Tag: Politics

Is the Iran War Really About Iran?

America’s descent into authoritarianism and fascism

BILL ASTORE

MAY 10, 2026

Can you win a war that isn’t really about the country you’re fighting? Where the aims keep shifting and the motivations are dishonest? We know from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Israel more or less forced the Trump administration’s hand in attacking Iran. We know from Joe Kent’s testimony that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S. We know from President Trump himself that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” in previous strikes. So why wage war on Iran?

The way we label wars is illustrative of our confusion and dishonesty. “The Vietnam War”: more accurately, it was the U.S. government’s war on Vietnam. “The Iraq War”: again, the U.S. government’s war on Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. Same with Iran. America wages constant wars against other nations and peoples; these wars are really variations on a theme of militarism, imperialism, and profiteering.

Cui bono, who benefits, is always the question to ask. The answer is usually some combination of the military-industrial complex, U.S. oligarchical corporate interests, and, in the case of wars in the Middle East, Zionist Israel and fossil fuel interests.

By its nature, a constant state of warfare feeds authoritarianism and stifles freedom and democracy. Wars favor oligarchs and dictators and feed fascist tendencies. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare, James Madison warned.

There is no “victory” to be had in these wars, not for the American people. This was true of the Vietnam War and it’s also true of the current war on Iran. America is losing and will lose because these wars weaken freedom and democracy while reinforcing authoritarian and fascistic elements.

America, as in people like us, can only “win” when these wars are ended.

All this has been on my mind as I recalled this review that I wrote (see below) on why the U.S. lost the Vietnam War. 

*****

American Reckoning: Why the U.S. Lost the Vietnam War

51Srlc0nY8L

Written in 2015.

Christian G. Appy, professor of history at U-Mass Amherst, has written a new and telling book on the Vietnam War: American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity (New York, Viking Press). Reading his book made me realize a key reason why the U.S. lost the war: for U.S. leaders it was never about Vietnam and the Vietnamese people. Rather, for these men the war was always about something else, a “something else” that constantly shifted and changed. Whereas for North Vietnam and its leaders, the goal was simple and unchanging: expel the foreign intruder, whether it was the Japanese or the French or the Americans, and unify Vietnam, no matter the cost.

Appy’s account is outstanding in showing the shifting goals of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Vietnam. In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. first supported the French in their attempts to reassert control over their former colony. When the French failed, the U.S. saw Vietnam through a thoroughly red-tinted lens. The “fall” of a newly created South Vietnam was seen as the first domino in a series of potential Communist victories in Asia. Vietnam itself meant little economically to American interests, but U.S. leaders were concerned about Malaysia and Indonesia and their resources. So to stop that first domino from falling, the U.S. intervened to prop up a “democratic” government in South Vietnam that was never democratic, a client state whose staying power rested entirely on U.S. “advisers” (troops) and weapons and aid.

Again, as Appy convincingly demonstrates, for U.S. leaders the war was never about Vietnam. Under Eisenhower, it was about stopping the first domino from falling; under Kennedy, it was a test case for U.S. military counterinsurgency tactics and Flexible Response; under Johnson, it was a test of American resolve and credibility and “balls”; and under Nixon, it was the pursuit of “peace with honor” (honor, that is, for the Nixon Administration). And this remained true even after South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. Then the Vietnam War, as Appy shows, was reinterpreted as a uniquely American tragedy. Rather than a full accounting of the war and America’s mistakes and crimes in it, the focus was on recovering American pride, to be accomplished in part by righting an alleged betrayal of America’s Vietnam veterans.

In the Reagan years, as Appy writes, American veterans, not the Vietnamese people, were:

portrayed as the primary victims of the Vietnam War. The long, complex history of the war was typically reduced to a set of stock images that highlighted the hardships faced by U.S. combat soldiers—snake-infested jungles, terrifying ambushes, elusive guerrillas, inscrutable civilians, invisible booby traps, hostile antiwar activists. Few reports informed readers that at least four of five American troops in Vietnam carried out noncombat duties on large bases far away from those snake-infested jungles. Nor did they focus sustained attention on the Vietnamese victims of U.S. warfare. By the 1980s, mainstream culture and politics promoted the idea that the deepest shame related to the Vietnam War was not the war itself, but America’s failure to embrace its military veterans.” (p. 241)

Again, the Vietnam War for U.S. leaders was never truly about Vietnam. It was about them. This is powerfully shown by LBJ’s crude comments and gestures about the war. Johnson acted to protect his Great Society initiatives; he didn’t want to suffer the political consequences of having been seen as having “lost” Vietnam to communism; but he also saw Vietnam as a straightforward test of his manhood. When asked by reporters why he continued to wage war in Vietnam, what it was really all about, LBJ unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and declared, “This is why!” (p. 82).

