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.
Atlanta robot security dogs now giving commands to Americans
Steve Watson, Modernity, Wed, 01 Apr 2026
Slippery slope to automated enforcement as machines take over city patrols amid rising crime
In the latest escalation of tech-driven “security” in American cities, Atlanta has unleashed robot security dogs that are actively issuing verbal commands to citizens on the streets.
A new video exposes how these mechanical enforcers operate with zero discretion: one woman greets the device warmly, complies instantly, and still gets reported to police.
These four-legged units, deployed by companies such as Undaunted Robotics across Atlanta apartment complexes, parking lots, and construction sites, patrol 24/7 with cameras, lights, sirens, and speakers.
Remote human operators monitor live feeds and speak through the robots to issue warnings or alert authorities.
Proponents claim they deter theft and break-ins where traditional guards fall short, with the founder noting they provide a cheaper alternative to on-site security while feeding real-time video to responders.
Yet the viral clip reveals the cold reality on the ground. A compliant citizen offering a friendly greeting triggers the same automated response as a suspected threat.
No nuance. No human judgment in the moment. Just a machine escalating straight to law enforcement.
This rollout comes as private security firms position the robots as partners for local police departments in Atlanta and DeKalb County, with plans to expand statewide.
Early deployments in areas like Castleberry Hill have drawn praise from some residents tired of unchecked property crime, but the hands-off approach raises red flags about accountability when silicon decides who gets flagged…………………………… ……………………….https://modernity.news/2026/04/01/watch-atlanta-robot-security-dogs-now-giving-commands-to-americans/
After murdering thousands in criminal Iran war, Trump to surrender during address to nation tonight
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL 2 Apr 26
No it won’t be the unconditional surrender Trump demanded of Iran. It will be a surrender couched as a US victory over Iran. Trump will say he’s obliterated enough of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capability to wind down his criminal war within a couple of weeks.
Nonsense. It’s the US bases in the Gulf States and Israel proper being decimated by Iran’s ferocious defense that are causing Trump to trumpet victory when in fact he’s been defeated in every war goal.
Trump didn’t achieve regime change in Iran.
Trump didn’t get Iran to surrender unconditionally or any other way at all.
Trump didn’t destroy Iran’s missile and drone defense.
Trump didn’t destroy Iran as Israel’s last remaining hegemon rival in the Middle East, the primary reason he attacked on February 28.
Trump didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz as promised, whose closure is threatening worldwide economic disaster.
Tonight Trump will spin his colossal defeat as victory. But while speaking, Iranian missiles and drones will continue raining down on US Gulf States bases and thruout Israel. Tomorrow the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed as gas prices continue endlessly upward.
Trump will remain trapped like the rat he is while killing more thousands before his cabinet invokes the 25th amendment to take away his license to kill and destroy.
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.
Doomsday Double Standard: U.S. Silent on Israel, Loud on Rivals
March 27, 2026 , https://scheerpost.com/2026/03/27/doomsday-double-standard-u-s-silent-on-israel-loud-on-rivals/
Silence in Congress: When Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Becomes an Unaskable Question
At a moment when nuclear facilities are being openly discussed as military targets in the escalating confrontation between Joaquin Castro and the Trump administration’s Middle East war posture, one exchange in Congress exposed just how rigid Washington’s political boundaries remain when the subject turns to Israel’s undeclared atomic arsenal.
During questioning before Congress, Castro asked Thomas DiNanno a direct question: does Israel possess nuclear capability?
The answer never came.
DiNanno, the senior U.S. official responsible for arms control and international security policy, declined to acknowledge publicly what has long been treated internationally as established fact: Israel is widely understood to possess a significant nuclear weapons stockpile, developed around the Negev Nuclear Research Center at Dimona.
Instead, DiNanno replied that he could not comment and suggested the question be directed to the Israeli government.
That answer was not merely evasive—it underscored one of the most enduring contradictions in U.S. foreign policy: Washington routinely frames nuclear proliferation in adversarial states as an existential threat while maintaining formal silence on Israel’s own strategic arsenal.
A Nuclear Question Washington Refuses to Touch
Castro’s line of questioning was not theoretical. It came amid growing alarm over attacks near nuclear-related infrastructure in both Israel and Iran, where military escalation has raised fears of accidental radioactive release, regional fallout, or broader strategic miscalculation.
His concern was simple: if military strikes approach nuclear sites, what are the risks to civilians, to the region, and potentially to Americans?
Yet even in that context, the administration’s top arms control official would not publicly acknowledge the existence of Israel’s deterrent capacity.
