of rockets, allegedly fired from Emirati territory, with CENTCOM claiming to have hit “90+ military sites” that destroyed “naval mine storage facilities” and “missile storage bunkers,” among other purported targets.

After the strikes, Trump immediately bragged that Iran now had “NO ability to defend anything we want to attack” and later said that “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.” While he made a point of claiming to spare the oil infrastructure on the island, wary of price shocks caused by Israeli attacks on oil refineries near Tehran days earlier, Trump otherwise spoke of the island as if it had been “totally demolished.” The White House social media accounts posted his message announcing the attacks with the headline: “Kharg Island Obliterated.”

This “obliteration” would have come as news to the more than 8,000 permanent residents of the island, to say nothing of the thousands more who have come to Kharg to work in the oil industry — residents and workers who have been removed from the American government’s discussion of a potential invasion, as well as American media’s reporting about the impacts of such an invasion.

Locals on the island told BBC Persian that the targets the U.S. bombed hit deep inside the city of Kharg, where most of the population resides, that “the island doesn’t really have a military base,” and that following the bombing of Kharg Airport, which runs domestic flights to cities on the Iranian mainland, there was now no way to evacuate.

The White House’s cavalier attitude towards an invasion of Iranian territory has been notable, with Trump mentioning on March 29 that “maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t” because his “favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran.” But Western media coverage has arguably done just as much to create the impression that Kharg is solely a strategic asset to be conquered, with the welfare of its native inhabitants a footnote, if mentioned at all.

Mainstream outlets like Reuters and The Washington Post have backgrounded the civilian population in favor of dry, military-focused analysis, with the Post blithely printing the words of an analyst from the pro-Israel Washington Institute that it would be “safer” for U.S. forces to simply surround the island with mines and hold it hostage. Coverage on CBS and Fox News has perpetuated outright falsehoods about the island’s population; CBS brought on an analyst from the conservative Hudson Institute to say that Kharg could easily be isolated because it had “no civilian population center” and “really is just oil infrastructure,” while Fox’s Jesse Watters featured Medal of Honor recipient David Bellavia, who told viewers that “civilians are not allowed to even go to Kharg Island.”

Outlets that have mentioned Kharg’s civilian population have often done so in passing, sometimes referring to the island’s inhabitants as a mere additional risk that U.S. paratroopers and marines will have to account for. In a Bloomberg editorial, James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, writes about the thousands on the island as problems to be solved, people “who would need to be contained in their homes or evacuated; the Iranians may have planted sophisticated booby traps.”

The narrative from war hawks pushing for an invasion has suggested such an operation could be of a limited nature, more along the lines of a raid and less like the long-term occupation of Iraq, a “quagmire” that the Trump administration has insisted the war with Iran is nothing like. But while Fox Business may bring on a former Navy SEAL to talk about how oil seized from Kharg Island could be passed “back to the Iranian people once they take over this regime,” there is little indication that Trump would want to quickly exit Kharg. The president said outright on Sunday that invading it would “mean we had to be there for a while.” There’s even less indication that the Trump administration cares about giving power to the Iranian people or preserving their livelihoods or national economy.

An invasion of Kharg would place thousands of Iranians — perhaps hundreds of thousands if the U.S. military also chose to invade other islands like Larak, Kish, Abu Musa, Hormuz, or Qeshm — under direct military occupation in a form for an indefinite period with no immediate plans for exit or planned transition, a military operation with few parallels in the War on Terror era.

As U.S. threats continue to build, Iran has reportedly brought further military reinforcements to Kharg over the past several days. Life on the island continues. Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has warned of “continuous and relentless attacks” on “vital infrastructure” in the region should a U.S. ground invasion commence. Esmail Hosseini, spokesman for the parliament’s Energy Commission, was more blunt on a parliamentary visit to the island, saying that Kharg will become “the graveyard of the aggressors.” One resident of the island told a reporter from Mehr News, “The enemy thinks it can break the resistance on Kharg Island with a few attacks, but they are blind, and we will not leave the field for them.” The White House, at least for now, does not appear to be heeding these warnings.