Withdrawal, of course, was never an option. As Appy insightfully notes,

LBJ and most of the other key Vietnam policymakers never imagined that withdrawal from Vietnam would be an act of courage. In one sense this moral blindness is baffling because these same men prided themselves on their pragmatic, hardheaded realism, their ability to cut through sentiment and softhearted idealism to face the most difficult realities of foreign affairs. They could see that the war was failing. But they could not pull out. A deeper set of values trumped their most coherent understandings of the war. They simply could not accept being viewed as losers. A ‘manly man’ must always keep fighting.” (p. 84)

A few pages later, Appy cites Nixon’s speech on the bombing of Cambodia, when Nixon insisted the U.S. must not stand by “like a pitiful, helpless giant,” as further evidence of this “primal” fear of presidential impotence and defeat.

Even when defeat stared American leaders in the face, they blinked, then closed their eyes and denied what they had seen. Beginning with Gerald Ford in 1975, America shifted the blame for defeat onto the South Vietnamese, with some responsibility being assigned to allegedly traitorous elements on the homefront, such as “Hanoi Jane” (Fonda). As Appy writes, “Instead of calling for a great national reckoning of U.S. responsibility in Vietnam, Ford called for a ‘great national reconciliation.’ It was really a call for a national forgetting, a willful amnesia.” (p. 224)

As a result of this “willful amnesia,” most Americans never fully faced the murderous legacies of the Vietnam War, especially the cost to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Instead, our leaders and government encouraged us to focus on America’ssuffering. They told us to look forward, not backward, while keeping faith in America as the exceptional nation.

Appy notes in his introduction that America needs “an honest accounting of our history” if we are “to reject—fully and finally—the stubborn insistence that our nation has been a unique and unrivaled force for good in the world.” (p. xix) American Reckoning provides such an honest accounting. But are Americans truly ready and willing to put aside national pride, nurtured by a willed amnesia and government propaganda, to confront the limits as well as the horrors of American power as it is exercised in foreign lands?

Evidence from recent wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere still suggests that Americans prefer amnesia, or to see other peoples through a tightly restricted field of view. Far too often, that field of view is a thoroughly militarized one, most recently captured in the crosshairs of an American sniper’s scope. Appy challenges us to broaden that view while removing those crosshairs.

*****

Addendum (2026): Self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has already floated the lie that Democrats (and a few Republicans) are betraying the country by seeking to constrain the Trump administration in its disastrous war on Iran. What Hegseth is saying, essentially, is that Congress is committing treason in attempting to exercise its constitutional duties.

Always when the warmongers lose a war, they resort to the hoary “stab-in-the-back” myth. Rare indeed is someone like Robert McNamara, who admitted decades after the Vietnam War that he had been wrong, terribly wrong, to prosecute that war.

Usually in America, those who are most unrepentant about war are the ones hired to comment on or wage the next one.

How Much Is Enough for National Defense?

$600 Billion Seems Reasonable

BILL ASTORE

APR 26, 2026

What is the right amount of money to spend on national defense?

It’s not an easy question because answers depend on goals. On commitments.

So, for example, I’m committed to the ideal of the American republic. That republic should focus on defense of the nation. I don’t support the American empire. I don’t favor an offensive military. I don’t believe defense is about global domination. Offense is enabled by full-spectrum dominance; defense doesn’t require it.

So much of what America spends on “defense” goes to weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and RTX. It’s advertised as military Keynesianism but it’s more like corporate welfare for what used to be called the merchants of death.

I don’t value weapons as “investments.” I see weapons as Ike saw them in 1953. They are a form of theft. They steal funding from schools, hospitals, libraries, fire stations, and other much-needed improvements to national services and infrastructure.

Yes, America has to defend itself, but an imperial military that is vastly overfunded is an albatross around the neck of a declining republic.

A wildly offensive military that seeks global dominance—the budget for that military is almost boundless. It’s not surprising, then, that this is the vision we’re sold. The idea that the U.S. military must be second to none and dominate everywhere at almost any cost. And what a cost!

An essential part of this imperial vision is that diplomacy is best done with bombs, as Pete Hegseth boasted. That diplomacy isn’t even needed, really, because as Trump says, America holds all the (military) cards. If countries like Iran keep resisting, threaten them with extermination.

A black hole for money

An imperial military of global dominance based on massively expensive weapons systems and exterminatory threats drives a “defense” budget of $1 trillion or more. Trump, of course, is asking for $1.5 trillion for FY2027, a staggering 50% increase. This insane vision of exterminatory war is enabled by colossal spending on Death Star-like weaponry.

Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of a rapidly expanding military procurement pie. Shrink the pie? Forget it! They only want their fair share of the pie (or the pork) for their district. Lobbyists from those imperial merchants of death ensure that Congress stays the military (and militarized) course.

To return to my question: Assuming we’re talking about national defense in a republic that believes in diplomacy and that isn’t forever seeking dragons overseas to slay, I’m guessing that roughly $600 billion a year would suffice for the Pentagon. That is still an enormous sum of money. That healthy amount assumes America can avoid fighting wars of choice and stop its various foolhardy military interventions across the globe.

Ten years ago, $600 billion was roughly the baseline for the Pentagon budget even as America was still in Afghanistan and waging a “global war on terror.” Sure, there’s been some inflation, a weakening of the dollar, but that ballpark figure seems reasonable for a military focused on true national defense rather than one based on total global dominance.

One axiom that should always rule: A republic should not spend one more dollar than necessary on military might. If $600 billion is too high, I’d be happy to see a lower amount.

One coda: No more money for the Pentagon until it’s able to pass an audit.

The Bloody Awful Waste of War

Insanity on a Mass Scale

BILL ASTORE

APR 25, 2026

Courtesy of NBC News, here’s a brief summary of the butcher’s bill of the latest wars in the Middle East:

Iran’s forensics chief said nearly 3,400 people had been killed in the country since U.S.-Israeli strikes began Feb. 28. Almost 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon, 32 have been killed in Gulf states, and 23 have died in Israel. Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed, and two more died of noncombat causes.

I happen to believe Iranian lives are as valuable and precious as American lives. What gives the U.S. and Israeli governments the right to inflict such disproportionate casualties on Iran, on Lebanon, on Gaza? (I know: might makes right.) If you include the Palestinians, more than 100,000 people, and probably closer to 200,000, have been killed in the latest Israeli/U.S. wars, with the United States providing most of the deadly weaponry.

NBC anchor Brian Williams gushed about being “guided by the beauty of our weapons”

Speaking of weaponry, the liberal New York Times had an article yesterday lamenting the heavy expenditure of costly precision weaponry (like Tomahawk cruise missiles) by the U.S. since the beginning of the Iran War. Nowhere in the article was there a complaint about the death toll, nor was there much of a complaint about the cost. No—what the liberal New York Times was concerned about was how quickly the U.S. could replenish its stockpile of weaponry so it could be prepared for a future war against peer threats like China and Russia.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Since the Iran war began in late February, the United States has burned through around 1,100 of its long-range stealth cruise missiles built for a war with China, close to the total number remaining in the US stockpile. The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year.

The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at more than $4 million a pop, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low, according to internal Defense Department estimates and congressional officials.

The Iran war has significantly drained much of the US military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries such as Russia and China, and it has forced the United States to find ways to scale up production to address the depletions, Trump administration and congressional officials say. 

Again, if you read the article, nothing is said about morality. Nothing is said about death and dying and the bloody awfulness of war. The article simply says the U.S. has used a lot of very expensive missiles that we MUST replace if we’re to be prepared to wage more wars in the near future.

There’s not even a hint here that maybe America could be at peace—even in the most distant future. Apparently, America must always remain locked and loaded for a war with China, or Russia, or some other country and combination of countries, even as all this is couched as defending the homeland.

How many war crimes can be hidden or explained away by this phrase: “defend the homeland”? Far too many, and of the most horrific nature.

American militarism must end. Support of Israeli warmongering and killing must end. The national love affair with weaponry must end. Cut the Pentagon budget by 50% and keep cutting. Retrench the empire and recommit to being a republic that doesn’t seek war. Turn away from the bloody awfulness and waste of constant warfare.

War isn’t macho. It isn’t glorious. It’s insanity on a mass scale.

The Social Media Echo Chamber

When the Rabbit Hole Becomes an Information Silo

BILL ASTORE

APR 16, 2026

If you’ve spent time on social media, you know it can be quite unsocial. 

Profane, angry, hostile posts and comments can be dismissed for what they are. But what about more subtle threats to the free and civil exchange of ideas? Social media sites aren’t necessarily designed to encourage such exchanges. They’re not primarily designed to educate us, to challenge us to think critically, while promoting tolerance and an open mind. 

Instead, they are designed primarily to capture and command our attention, to keep us “on the app,” reading and clicking and doom-scrolling in an addictive way. Sites keep track of what we read, what we share, even what we pause over, and feed us more of the same. An information silo is created controlled by algorithms that feed you more of what you like, or more of what angers you or titillates you or otherwise occupies your attention and time.

It’s easy to end up in an echo chamber that confirms your biases, one that reinforces the idea that people who think differently from you must be willfully misguided or stubborn or maybe just plain stupid or even evil. If you already dislike or distrust “the other side,” social media will tend to make you dislike or distrust them even more.