That silence reflects decades of diplomatic ambiguity. Israel has never formally admitted possessing nuclear weapons, despite extensive international assessments estimating an arsenal ranging from dozens to hundreds of warheads, supported by air, sea, and missile delivery systems.
The policy is often described as “nuclear opacity”—a deliberate refusal to confirm what nearly every major intelligence service already assumes.
Strategic Ambiguity, Political Obedience
The deeper issue exposed in the hearing is not whether Israel has nuclear weapons. Few serious analysts dispute that point.
The issue is why U.S. officials remain unwilling—even in congressional testimony—to speak plainly about it.
For critics of Washington’s Middle East policy, the answer lies in the political architecture surrounding the U.S.-Israel relationship: long-standing strategic alignment, domestic lobbying pressure, donor influence, and bipartisan reluctance to challenge core Israeli security narratives.
That has produced a diplomatic culture where nuclear transparency is demanded from adversaries but treated as politically untouchable when applied to allies.
The Contradiction at the Center of U.S. Policy
The United States has justified sanctions, covert operations, military threats, and diplomatic pressure for decades over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, even while its own officials avoid discussing the only actual nuclear weapons state in the region outside formal treaty structures.
For lawmakers like Castro, that contradiction becomes impossible to ignore during wartime.
As military escalation widens and nuclear-adjacent facilities enter targeting calculations, the refusal even to acknowledge known realities begins to look less like strategy and more like institutional denial.
The Meaning of the “Special Relationship”
The hearing ultimately captured something larger than one unanswered question.
It revealed how, even in matters involving potential nuclear risk, congressional oversight can hit an invisible boundary when Israel is involved.
As regional conflict carries consequences far beyond the Middle East, silence itself becomes policy—and policy becomes dangerous.
At the same time, earlier last month, this same official appeared perfectly willing to speak with certainty about other nations’ nuclear activity—declaring that “the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons.” Yet when the subject turned to Israel’s nuclear program, he suddenly could not open his mouth.
That contradiction says everything.
Washington can publicly accuse rivals, speculate about adversaries, and issue warnings across the globe, but when it comes to Israel’s long-known nuclear arsenal, silence becomes policy.
Historically, however uncomfortable it may be to admit, countries that developed nuclear deterrence—such as North Korea and Pakistan—have in many cases insulated themselves from the kind of sustained military pressure, regime threats, and strategic harassment that non-nuclear states continue to face. That reality helps explain why nuclear capability remains so central to global power calculations, even as it pushes humanity closer to catastrophe.
And catastrophe no longer feels abstract.
As of January 2026, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to symbolic global disaster. The warning reflects converging threats: nuclear confrontation, climate breakdown, and rapidly destabilizing technologies including artificial intelligence.
Nuclear winter is no longer the language of distant Cold War nightmares. It is again being discussed in real strategic terms, while governments continue to speak selectively about who may possess the weapons capable of ending civilization.
Good luck, everyone.
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/
Operation Epic Fury and US Unreadiness for War
25 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/operation-epic-fury-and-us-unreadiness-for-war/
The bellicose may find wars attractive and cleansing, but those responsible for such dry matters as inventory, material and how prepared the armed forces of a country are will stalk them with unpleasant truths. The addiction of the US imperium to waging wars, one that President Donald Trump promised, and failed, to treat, has gotten the wags in the military worried. The depleting nature of Operation Epic Fury has been particularly telling in this regard, revealing the US war machine to be unprepared for conflict.
Rather than referring to preparedness, the preferred choice in US Army circles is “unreadiness” or a lack of readiness. Army Undersecretary Michael Obadal, in his address at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference, was startlingly candid in this regard. “To say we’re satisfied with our readiness rates, I think, would be disingenuous. We have real problems with our major weapons systems, both aircraft and ground, and we have to address those things, and we’re doing so in a number of ways.” (The major weapons systems were left unnamed.)
One of his suggestions involves placing greater focus on “Public-private partnerships in an organic industrial base (OIB) [as] one of the most fundamentally different approaches that we can take.” The organic industrial base takes in some 23 depots, arsenals and ammunition plants responsible for manufacturing and resetting army equipment while fostering readiness and operational capability. “The OIB,” according to the US Army, “must be able to support current unit readiness, maintain the ability to surge, and modernize and retool to sustain the next generation of equipment.” Much has been made in the vanilla propaganda of the army of its “Modernization Implementation Plan” (MIP), which officially commenced in October 2024.