The American narrative of having supposedly learned lessons after endless years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan is finally being challenged by brutal reality. A desire to wage war without endangering American lives, while exacting unlimited damage and chaos against any state that has the means to fight back, means the question of what to do with civilians has become virtually unmentionable. A war can ostensibly be waged for the freedom of the Iranian people in the abstract, this narrative goes, but even their mere existence is not allowed to be a factor in the actual operations of a military, one that now openly prides itself on ignoring “stupid rules of engagement” and maximizing “lethality.” The people of Kharg, and of Iran more broadly, are deemphasized, ignored, erased from discussion, until they suddenly become an immediate and shocking problem, a problem the U.S. simply didn’t anticipate, a problem to now be dealt with by a government that bragged about obliterating the land upon which they exist.

April 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Operation Epic Flurry

“The problem,” the analysis concludes, “is that Trump doesn’t know what his objectives in this war are. Or, worse still, he has proclaimed many objectives, some of them contradictory, because he has no policies and no strategies.”

And this, delivered with the precision of a man who has spent years watching: “He’s a vacancy in the middle of his own world, and yet a vacancy that is fully in charge. The situation could not be more dire.”

28 March 2026 David Tyler, Australian Independent Media

The announcement comes, as always, with impeccable timing. Ten minutes after the S&P 500 closes on its worst single trading day since the war began, Donald Trump posts on Truth Social that he is extending his pause on “energy plant destruction” by ten more days, until Monday April 6 at 8pm Eastern Time. “As per Iranian Government request,” he writes.

Another outright lie. Talks were going “very well.” The markets sighed. Oil dipped. Then snapped back. Brent crude settled at $107 a barrel.

This is the operating system. Not diplomacy. Not strategy. Useful idiocy. A witless grifter watching the markets, the courts and the clock, adjusting deadlines, managing increasingly bizarre appearances, while the ships keep moving.

The boots are already in the water.

The Anatomy of a Fake Pause

This is the second extension Dong Wang, (King of Knowledge or know-all) as they call Trump in China, has announced since he issued his original 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power grid. No-one knows how to deliver an ultimatum like Trump.

The first pause came on Monday. The second came Thursday. Both arrived at market-sensitive moments, both were framed as responses to Iranian requests, and both were flatly denied by Iran. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi scathingly describes the exchange of messages through intermediaries as not constituting “negotiations.”

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf calls the whole show “fake news used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”

He is not wrong. The backchannel activity is real enough: Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey have been relaying messages between Washington and Tehran, and there is genuine mediating pressure from Islamabad to convene a face-to-face meeting. But the gap between what is actually happening and what Trump is describing to the American public is the gap between a fax or Telegram arriving at a foreign ministry and a signed ceasefire.

Iran rejects Trump’s 15-point plan outright and tables its own five conditions, including war reparations and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. That is not a negotiating position that converges with Washington’s in ten days. Not in twenty. In fact it’s a dark parody of Trump’s style of negotiation which is to issue an ultimatum. Iran is signalling its contempt.

So what is the April 6 deadline actually for? The mediators themselves have identified the core problem: the Iranians “suspect that the US is tricking them again.” True. The pause is not buying time for diplomacy. It is buying time for deployment.

What Is Actually Moving

Two Marine Expeditionary Units are converging on the Persian Gulf from opposite ends of the Pacific………………

Additionally, the Pentagon has ordered roughly two thousand soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division to move from their base in North Carolina to the Middle East. ……………..

On Wednesday, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf posts a warning that deserves attention precisely because of what it does not say.

“Based on some intelligence reports,” he wrote, “Iran’s enemies are preparing to occupy one of the Iranian islands with support from one of the regional states. Our forces are monitoring all enemy movements, and if they take any step, all the vital infrastructure of that regional state will be targeted with relentless, unceasing attacks.”

He does not name the island. He does not name the regional collaborator. A warning that specific about an operation, that vague about the target, is not a general statement of defiance. It is the signature of intelligence tracking something imminent………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Ignoramus in Chief

Into this unfolding catastrophe, the elephant in the room is the question of who is actually making the decisions and on what basis.

………………………………………………………..Two minutes of edited highlights? Per day. This is the informational basis on which “Ole Bone-Spurs”, a former draft evader who shirked national service five times, but who is now the de-facto commander of the world’s largest military, is conducting a war.

Panic stations? Trump’s got his own allies, in a lather. The worry, as NBC delicately puts it, is that Trump “may not be receiving, or understanding, the complete picture of the war.” Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, is on record to the effect that Trump “hardly ever reads briefing notes” and when he does “cannot make sense of them,” and that he had “not thought through the implications or laid the groundwork” for a longer conflict with Iran.