We’re warned about going down the rabbit hole, but we’re not warned about the information silos being created for us without our knowledge or consent.

All this has been on my mind after I watched this short and stimulating TEDx talk by journalist Ryan Biller.

As Biller notes, social media can impoverish human interactions. It can serve as a hostile wall instead of a transparent window or an open door. I wrote to Biller to thank him for his talk and to share my perspective on echo chambers, siloed information, and the like, and he wrote back that social media can create “a merciless cycle and feedback loop that has a psychological ‘funhouse mirror’ effect; in other words, it exaggerates and distorts reality in, I think, a really negative way.”

We need to recognize how social media apps, sites, and algorithms manipulate us; how they’re designed to keep us clicking, scrolling, and otherwise (over)stimulated. And how these interactions are, in a way, dehumanizing. Or, if not dehumanizing, how they bring out the keyboard commando in some people.

With respect to echo chambers, what I do to combat that is to read a range of sources daily. I get daily updates from mainstream media sites like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. I check sites like the British Guardian, NBC News, and BBC News. I occasionally turn to Fox News to see how certain events are being covered.

And then there are a range of alternative sites and podcasts that I’ve found useful, such as TomDispatch.com, Judging Freedom, Antiwar.com, Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, and Caitlin Johnstone. I listen to (among others) Jimmy Dore, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Briahna Joy Gray, Max Blumenthal at The Grayzone. Of course, I don’t listen to all of these, all the time, nor do I listen to them because I always agree with them.

In having this site, Bracing Views, I contribute to this complex informational ecology, putting my own spin and exhibiting my own biases. I deeply appreciate my readers and commenters who have largely avoided the often unsocial nature of social media.

When I need a strong dose of humor and reality, I return to George Carlin. I am reminded that telling one’s truth in a provocative and humorous (and even profane) way can have great value.

Finally, remember that sometimes the best social interaction is sitting down and breaking bread with the people around you—even the people you disagree with. For I continue to believe that we can agree to disagree, that we can disagree in ways that aren’t disagreeable, and that sometimes disagreement can become agreement, and that common ground can be found.

Addendum: I shared the comment below in response to a reader who noted that manipulation is nothing ne

Absolutely. As I.F. Stone said, all governments lie. Propaganda is everywhere. But social media is more insidious because there’s an illusion of control. People think they’re the ones doing the picking and the clicking.

Not only are you often “swimming in the shallows” online–those shallows are more like a puddle whose boundaries are set by algorithms.

It’s fascinating to think of the ocean of information that’s out there even as some people are figuratively drowning in puddles partly of their own making.

Unjust Wars

The Catholic Church Takes a Stand

BILL ASTORE

APR 14, 2026

In the New York Times send-out this morning, the pope and president are described as “clashing.” That’s one way of putting it. Actually, the pope is arguing for peace and against war and the death of innocents while Trump has been railing about exterminating an entire civilization. A “clash” for sure.

Pope Leo looking down.

In Algiers. Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters

With his usual conceit, which is colossal, Trump posted an image of himself (since deleted) as a Christ-like healer. The image is a fascinating depiction of megalomaniacal Americana:

A curious tableau

A screenshot of a social media post by President Trump that contains an apparently A.I.-generated image of Trump, wearing white and red robes, touching the forehead of a man lying down in a hospital gown as several figures gaze up at Trump, including a nurse and a soldier.

Trump claimed no Christ-like comparisons were intended. “I thought it was me as a doctor,” Trump said.

The semiotics of that image would take decades to unpack. Seriously, the flag, the eagles, the military jets, fireworks, angels (?), troops and veterans: the mind boggles. I’m guessing Trump asked AI to produce a patriotic image showing himself as a Christ-like healer, surrounded by white people showcasing prayer and upholding traditional gender roles and norms. It’s an exercise in colossal chutzpah, that’s for sure.

On “60 Minutes” this past weekend, three American Catholic cardinals spoke about the Church’s stance on the Iran War. The cardinals declared the war wasn’t just.

I wish the cardinals had gone further. I can’t think of a “just” war fought by the United States since World War II.

Of course, the moderator for “60 Minutes” had to assert that Iran is the world’s chief exporter of terror, as if the United States, with all its murderous wars and extensive bombing and killing, doesn’t export terror. I guess the moderator wants to keep her job at CBS.

The cardinals make many good points about war as dehumanizing and the sickening nature of pro-war propaganda coming from the Trump administration. It would have been valuable if they’d mentioned the imperative of “Love thy neighbor,” the commandment that “Thou shalt not kill,” and the identity of Christ as the Prince of Peace.

Still, I commend the pope and the Church for taking a stand for peace.