Establishing what readiness means in all of this is a thorny issue. Obadal lets the cat out of the bag in stating that “everyone will have different metrics”, a suitably unsatisfactory state of affairs. His own criteria are threefold: How the Army can respond tonight with what is available; what it can do in the next month to deal with the contingency; and what it can do to sustain the effort for the next year of combat.
Applying his own threefold metrics to the Army, Obadal identified problems with major weapons systems and, critically, problems with magazine depth. While not expressly referring to Operation Epic Fury and the war against Iran, the undersecretary did state that the “current situation” had “absolutely” aggravated matters. To address such problems, notably with weapons systems, manufacturers could work alongside soldiers and engineers in the theatre to fix vehicles and aircraft more expeditiously.
Legislation regarding “right to repair” provisions that would enable soldiers to tend to equipment problems without having to send them back to the manufacturer was also on the cards, though yet to pass. Obadal hoped that these would find their way into the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. “We have to be very narrow on what we’re asking for. So how many repetitions, how many units, how many years before we have IP [intellectual property], and there’s some IP that we don’t want commercial software and other things.” Companies could “keep that because we want them to be responsible for the updates, the security patches and all that, but we want to be able to change things out as the environment demands.”
The Army was also on the lookout for industry partners well advanced in their “TLR” [technology readiness level] when seeking contracts with the Pentagon. In addressing the problem of magazine depth, Obadal referenced the new modernising drive inviting private industry to co-invest in OIB installations. “If we ask industry to change, we have to address the long-term viability of our own organic industrial base. So a new environment requires new approaches.”
Other sources add more troubling details about the problems Obadal was good enough to underline. A Government Accountability Office report finalised just prior to the pre-emptive attack on Iran on February 28 and published on March 4 tut tutted the Pentagon for not fully implementing over 150 recommendations from earlier reviews with the express purpose of improving the availability of equipment, the bulking of personnel resources and supporting better decision-making on readiness. Shortages in trained maintenance personnel have caused problems across all branches of the armed services. This has hampered, for instance, “meeting mission capable rate goals for their aircraft that support combat-related missions.”
In a separate summary of issues afflicting US forces, the GAO notes with cold certainty that almost two decades of war “has degraded US military readiness. To adapt to growing threats posed by major powers (such as China and Russia) and other adversaries, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the individual military services must make some urgent changes.”
The GAO was also reproachful of the failure of both the Air Force and Navy for not completing “sustainment reviews” for their aircraft, an indispensable measure for maintaining readiness for the life cycle of relevant machinery. Both branches of the armed forces, despite the annual expenditure of billions of dollars annually, had “struggled for years to maintain their aircraft due to the age of their fleets, a lack of parts, maintenance delays, and other problems.”
On specific weapons platforms, the Pentagon faces challenges in, for instance, maintaining the staggeringly gluttonous F-35 fleet. These include “delays setting up military service depots – facilities to complete the most complex repairs – and inadequate equipment to keep aircraft operational.” While the department intended to move more maintenance responsibilities from external contractors to the government, no plan to do so had been made.
Repair depots are also taken to task for their shabbiness. “Depot infrastructure generally remains in fair to poor condition, and most depot equipment is past its service life.” The DOD persistently failed to report what was needed to arrest further deterioration.
With such a body of reservations, reproachful critique and recommendations unimplemented, the unreadiness of the US armed forces puts paid to the narrative, all too regularly touted by Trump and his unhinged Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, of boundless resources and peerless invincibility. The Iran War is all but confirming that; the unready have been found wanting.
The Deafening Abdication of Four Ex-Presidents on Trump.
By Ralph Nader
March 27, 2026
What should the American people, especially the hundreds of millions of their voters, expect Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden to do against the vicious, serial law-violating, violent, corrupt, agency-dismantling Donald Trump and the crony Trumpsters who are wrecking our government and our economy?
These former Presidents should mobilize the citizenry from the grassroots to the Capitol and take on the unpopular Tyrant Trump. Having sworn to uphold the Constitution and “…take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” they should strongly uphold their patriotic duty to resist tyranny and save our Republic and our besieged democratic institutions, and stop the assault on our civil liberties and civil rights.
Our former presidents all get along with each other. They have the stature to: (1) get mass media; (2) raise immediately large amounts of funds for strong IMPEACH TRUMP citizen groups in every Congressional district to increase and expand the present majority of Americans wanting to FIRE TRUMP; (3) stay the course as Trump keeps worsening his criminal dictatorship and destruction of our democracy; and (4) highlight the many programs they initiated that Trump has illegally destroyed or is dismantling.