Trump’s biographer Michael Wolff, who has known him as well as any journalist alive, goes further in a recent Daily Beast podcast.

“It’s not just unpresidential, it’s incoherent. It’s the language of an ignoramus.” He added: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It just comes out of his mouth, out of self-justification, need, fear, aggression.”

…………………………………………….Slate’s military analyst identifies the strategic void at the centre of the operation with Clausewitzian clarity: Trump’s delusion stems from a fundamental misunderstanding that war is entirely about destroying targets. CENTCOM has struck more than five thousand targets.

But wars are fought for political objectives, and Trump has proclaimed so many contradictory objectives, shifting from regime change to nuclear disarmament to resource acquisition to Hormuz control with no discernible logic, that his own advisers do not know what they are working toward.

“The problem,” the analysis concludes, “is that Trump doesn’t know what his objectives in this war are. Or, worse still, he has proclaimed many objectives, some of them contradictory, because he has no policies and no strategies.”

A vacancy in the middle of his own world, fully in charge. Making it up as he goes. What could possibly go wrong?

Murdoch’s Man at the Pentagon

Nature abhors a vacuum. The vacancy does not stand alone. It is surrounded by people who have their own reasons for filling it.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth is an ex-Fox News jock who got given the largest military budget in history. A former Guantanamo guard with no command experience beyond a National Guard deployment, Hegseth spent the years between his military service and his cabinet appointment performing patriotism on Murdoch’s flagship cable network, aka Faux News, where hawk-talk is part of the job profile and any hint of restraint is seen as weakness, wokeness or treachery.

Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon with dreams that his TV-show persona had done nothing to temper. At a press conference this month he declared that US forces would show “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.”

Ryan Goodman, professor of law and co-editor of national security journal Just Security, tells Axios this would constitute a war crime under the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual. Hegseth also used the occasion to attack the press for failing to be “an actual patriotic press,” citing the headline “Mideast war intensifies” as proof of disloyalty.

This is the man with the power to unleash Armageddon……………………………………………..

Behind Hegseth, behind Trump, the hand that has been pushing this from the beginning.

Bloomberg reported on March 21, citing “people familiar with private conversations”, that those pressing Trump to strike Iran included not only Netanyahu but Rupert Murdoch, the ninety-five-year-old chairman emeritus of News Corp and Fox Corp. Murdoch instructed Trump several times, personally urging the president, he once called a “fucking idiot” to take on Tehran. This was not casual chat. ………………………………………………..

When the bombs started falling on February 28, the New York Post’s front page read “DEATH TO THE DEVIL.” Subsequent editions ran “DON GETS LAST LAUGH” and “NO MERCY.” The Wall Street Journal has since called for ground troops. Fox News has been, in the words of Crikey’s media analyst, the loudest global advocate for the war, running the same cheerleading operation it ran for Iraq in 2003, right down to the retired generals on the panel and the American flag in the corner of the screen.

Even within Murdoch’s own empire, the revulsion has broken through. Former Fox host Megyn Kelly, no dove, is scathing:

“We now learn that Rupert Murdoch was one of the main people goading Trump into this war. Rupert Murdoch, who is ninety-five years old, he’ll be dead soon. And he too is acting as if our troops are expendable cattle.” Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna used the same phrase, “expendable cattle,” without any prompting from Kelly. Senator Lindsey Graham had just told Fox News Sunday, without embarrassment, that the Marines could take Kharg Island because “we did Iwo Jima.”………………………………………….

The Fracture Nobody Is Talking About

There is one more element that complicates the picture and which has been ignored in the mainstream coverage of the war. Washington and Tel Aviv are no longer fighting the same war.

Even The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is on to it. Trump appears to favour the Venezuela model: align with a pragmatic insider within the Iranian regime, access the oil and gas resources, declare victory and exit. Netanyahu prefers what Israeli strategists call “mowing the grass”: maximum target destruction, indefinite conflict management, no exit required and no exit planned. These two approaches are not reconcilable. They are direct opposites dressed in the same uniform.

……………………………………Former Israeli ambassador Alon Pinkas tells Al Jazeera that Trump’s pivot toward negotiations, apparently over Netanyahu’s objections, may signal that the US president has finally grasped that Netanyahu “may have duped him on how quick and resounding a victory would be, and how viable regime change is.” Israeli political scientist Ori Goldberg delivers the verdict without the turd polish: “Is it a defeat for Netanyahu? Hell, yes. It’s Trump essentially ditching Israel.”