Stone Age Bombing

A Dead Crippled Country Can Still Bomb People to Smithereens

BILL ASTORE

APR 02, 2026

I watched President Trump’s speech to the nation last night on the Iran War. The lies and boasts flew thick. According to Trump, America is winning and winning big. Under Joe Biden, America was “crippled” and “dead,” but Trump has reanimated the dead and healed it. (An obvious aside: Trump has a serious Christ complex.)

From dead and crippled, America is now the meanest, toughest, hombre in the valley. We take what we want and if you resist we’ll bomb you back to the Stone Age. As the New York Times reported: “We are going to hit them extremely hard,” Trump said. “Over the next two to three weeks, we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

The proud Iranian people, with Persia as one of the cradles of civilization—they mean less than zero to Trump. It doesn’t matter how many people have to die for Trump to feel like a winner. 

“Beautiful” damage in Tehran (Majid Saeed/Getty)

A transcript of the speech is here. You’ll read about America’s “beautiful” B-2 bombers and how they’ve performed “magnificently.” You’ll read about America’s “warriors” and “heroes” who “laid down their lives” to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. You’ll read about their families who, even as they grieve the loss of loved ones in this war, are beseeching Trump to “Please, sir, please finish the job.” Every one of them, Trump added.

There were many reasons to be offended by Trump’s speech last night, but the idea of every grieving family member begging the president to “finish the job” by continuing to bomb and kill Iranians is certainly high on the list of offenses to morality and truth.

More than anything, what Trump’s speech told us is what he values. First, of course, himself and his identity as a man of action—a winner. The economy and the stock market. Oil and gas. Military might. And taking cheap shots at perceived opponents.

This sentence was especially revealing: The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield.

Trump was referring to Iran here, but what he’s really saying is that only one violent and thuggish regime merits such a blank check on inflicting global violence protected by a nuclear shield. It’s not Iran’s, it’s his.

Hard Chargers, Yes–Deep Thinkers, No

Kakistocracy at the Department of War

BILL ASTORE

MAR 27, 2026

I was reading an article today about Pete Hegseth, self-styled Secretary of War, and his decision to remove four officers from the Brigadier General-select list. Turns out the four officers were either Black or female, but I’m sure that was a coincidence.

Anyhow, the article referenced this pearl of wisdom from Hegseth from last September:

“The leaders who created the woke department have already driven out too many hard chargers. We reverse that trend right now.”

For those of you who don’t know military jargon, “hard charger” is a term of approval. And that’s been Trump and Hegseth’s approach to war with Iran. Call it the bull in the china shop approach. Charge in hard, kill people, break things. Drop enough bombs, kill enough people, and obviously victory must follow.

Hard chargers are what we want in this man’s military, so might Pete Hegseth say. I’ve heard Hegseth’s nickname at the Pentagon is “Dumb McNamara,” apparently for his slicked-back hair together with his, well, lack of intelligence. (Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense during the disastrous Vietnam War.)

Of course, the military needs its share of Type A, Can-do, mission-driven, hard charging men and women. It also needs its share of skilled, knowledgeable, and smart people as well. And there’s nothing that says that a “hard charger” can’t also be a thinker, especially as that can-do type learns from experience that not every problem can be solved with bullets and bombs.

Deep thinkers are especially needed at strategic levels, else wars go nowhere and are quickly lost. One thing is certain: the so-called Department of War isn’t being led by a deep thinker.

Hegseth, surely a leading member of the kakistocracy, prefers pushups to planning and bombs to diplomacy. He’ll keep charging hard, or, more accurately, he’ll order others to charge hard into harm’s way, all in a quest to drive out “wokeness” and win wars through maximum violence and minimal thought.

Charge harder!

Any enemy wanting to fool Pete Hegseth should invest in a red cape and start waving it smartly.

Joe Kent’s Principled Resignation

And Tulsi Gabbard’s Problematic Response

BILL ASTORE

MAR 18, 2026

Joe Kent’s principled resignation letter, in which he calls out the influence of Israel and AIPAC on President Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran, illustrates the nature of power and dissent in government circles.

The main response is denunciation. Leading the way was Trump, whose response to the news was basically good riddance even as he claimed that Kent, a former Green Beret with extensive combat experience, was “weak on security.” Organizations like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC suggested that Kent was trafficking in age-old anti-semitic tropes (apparently it’s “anti-semitic” to suggest that Israel and AIPAC have influence over the President and Congress).

In the age of social media, denunciation is nearly instantaneous — and often unhinged. I’ve even seen calls to have Kent investigated under the espionage act!

The method to the madness is obvious: discredit Kent by smears, attack him as disloyal, even as such efforts are designed to intimidate others from airing their legitimate concerns.

Kent deserves a lot of credit for going on the record because he surely knew he’d be denounced. 

Not quite denouncing him, but showing (so far) conformity that’s more than disappointing is Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Kent’s former boss. Previously, Tulsi was on the record as being strongly against regime-change wars and especially against war with Iran. She’s often made speeches in the name of her “brothers and sisters in uniform.” Yet so far she has quietly abetted Trump’s policies and actions in his foolish and illegal war against Iran. 

I fear Tulsi’s “brothers and sisters” will pay a high price for her complicity.

Here’s her message posted yesterday at X/Twitter:

Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions. 

After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.

This is carefully-worded nonsense, designed to satisfy Trump and his handlers. I bolded a few obvious BS phrases. First, Trump wasn’t “overwhelmingly” elected president, though Trump loves to think he was. Second, anyone who knows how Trump operates can’t imagine him “carefully reviewing” all the intelligence, but perhaps Tulsi is being cute here, since she adds the intel “before him.” (I truly wonder how much of the DNI’s intel actually reached Trump, how much he truly read and reviewed; not much, I’d wager.)

Finally, there’s the notion of an “imminent threat,” which Iran truly didn’t pose to U.S. national security, not before the Israeli/U.S. attacks. And the usual dismissal of Iran as “terrorist Islamist,” i.e. “bad people” we don’t like.

I’ve been a Tulsi supporter for many years and I wrote that she’d make a fine DNI. Recent events are proving me wrong. Her message on X in response to Kent’s resignation was more than disappointing. I’m hoping she also resigns for cause, but perhaps she thinks she can do more as an insider to restrain the worst impulses of Trump, his toadies, and those who have always spoiled for a war against Iran. Her resignation, I think, would be more powerful than her restraining influence (assuming she has any influence).

Of course, if she does resign for cause, she will be smeared and denounced, and not for the first time.

Readers, what do you make of all this?

Addendum: Perhaps I should add that I don’t agree with everything in Kent’s resignation letter, nor would I be likely to vote for him, assuming he runs for office again. His resignation letter is useful exactly because he was a strong Trump loyalist whose military record earns him respect among those who are otherwise unlikely to question Trump and the official narrative. In short, for me this isn’t about Kent and his character, It’s about his recognition that there wasn’t an imminent threat from Iran and his willingness to highlight the roles played by Israel and AIPAC in U.S. politics and foreign policy. As a Trump insider, his words carry persuasive weight. They could also indicate a fracturing of support for Trump’s disastrous war with Iran.

Trump’s Disconnection from Reality

And More War By and For Israel

BILL ASTORE

MAR 10, 2026

Here are some excerpts from recent articles dealing with Trump’s growing disconnection from reality and the expansion of war in the Middle East for and by Israel:

From Daniel Larison at Eunomia:

The president responds to the rising economic and political costs of his criminal war with more unhinged threats:

If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.

Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!

The president started this disaster by making reckless threats, and he keeps digging himself and the rest of us into a deeper hole by making more of them. Many analysts like to predict that Trump will eventually back down and “chicken out,” but this misses that he frequently responds to adversity with more escalation. He caused the crisis with Iran, and when the Iranians refused to give in to his absurd demands he started a major war. Coercion and threats are his only tools, and when those inevitably fail him he tries to use them more aggressively than before.

*****

What is it with these “Death, Fire, and Fury” threats? What kind of a person boasts of raining death down on a people? A totally immoral one, a sociopathic one, a bully with no empathy. A murderous one. 

America, this is murderous madness.

*****

At Zeteo, there’s a telling article that “King” Trump’s brain is dead, using his own words as proof. The article also covers Israel’s expansion of the war into Lebanon. More madness, but I suppose Israeli madness has a method to it and a goal: more land for a “greater Israel.” Here’s that article:

Donald Trump delivered remarks in Doral, Florida, last night, to House Republicans during their retreat, and then as part of a press conference. It might not seem like an appropriate time to be off the job, but, dear reader, based on Trump’s remarks, maybe it’s better if he steps away from the steering wheel. Let’s discuss, debunk, annotate, and report on his insanity – quote by quote:

First off, there were so many lies:

“Try finding wind farms in China.”

China is the leading producer of wind energy in the world.

“[Democrats] don’t say [affordability] anymore because we brought down prices.”

Voters strongly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy – to a record degree, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Prices are only getting higher as a result of Trump’s illegal war in Iran.

“Virtually nobody has a system of mail-in ballots like we have; no other country in the world.”

Dozens of nations have some form of mail-in voting.

Iran “was looking to take over the Middle East.”

There’s only one nation in the Middle East right now seeking to encroach on neighboring territories: Israel.

“If we didn’t go in, they would have come in after us.”

Once again, there was no proof that Iran posed any “imminent threat” to the US, and, in fact, the country was negotiating a new nuclear deal with the Trump administration before the president decided to attack.

“…the Tomahawk is sold and used by other countries…Iran who also has some Tomahawks.”

Trump has continued to suggest that Iran was responsible for the horrific bombing of an Iranian girls’ school, killing some 175 people, mostly children. Repeated independent reporting has found that the US was likely the culprit. Footage shows that it was a Tomahawk missile that rained down on the school – a US munition that Iran does not possess.

Now onto the really absurd, brain-addled, and racist moments:

“[Chuck Schumer] is now a Palestinian officially. He’s registered as a Palestinian…He wants to protect the Iranian people, who are quite nasty.”

This is one of Trump’s latest ongoing hits: using “Palestinian” as a slur – no less to suggest Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (who himself has said one of his jobs is to keep the left pro-Israel!) is actually too sympathetic to the people Trump and Joe Biden (and Schumer) have co-signed the genocide of. It’s the kind of behavior that, if any other ethnic group were used in such a way, would lead to congressional hearings and breathless media coverage.

And – “the Iranian people who are quite nasty”? The same people Trump and the pro-war establishment are supposedly “freeing”? Instead of liberatory language, even euphemistically, the so-called peace president is speaking in the same vicious register his friends in the Israeli government have spoken in to describe Palestinians – and we see what that’s resulted in.

“The navy is gone, it’s all lying at the bottom of the ocean. 46 ships, can you believe it? …I said why didn’t we just capture the ship? We could have used it. Why did we sink them? He said, ‘It’s more fun to sink them.’”

Trump’s nonsensical riffs like this feel worse when you remember that one of the ships the US sank was an Iranian naval ship not in combat position, and was in the middle of traveling back from an exercise at the invitation of India. The US torpedoed it anyway, with no regard for survivors, leaving Sri Lanka to carry out a rescue mission. If that shocking breach of the Geneva Conventions only targeted one of the ships Trump was referring to, what are the others?

“All of the people that died through the roadside bombs. Died and are right now walking around with no legs.”

Trump confirming the existence of…. zombies?

“…And to stop illegal aliens who cannot even speak English from driving 18-wheeler tractor-trailers. They have no idea what they’re reading. I wouldn’t be able to do it in their countries. There’s arrows and speed limits.”

Sure grandpa, let’s get you home…

And then the super-revealing moments:

“You could say both.”

That was literally Trump’s response to a reporter who asked how he could say the war is “very complete” while his defense secretary says “this is just the beginning.” Well, apparently, it’s both! It’s complete, and it’s beginning. Genius!

“Will I help [the Iranian people]? I’d like to, if they can behave, but they’ve been very menacing.”

That sound you hear is the shredder ripping up the half-baked talking points about how the US was attacking Iran to free the Iranian people.

“No other president can do some of this shit I’m doing.”

Well, he got that bit right!

Iran War Updates

🇮🇷

  • Nearly 200 children killed: An Iranian official said US-Israeli strikes have killed at least 193 children, including an 8-month-old girl.
  • A third of 2026 offline: Internet access advocacy group Netblocks said today that at 240 hours, Iran’s near-total internet blackout is “now among the most severe government-imposed nationwide internet shutdowns on record globally, and the second longest registered in Iran after the January protests.” That means Iranians have spent a third of this year offline.
  • Hospitals hit: US-Israeli strikes have hit a number of civilian buildings, including hospitals and health clinics, per Iranian officials. At least nine hospitals are no longer operational, Al Jazeera quoted Mohammad Jamalian, a member of Iran’s parliamentary health committee, as saying.
  • WHO sounds the alarm: World Health Organization (WHO) head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that Israeli attacks on Iranian oil facilities could have negative effects on public health and “risks contaminating food, water and air.”
  • Oil prices drop: After reaching four-year highs yesterday, oil prices fell back down to $98.96 per barrel following Trump’s temporary claim that the war on Iran could end soon.
  • But the war isn’t over: Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday night: “If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.”
  • ‘We will decide’: For Iran’s part, the country’s deputy foreign minister insistedTehran has “the upper hand,” and it will “decide when the war will end.”

Don’t Look Away: Israel Is Invading Lebanon

Smoke rises after an Israeli attack targeted the southern suburbs on March 9, 2026, in Beirut, Lebanon. Photo by Daniel Carde/Getty Images.

While the US and Israeli war on Iran rages on, and millions of Palestinians continue to face dismal conditions and persistent attacks in Gaza, Israel is alsoterrorizing Lebanon. Israeli forces have killed more than 450 people, including 83 children, in Lebanon just in the past week

Amid their reckless violence, Israeli forces have attacked United Nations peacekeepers and residential buildings. They killed 41 people, including children, while dressed up as Lebanese troops and searching for four-decade-old remains of an Israeli military pilot. Israel’s attacks have, according to Human Rights Watch, included the illegal use of white phosphorus, which ignites when exposed to oxygen and can light homes, farmland, and other buildings and infrastructure on fire. Some of the victims of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon include a Catholic priest and three paramedics.

All told, nearly 700,000 people in Lebanon have been forcibly displaced from their homes, including 200,000 children.

Imagine the entire population of Nashville, or Washington DC, being forced out of their homes. That is the scale of displacement Israel is inflicting, just in Lebanon alone.

*****

Trump also announced that America’s war on Iran won’t end until Bibi Netanyahu says it’s over. (He actually said it would be a joint U.S./Israeli decision, but it’s obvious who’s giving the orders here.)

For America, the U.S. Congress doesn’t declare war, Bibi Netanyahu does.

I saw this quip in a YouTube comments section: No matter who you vote for, you get Bibi Netanyahu as president. It makes sense. Recall Bibi’s visits to Congress and the rapturous (even stormy!) applause he always received.

Well, at least we know who’s controlling this war, and for all their posturing, it’s not bully boy Trump or punch’em when they’re down Hegseth.

The Many Perils of America’s War on Iran

Hegseth Boasts of War Without Mercy; What We Need Is Merciful Peace

BILL ASTORE

MAR 04, 2026

Reading NBC News this morning, I saw where the U.S. “is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy,” so claimed self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. “We are only four days in,” he added, and the U.S. “will take all the time we need” to prevail. He further added “We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.” (There’s nothing more honorable than punching someone when they’re down, right?)

“They [the Iranians] are toast, and they know it, or at least, soon enough, they will know it. And we have only just begun, to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities,” Hegseth boasted. As far as how long the war will last, he equivocated. Three weeks? Eight weeks? Who knows? Hegseth doesn’t.

Hegseth also doesn’t know something fundamental: You can’t do a wrong thing the right way.

The Iran War is wrong. It’s illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and also extremely dangerous. There’s no way to prevail in a war fought for the wrong reasons, a war fought without clear goals, a war that is already beginning to spiral out of control. But Hegseth thinks if the U.S. launches enough missiles, drops enough bombs, and torpedoes enough ships, somehow the U.S. will “win.”

Congratulations, U.S. and Israel: You made him a martyr

In so many ways, the U.S. has already lost. The Ayatollah Khamenei is now a martyr. Iran is now more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon. Even more so than usual, Israel is now in the driver’s seat, calling America’s shots in the Middle East. This has all the makings of a major catastrophe for U.S. forces, but all Hegseth can see is the promise of punching a man when he’s down.

Clearly, Hegseth is intoxicated with winning “without mercy.” Think about that for a moment—war without mercy. Only the most barbaric or fanatical person would boast about waging war without mercy.

With the Iran War, the Trump administration is marching down the most perilous of paths, blinded by illusions of total victory.

A warning: More than anything, America must not allow this to become a religious war, a crusade, between a Judeo-Christian force and a Shia-Islamic force. We’re already seeing a lot of talk within the U.S. military of a God-driven mission against Iran, with (positive!) references to Armageddon. Such rhetoric is incredibly dangerous and inflammatory. (In this context, that crusader cross tattoo on Hegseth’s chest is more than alarming.)

If anything, the best outcome for the U.S. would be an immediate ceasefire before more U.S. troops are killed and wounded. But how is such a ceasefire to be negotiated? U.S. diplomacy has no credibility. None.

Among the worst outcomes would be the commitment of U.S. troops to Iran, so-called boots on the ground, which would likely create a massive Bay of Pigs-style fiasco. America can ill afford yet another land war quagmire in the Middle East. There is already talk, however, of committing U.S. Special Forces to Iran, perhaps to organize Kurdish and Iranian dissidents against the legitimate Iranian government. Such folly must be prevented.

Any commitment of U.S. troops to Iran would further accelerate escalation. If you begin to hear rumblings about Selective Service and a return to a military draft, you’ll know the Trump administration has become completely unhinged (if it isn’t already).

In just a few days of “major combat operations,” the Trump administration already has more than enough innocent Iranian blood on its hands. That toll in blood is only going to increase, as will the risk of blowback on the “homeland.”

The smartest course for America at this moment is to declare “victory” and leave. Since it’s unlikely Trump and Hegseth will see the light, Congress should immediately cut war funding. Sadly, a weak-willed Congress seems far more likely to pass supplemental funding bills to give Trump and Hegseth a blank check to wage a Judeo-Christian crusade.

We don’t live in interesting times: we live in unhinged times. Perilous times. We must find a way to seek a merciful peace. The alternative just might be World War III.