Instead, they are living luxurious lives and are largely AWOL from connecting with the existing but overwhelmed civic opposition to Trump. Bush is painting landscapes as Trump has destroyed his AIDS program in Africa, and the Bush wing of the Republican Party. Obama has campaigned for Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill as governors of Virginia and New Jersey, satirizing Trump in some of his speeches. His present passion, however, is the March Madness basketball championships. Clinton has left it up to Hillary, who wrote a guarded New York Times op-ed back on March 28, 2025, taking Trump to task for jeopardizing our national security and not “preparing for real fights with America’s adversaries.”
Then there is Joe Biden, who received then President-elect Trump and Melania on the morning of January 20, 2025, with the gracious “welcome home.” In return, Biden got that afternoon and every day since hundreds of foul epithets from Trump, scapegoating him for almost everything he could fabricate, including solar energy and wind power projects. Delaware Joe managed a few critical replies at a Democratic Party dinner in Nebraska on November 7, 2025. “Trump has taken a wrecking ball not only to the people’s house but to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to our very democracy.” Unfortunately, Biden has mostly been silent.
Credit these retired Presidents with knowing the historic dangers and existing damages of the TRUMP DUMP in Washington and around the country. They also know their supporters would be very receptive to their organized, persistent leadership from them to send Trump back to Mar-a-Lago. Why are they AWOL?
First, they fear Trump’s retaliation, upsetting their comfortable lives. Trump is now deep in the QUICKSAND of the Middle East. He is being pilloried by a million stickers at gas pumps picturing Trump pointing to the booming price per gallon and saying, “I did that.” He is openly declaring there should be no elections in November and continues to send or keep his stormtroopers in America’s cities. An expanding police state is not exactly a credible perch for effective profanity. Show a modest bit of moxie!
A second excuse is that they have done some of what Trump is doing:
*Bush’s mass murder in the illegal war on Iraq.*Clinton’s distracting raids abroad against innocents and his womanizing.
*Obama’s “signature strikes,” killing over three thousand mostly young men in places like Yemen.
*Biden’s illegal co-belligerence with Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza, which has taken over 600,000 civilian lives.
True enough. But people live in the present and are most worried about what Dangerous Donald is doing NOW to their livelihoods, freedoms, health and safety, and the consequences in casualties and their tax dollars of another endless war.
Our former Presidents have no excuses. They simply lack a modicum of courage. Remember Aristotle declared, “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.”
The current political climate demands the powerful emergence of the four previous presidents of our country. The federal district courts are ruling heavily against Trump’s “Injustice Department,” though Trump retains a slightly weakening claim on six Supreme Court Injustices. People of all backgrounds are marching and demonstrating in huge numbers. This weekend, the “No Kings” rallies (he’s already a dictator) anticipate 10 million people nationwide.
The business community, particularly small businesses, are feeling serious harm from Trump’s tariffs, wars, cancelled contracts, and inflationary policies. The labor unions have never been under such attack (notably the federal employees’ union members whose contracts he has torn up), and they are simmering with anger. The universities are also under His illegal, shakedown attacks.
What explains the mainstream media’s virtual ignoring of this ABDICATION by these ex-presidents? The reporters mostly despise Trump, who has slandered them (calling them “deranged and demented” for starters) and has extortionately sued news organizations and journalists for millions of dollars and coerced settlements.
The media have reported that some ex-agency officials under the former presidents have excoriated Trump, such as Samantha Power, for closing the major lifesaving Agency for International Development. The formidable Rohit Chopra, who directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Biden, is not reticent to verbally defend his nearly closed-down agency, which had saved consumers many billions of dollars.
However, they are not covering the abdication by BIG GUYS – our former Presidents. I have tried in vain to find out why by calling reporters and editors. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Try calling these numbers: The Washington Post: 202-334-6000; The New York Times: 800-698-4637; Associated Press: 212-621-1500; NPR: 202-513-2000; The Wall Street Journal: 212-416-2000.
Republican Lawmakers Led By Nancy Mace Begin To Break With Trump On Iran War: ‘We Were Misled’
by Tyler Durden, Mar 27, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/political/republican-lawmakers-led-nancy-mace-begin-break-trump-iran-war-we-were-misled
Republican lawmakers are belatedly starting to wake up to the potential for the United States to once again get bogged down in yet another Middle East quagmire, but this time with a country double the size of Iraq (both in geography and population).
GOP Rep. Nancy Mace has led the charge this week, blasting any potential Trump admin move to put American boots on the ground, warning she will vehemently oppose new war funding if American troops are deployed in Iran. “I’ll be voting against the funding if we’re putting troops on the ground,” Mace told a reporter outside the Capitol earlier in the week. “I’m not going to fund that.”
The comments came after the Pentagon days prior unveiled a massive $200 billion supplemental request in order to fund the war, which was at first previewed by White House officials as lasting a mere ‘days’ or a few ‘weeks’ and not months (or years).
Mace soon followed her verbal comments with a Tuesday post on X pushing back against getting sucked into a ground war. “If a single boot of a single American soldier sets foot on Iranian soil, I will vote against this,” Mace wrote. “I will not vote to fund sending South Carolina’s sons and daughters to die in a ground war in Iran.”
War Secretary Pete Hegseth had framed the supplemental request as essential given it “takes money to kill the bad guys” – as he said, echoing a view that President Trump has been supportive of while claiming “we won”.
Axios is newly reporting on Thursday that Mace is not going to back down if another War Powers resolution is pushed before the House:
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) told Axios she will “most likely” vote for House Democrats’ resolution to constrain President Trump from waging war with Iran the next time it comes up for a vote.
Why it matters: The vote is symbolic — even if the measure passed both chambers, Trump could veto it — but Mace’s support puts the House one step closer to a major rebuke of the administration’s Middle East operations.
At the moment there’s some 7,000 US ground forces en route to the Middle East – including from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the Marines, amid speculation Trump could be eyeing some kind of high risk Kharg Island operation, in order to force open the Strait of Hormuz.
This particular ‘final blow’ plan – which would be contingent on putting boots on the ground in a Kharg takeover – has really gotten Republicans’ attention. Daily Mail on Thursday reports that “Furious Republicans stormed out of a classified briefing on Iran on Wednesday amid fears the US is preparing to invade the country as Tehran refuses Donald Trump’s peace overtures.”
According to more details in the report:
Nancy Mace walked out early, venting that ‘we were misled,’ while pro-Trump committee chair Mike Rogers warned ‘we’re not getting answers’ as Pentagon chiefs briefed the House Armed Services Committee, sparking fireworks on Capitol Hill.
Now, a Daily Mail source inside the room has revealed stark new details, including a new set of objectives which may suggest that America is moving toward boots on the ground as Iran continues to strangle the Strait of Hormuz.
The lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, said members were presented with three military objectives: Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil export hub; its nuclear material; and regime change. It marks a stark shift from the four goals the White House has publicly stated: destroying Iran’s missiles, navy, armed proxies, and nuclear capabilities.
The lawmaker said that the White House must answer for its plans, particularly regarding Kharg Island and troops on the ground. The answers are ‘jaw-dropping’ and ‘will blow your brains out,’ the lawmaker said.
Quagmire by midterms? Some MAGA influencers have increasingly said they are tired about hearing Israel-centric justifications for Trump’s newest war of choice.
GOP members are getting much more vocal alongside Democrats:
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was uncharacteristically agitated after leaving the briefing, stating that he had few details about the direction the war is heading.
‘We want to know more about what’s going on,’ Rogers, an Alabama Republican, said. ‘We’re just not getting enough answers.’ Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi felt the same after his own briefing. ‘I can see why he might have said that,’ Wicker told Politico of Rogers’ comments.
A week ago Responsible Statecraft began documenting fissures among the generally war-supporting GOP, and it’s been more than just the expected Libertarian firebrands Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. For example, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado has told reporters: “I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I’m tired of the Industrial War Complex getting our hard-earned tax dollars. I’ve got folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America First policies right now.”
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.
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.
Fox News’ united front in support of Trump’s Iran war may be breaking down.
Host Laura Ingraham warns escalation could produce “cascading problems for the region,” political turmoil for the GOP
by Matt Gertz, MEDIA MATTERS 03/26/26
Four weeks after President Donald Trump launched a poorly conceived war of choice against Iran, the lockstep support for the conflict that has characterized coverage from Fox News’ star hosts is beginning to fray. The power struggle is significant — it is not an exaggeration to suggest the course of the war might hinge on which Fox shows the president is watching.
Trump is clearly approaching a decision point over whether to further escalate the war. U.S. and Israeli forces have done a lot of damage to Iranian military targets, but its regime is intact, still controls its stockpiles of enriched uranium, and has closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the global trade in oil, natural gas, and fertilizer. The Pentagon is sending thousands of troops to the region and reportedly prepping options for a “final blow” — some of which would involve deploying U.S. forces on Iranian soil.
When Trump is considering policy options, he often takes guidance from his loyal propagandists at Fox. This Fox-Trump feedback loop has in recent months played a role in the president’s decisions to send White House border czar Tom Homan to oversee immigration enforcement in Minnesota; prioritize the SAVE Act over all other legislation; order the deployment of ICE agents to airports; and start the war against Iran.
Against that backdrop, Fox News host Laura Ingraham warned on Wednesday’s show that further U.S. action could produce devastating unintended consequences and suggested that Trump should refocus his attention on the domestic economy and political situation.
“Iran knows it cannot win militarily, so it’s using the leverage it has by prolonging the conflict,” she said during her monologue at the top of the show. “Now, what do they want to do? They want to inflict maximum economic pain on the region, on the U.S., [on] the global economy as much as possible until they think Trump relents. But the White House doesn’t seem to be blinking.”
The host then aired a clip of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warning at her press briefing that day that “President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell” against Iran.
Ingraham did not seem impressed by Leavitt’s rhetoric.
“Well, the problem is obviously unleashing hell means destroying infrastructure, which itself causes a series of cascading problems for the region, including maybe outside the region — political problems for the president in a midterm election year,” she said.
Her air of skepticism continued throughout the show.
While interviewing Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), she noted Pentagon reports of thousands of successful missions but commented, “I mean, this is a devastating blow, yet you know, we’re still there.”
“It’s not even a month old, obviously,” she continued, before asking, “But are you concerned about the public and people? Again, very short attention spans, very impatient for victory, as is President Trump, I might add. But in an election year, it’s easy to say politics don’t matter, but at some point politics do come into play.”
And in a third segment, she highlighted the disastrous polling on the Iran war, commenting, “It looks like people are pretty impatient. The American people are sending a message to President Trump that it’s time to put the focus back on the home front.”
Ingraham is inching toward the type of dissent that has been virtually absent from Fox’s coverage of the war, even as the broader right-wing media has split. Her colleagues have played key roles in convincing Trump to attack in the first place and are pushing for risky escalations. Ingraham herself briefly quibbled with Trump’s handling of an apparent U.S. strike that leveled an Iranian school, killing scores of children, but had supported the war itself, which she declared three weeks ago that Trump had already won.
But if Ingraham is getting cold feet and trying to convince Trump not to escalate a war the public has soured on, she remains an outlier at the network. Indeed, if the president tuned in for the two hours following Ingraham’s program, he saw her prime-time colleagues Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity argue not only that the war is going well and that Trump will inevitably lead the U.S. to victory, but that anyone who disagrees must want America to lose the war because they hate the president.
Watters began his show with a 10-minute monologue whose thesis was that “the Iranian regime is losing leverage fast as we continue to carry out thousands of sorties over enemy airspace.” After detailing various tactical victories, he touted a potential escalation………………………………………………. https://www.mediamatters.org/us-iran-relations/fox-news-united-front-support-trumps-iran-war-may-be-breaking-down
US/Israel War against International Law
24 March 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Dr Dan Steinbock, https://theaimn.net/us-israel-war-against-international-law/
As the US/Israeli strikes against Iran violate the foundations of international law, the economic and human costs will soar.
After three weeks of effective war, the hostilities have caused severe regional spillovers, thousands of deaths, displacements of millions and a massive global energy crisis that continues to expand. If the implications are global, what’s the status of the US/Israeli strikes from the standpoint of international law?
The modern legal order is based on United Nations Charter (1945), Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute (1998) and Customary law from the Nuremberg Trials. The key rules include the prohibition of aggressive war, protection of civilians, individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Force is allowed only in the case of self-defense and UN Security Council authorization.
The US/Israeli strikes have already violated most of these rules.
War of aggression
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits UN member states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It was violated on February 28, when US/Israel launched their joint strikes against Iran.
Typically, the war was launched precisely when and because the peace talks in Oman were advancing toward a successful conclusion.
In the absence of strategic objectives and exit strategy, the U.S. has framed the actions as a campaign to dismantle “the Iranian regime’s security apparatus.”
These efforts go back to the US/Israel 12-Day War against Iran in July 2025, when Masoud Pezeshkian, the new reform-minded Iran president, sought talks to end the conflict with the US and Israel. That was not in line with the “new Middle East” envisioned by PM Netanyahu and his Messianic far-right cabinet.
The UN Charter’s prohibition against force is not absolute, with key exceptions being self-defense (Article 51) and actions approved by the Security Council.
Yet, no such threat existed prior to the US/Israel strikes. And on March 17, 2026, Joe Kent, the Director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, resigned from his position in protest of the ongoing U.S.-led war in Iran. Kent said in no uncertain terms that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”
This is an illegal war of aggression, instigated by leaders who have been, like Prime Minister Netanyahu, (or should be) charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Preemptive war doctrine
To legitimize the unjustifiable, Washington has resorted to preemptive justifications. In this regard, the US/Israel war against Iran is just the latest link in the 25-year-long effort to sanctify power politics with preventive wars.
Since the Bush Jr. 2002 security doctrine, US administrations have stressed preemption as a central strategic instrument. While Democratic leaders (Obama, Biden) have been more moderate in rhetoric, they have coopted the same ideas.
Relying on force to prevent future threats, preventive war doctrines are often cited as violating international law because they bypass the strict legal requirements for the use of force established in the UN Charter.
Unilateral preventive war is a threat to the principle of state sovereignty, as it allows one nation to judge the “intentions” of another, without objective proof of an upcoming attack. Setting a dangerous precedent, it incentivizes other nations to use similar pretexts for their “preventive” attacks, potentially leading to global instability.
International law allows for preemptive strikes in cases of “imminent” danger. But US strategy improperly expands this to include preventive wars against threats that are not yet fully formed or do not exist – as in the cases of the 2003 Iraq War and the 2025 and 2026 Iran Wars.
Targeted assassinations
The targeted assassination of Iranian leaders is a serious violation of international law, especially when conducted outside of an active, declared war zone. Targeted killings violate the prohibition on the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity and political independence.
Outside of active hostilities, international human rights law (IHRL) applies. Under IHRL, arbitrary deprivation of life is prohibited. Targeted killings are extrajudicial killings for which the acting state is responsible.
In the context of conflict, targeted killings can violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, including distinction (targeting civilians) and proportionality. Assassinations of state officials often violate the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Persons Under International Protection.
Precedents feature the killing of the famous Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, the right-hand man of the supreme leader of Iran, the late Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was assassinated in a targeted drone strike in Baghdad in January 2020, ordered by President Trump.
From the standpoint of international law, it was an unlawful attack, as was pointed out by Ben Ferencz, the US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials and pioneer of international law. After Soleimani’s killing, the New York Times printed Ferencz’s letter denouncing the assassination, unnamed in the letter, as an “immoral action [and] a clear violation of national and international law.”
In their first joint strikes against Iran, US and Israel assassinated the 87-year-old Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. Demonized in the West, Khamenei supported Iran’s nuclear program for civilian use. Already in the mid-1990s, he famously issuing a fatwa against the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons.
The assassination of Khamenei was still another blatant violation of international law. It was also part of the Israeli strategy to eliminate moderate leaders, whose absence is then used as an excuse for replacing peaceful diplomacy with brutal obliteration campaigns.
Crimes against humanity, forced displacement
These crimes are defined in Rome Statute Article 7, as widespread or systematic attack on civilians. Allegations are typical when strikes include targeting civilian infrastructure, economic strangulation, mass displacement, and siege conditions.
A continuity argument – “what we first see in Gaza is now spreading to Iran and, due to spillovers, into the region” – exists because similar patterns can be identified via blockade, disproportionate force, and collective punishment.
The stated efforts at regime change to undermine Iran and fragment the Shi’a state suggest that the boundary between cultural genocide targeting a broad ethnic-religious group and full destabilization is a line drawn in waters.
Allegations of ethnic cleansing, relying on deliberate forced displacement are likely over time. While ethnic cleansing is not a formal treaty crime, it is recognized in jurisprudence. It rests on forced population removal, which is the net effect of the strikes against Iran and a deliberate intention in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.
Israel’s rapidly expanding buffer zone in southern Lebanon, extending roughly 3 to 14 kilometers north of the Blue Line demarcation, is premised on demographic engineering. In Iran, the objective to fragment the state, instigate inter-ethnic polarization and regional divides is also predicated on identity
At first sight, allegations of ethnic cleansing seemed to be more relevant to Gaza and the West Bank. But with shifting objectives, forced displacement is now an overwhelming reality. The US/Israel strikes have caused displacement of 3.5 million people in Iran and over 1 million in Lebanon, with up to 22,000 killed or wounded in the former and another 3,600 in the latter.
Collective punishment, economic warfare
Combined with illicit strikes, Washington’s decades-long sanctions against Iran, most of which are unilateral, and the underlying warfare is reminiscent of economic warfare premised at collective punishment.
Combinations of economic sanctions and military strikes, particularly when invalid from the standpoint of international law, raise serious issues under humanitarian law and human rights law. In Gaza and in Iran, unilateral sanctions have caused unwarranted mass suffering violating international law.
Ever since the early 1970s, when Beirut was still called the “Paris of the Middle East,” Israel’s wars against Palestinians have destabilized Lebanon’s fragile ethnic mosaic pushing the country to the edge of default. That’s the fate PM Netanyahu would like Iran to share.
In this regard, there is a clear continuity from the Gaza War, carried out by Israel with arms and financing by the US-led West, ICJ provisional measures and ICC arrest warrant debates, to the US/Israel strikes against Iran.
The common denominators feature an inflated self-defense doctrine, weak enforcement of humanitarian law, selective application of international law and ultimately the inevitable US veto in the Security Council.
The more these violations of international law are permitted, the greater will be the costs in economic terms, the more brutal the military destruction and the more lethal the human devastation.
That’s why multilateral cooperation – across all political differences – and the enforcement of international law is so desperately needed today, before it’s too late.
Dr Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
Pentagon Whistleblower Criticizes “Bloodthirst” of Iran War, Says Hegseth Is Enabling War Crimes
26 Mar 2026
As the United States mobilizes thousands more troops for deployment to the Middle East, we speak with retired U.S. Air Force Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, who criticizes the “bloodthirst” of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. Bryant led the Pentagon office for civilian harm assessment from 2024 to 2025, before the unit was dissolved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The “wholly illegal war” has been “carried out recklessly from the start and with little regard for the innocent,” Bryant tells Democracy Now! “Pete Hegseth has already directed the committing of war crimes. And unfortunately, our senior military leadership is bending the knee and carrying out whatever he tells them to do.”
Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.
Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
Wyatt Reed and Max Blumenthal.The Grayzone, March 20, 2026
The Trump White House plagiarized its justification for attacking Iran from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, the main DC outfit promoting war with Tehran. The think tank was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image,” and partners closely with the Israeli government.
The Trump Administration appeared to plagiarize its official justification for its war on Iran, copying almost word-for-word a document originally produced by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a pro-war think tank with close ties to Israeli intelligence which was originally founded to “enhance Israel’s image.”
The FDD document was authored by Tzvi Kahn, the former assistant director for policy and government affairs at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
A March 2, 2026 statement issued by the White House accusing Tehran of 44 instances of terrorism against American citizens is “virtually identical” to the list published by FDD in June 2025, analyst Stephen McIntyre noted Thursday.
While the White House did make superficial alterations to the text, they largely consisted of appending the label “Iran-backed” to every mention of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. In the few instances where Trump administration officials bothered to make significant changes to the original FDD list, the edits were almost always made in service of “ratcheting up the underlying allegation,” McIntyre concluded.
Among the most egregious examples was a 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which FDD originally said merely that Hezbollah al-Hejaz was “deemed responsible” for. In the White House version, however, the group’s responsibility was “asserted as factual,” explained McIntyre, noting that serious questions about the incident remain unanswered to this day. “Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry subsequently wondered (along with many others) whether Khobar Towers should have been attributed to Al Qaeda,” he wrote.
A 2009 investigation by journalist Gareth Porter based on interviews with over a dozen former CIA, FBI and Clinton administration officials demonstrated that the FBI’s inquiry into the Khobar Towers attack was precooked to blame Iran, when Al Qaeda was most likely the culprit. Porter found that Shia citizens of Saudi Arabia had been tortured into confessing to the crime by Saudi secret police.
While the White House declined to join FDD in blaming Iran for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, it echoed the Israel-oriented organization in blaming Tehran for 603 military deaths in Iraq, which both documents attributed to “Iran-backed militias.” But there are major discrepancies with the figure, which amounts to 60% of the total US combatant deaths attributed to Iran. As McIntyre noted, such a claim is “not made in the State Department annual reports on Global Terrorism.”
At least four of the Americans the Trump administration claims were killed by Iran had served in Israel’s military. These included a US citizen who died while invading Lebanon in 2006 and two Americans in the IDF’s Golani brigade who were killed while invading Gaza in 2014. The fourth American, who was born in Israel and had also served in the Golani brigade, was killed amid violent reprisals against settlers in the West Bank in 2015.
A number of the claims are undermined by the very sources they cite, including a December 2019 incident in which the Trump administration insisted “Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. service members in a rocket attack at K1 Air Base in Kirkuk, Iraq.” But the Reuters article cited by the White House as proof that Iran was responsible made no such claim, explicitly cautioning that “no group has claimed responsibility for the attack.” In reality, Reuters suggested the attack was the work of “Islamic State militants operating in the area [who] have turned to insurgency-style tactics.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….https://thegrayzone.com/2026/03/20/trump-plagiarized-iran-israel-think-tank/
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (173)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 