Netanyahu, facing ICC arrest warrants, corruption charges and a national inquiry into October 7 that he has spent two years postponing, has his own reasons to keep the war going. ……………………………..

The Boots Are Already in the Water

Let us be clear about what we are watching. A president who cannot distinguish between a war briefing and a movie trailer is extending fake diplomatic deadlines while an amphibious task force closes on the Persian Gulf. His Defence Secretary is a television performer who has never commanded anything larger than a National Guard unit and whose understanding of strategic warfare was formed on a Fox News set. Behind both of them, a ninety-five-year-old media magnate with no democratic mandate and a perfect record of warmongering for profit has been personally lobbying the President of the United States to go to war……………………………………………….. https://theaimn.net/operation-epic-flurry/

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

Greenpeace warns Trump’s threat to bomb Iran’s power grid risks humanitarian and nuclear disaster

Greenpeace International, 23 Mar 26, https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/82295/trump-threat-bomb-iran-power-grid-risks-humanitarian-nuclear-disaster/

Amsterdam – Greenpeace International has condemned threats by Donald Trump to target Iran’s electricity infrastructure, warning it could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe, trigger a blackout over a large part of the country and risk nuclear disaster escalating into a wider regional crisis.

Greenpeace warns that attacks on the grid could have a knock-on effect that increases the danger of a nuclear emergency at the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, with potential consequences across the region.[1]

“Bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk,” said Jan Vande Putte, senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International.[2]

“A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster.”[3]

Iran’s grid is already under strain due to war, climate change and sanctions leading to underinvestment.[4]

“If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis,” says Vande Putte.

The US, Israel and Iran have all targeted energy infrastructure, and several attacks in Iran and Israel already appear to have come close to hitting nuclear facilities. Iran is also threatening to target water and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries.[5] Greenpeace is urging all parties to step back from escalation and pursue a diplomatic solution now, warning that further escalation will only deepen human suffering and increase global instability.

The Bushehr nuclear plant was built and is operated by Iran’s nuclear enabler, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation.

March 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s ‘new’ 15‑point plan is the biggest sign yet that Washington fears it is losing this war

Iran.. does not need military victory. It only needs to endure, impose costs, and outlast its adversaries. This is the logic of asymmetric conflict: the weaker power wins by not losing, while the stronger one loses when the costs of continuing become unsustainable.

March 26, 2026, Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London, Inderjeet Parmar, Professor in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London. https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-new-15-point-plan-is-the-biggest-sign-yet-that-washington-fears-it-is-losing-this-war-279001?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekender%20-%2028%20March%202026&utm_content=The%20Weekender%20-%2028%20March%202026+CID_09f9907cac66b0e5c3e3ca794f0c8c0c&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Donald%20Trumps%20new%2015-point%20plan%20is%20the%20biggest%20sign%20yet%20that%20Washington%20fears%20it%20is%20losing%20this%20war

The language of power often reveals more than it intends. In a rare moment of candour on March 7, the US president, Donald Trump, described the confrontation with Iran as “a big chess game at a very high level … I’m dealing with very smart players … high-level intellect. High, very high-IQ people.”

If Iran is, by Trump’s own admission, a “high-level” opponent, then the sudden revival of a 15-point plan previously rejected by Iran a year ago suggests a disconnect between how the adversary is understood and how it is being approached. It’s a plan already examined in negotiation by Iran and dismissed as unrealistic and coercive. Despite this, the Trump administration is once again framing the “roadmap” as a pathway to de-escalation. Tehran has once again dismissed the gambit as Washington “negotiating with itself” – reinforcing the perception that the US is attempting to impose terms rather than negotiate them.

The US president is right about one thing – Iran is not an opponent that can be easily dismissed or overwhelmed. Trump’s own description is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a far more capable and complex adversary than those the US has faced in past Middle Eastern wars, such as Iraq. And that is why the odds are increasingly stacked against the United States and Israel.

This conflict reflects a familiar but flawed imperial assumption: that overwhelming military force can compensate for strategic misunderstanding. The US and Israel appear to have misjudged not only Iran’s capabilities, but the political, economic and historical terrain on which this war is being fought.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is a deeply embedded and adaptable regional power. It has resilient institutions, networks of influence, and the capacity to impose asymmetric costs across multiple theatres. It knows how to manage maximum pressure.

The most immediate problem is lack of legitimacy. This war has authorisation from neither the United Nations or, in the case of America, the US Congress. Further, US intelligence assessments indicate Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear programme following earlier strikes – contradicting one of Washington’s justifications for war. The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center on March 17, was even more revealing. In his resignation letter Kent insisted that Iran posed no imminent threat.

This effectively collapses one of the original narratives underpinning the US decision to start the war – a further blow to legitimacy.

A majority of Americans oppose the war, reflecting deep fatigue after Iraq and Afghanistan – hardly ideal conditions for what increasingly looks like another “forever war” in the Middle East. Current polling shows Trump’s Republicans trailing the Democrats ahead of the all-important midterm elections in November.

The war is both militarily uncertain and politically unsustainable. International allied support is also eroding. The United Kingdom — often trumpeted as Washington’s closest partner — has limited itself to defensive coordination, while Germany and France have distanced themselves from offensive operations. European allies also declined a US request to deploy naval forces to secure the strait of Hormuz. This reflects not just disagreement, but a deeper loss of trust in US leadership and strategic judgement.

US influence has long depended on legitimacy as much as force. That reservoir is now rapidly draining. Global confidence is falling, while images of civilian casualties — including over 160 schoolchildren killed in an airstrike on the first day of the war – have shocked international onlookers. Rather than reinforcing leadership, this war is accelerating its erosion.

Israel faces a parallel crisis of legitimacy – one that began in Gaza and has now deepened. The war in Gaza severely damaged its global standing, with sustained civilian casualties and humanitarian devastation drawing unprecedented criticism, even among traditional allies. This confrontation with Iran compounds that decline.

Striking Iran during active negotiations — for the second time — reinforces the perception that escalation is preferred over diplomacy. The issue is no longer just conduct, but credibility.

Strategic failure, narrative defeat

The conduct of the war compounds the problem. The assassinations of Iranian leaders, framed as tactical victories, are strategic failures. They have unified rather than destabilised Iran. Mass pro-regime demonstrations illustrate how external aggression can consolidate internal legitimacy.

The issue is no longer just the conduct of the war, but the credibility of the conflict itself. Regardless of how impressive the US and Israeli military are, it doesn’t compensate for reputational collapse. When building support for a conflict like this – domestically and internationally – legitimacy is a strategic asset. Once eroded across multiple conflicts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

Rather than stabilising the system, US actions are fragmenting it. Allies are distancing themselves, adversaries are adapting, and neutral states are hedging.

The most decisive factor may be economic. The war is already destabilising global markets – driving up oil prices, inflation, and volatility at levels that combine the effects of 1970s and Ukraine war oil shocks.

This is a war that cannot be contained geographically nor economically. The deployment of 2,500 US marines to the Middle East (and reports that up to another 3,000 paratroopers will also be sent), reportedly with plans to secure Kharg Island – and with it Iran’s most important oil infrastructure – would be a dangerous escalation.

For Gulf states, the assumption that the US can guarantee security is increasingly questioned. Some states are reportedly now looking to diversify their partnerships and turning toward China and Russia, mirroring post-Iraq shifts, when US failure opened space for alternative powers.

Iran holds the cards

Wars are not won by destroying capabilities alone, but by securing sustainable and legitimate political outcomes. On both counts, the US and Israel are falling short.

Iran, by contrast, does not need military victory. It only needs to endure, impose costs, and outlast its adversaries. This is the logic of asymmetric conflict: the weaker power wins by not losing, while the stronger one loses when the costs of continuing become unsustainable.

This dynamic is already visible. Having escalated rapidly, Trump now appears to be searching for an off-ramp — reviving proposals and signalling openness to negotiation. But he is doing so from a position of diminishing leverage. In contrast, Iran’s ability to threaten energy flows, absorb pressure, and shape the tempo of escalation means it increasingly holds key strategic cards. The longer the war continues, the more that balance tilts.

Empires rarely recognise when they begin to lose. They escalate, double down, and insist victory is near. But by the time the costs become undeniable – economic crisis, political fragmentation, global isolation – it is already too late. The US and Israel may win battles. But they may be losing the war that matters: legitimacy, stability and long-term influence.

And, as history suggests, that loss may not only define the limits of their power, but mark a broader shift in how power itself is judged, constrained, and resisted.

March 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment