The war against Iran, led by the US and Israel, has exposed the total vacuity in Trump’s understanding of diplomacy. The typical insult to someone who plays a benighted foreign policy is to suggest that someone is playing checkers against someone playing chess. The essence of the insult is that some do not think beyond the first step in a dispute while others think about a second, third, or even fourth move. The Israelis do not need to think about future moves since their objective is to destroy Iran in much the same way that they destroyed the Gaza Strip.
But the US has a tangle of objectives, and it seems clear that no one in his Administration did much thinking beyond dropping the first bomb. Incomprehensibly, the US does not appear to have prepared for the Iranian blockage of the Strait of Hormoz, even though that possibility aways loomed large in previous US interventions in the Middle East. According to CNN:
“The Pentagon and National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes while planning the ongoing operation, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
“President Donald Trump’s national security team failed to fully account for the potential consequences of what some officials have described as a worst-case scenario now facing the administration, the sources said….
“‘Planning around preventing this exact scenario — impossible as it has long seemed — has been a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades,’ a former US official who served in Republican and Democratic administrations said. ‘I’m dumbfounded.’”
“Trump’s plea to the UK contrasts with comments made on the same social media site last week, when he accused prime minister Keir Starmer of attempting to join the conflict after he had already claimed victory.
“’The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,’ Trump wrote. ‘That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!’”
Today, however, Trump has changed his tune. He has called for a coalition of states to open the Strait of Hormuz: “Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated.”
The decision to first ignore its allies, but then to ask them to join the fight mirrors the decision that the US made when it invaded Afghanistan in 2001. NATO offered to join the US because of its commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty: “Collective defence is NATO’s most fundamental principle. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all. Since 1949, this unwavering pledge has bound together a group of like-minded countries from Europe and North America, which have committed themselves to protecting each other in a spirit of solidarity.” However, President George W. Bush believed that the US did not need assistance: “The United States began Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001 without taking up NATO’s offer of collective defense involvement.” Bush’s reasons were as follows:
Skepticism about NATO’s military effectiveness: The U.S. believed NATO’s command structures were too slow and politically cumbersome for the rapid, flexible operations planned in Afghanistan.
Preference for a U.S.-led coalition: Washington preferred to assemble a “coalition of the willing” tailored to its operational needs rather than operate under NATO’s consensus-based command.
Desire for operational freedom: The Pentagon wanted maximum autonomy in planning and executing the invasion.
Yet as the US effort faltered in its campaign, it reversed course and NATO joined the effort in 2003 under the aegis of the UN Security Council. And NATO remained a steadfast ally throughout the conflict until NATO and US forces withdrew in 2021.
In both cases, the hubris of the US betrayed a stunning lack of foresight, and, in both cases, it had to admit that it was not able to secure the victory on its own. It would have been better if the US had coordinated its effort with its allies before the fighting began.
Similarly, the US did not anticipate the Iranian closure of the Strait and what it would do to the global energy system. After it became clear that oil and natural gas prices were rising rapidly, Trump has made the decision that keeping energy prices low was in the interests of the Republican Party and the mid-term elections. So, he lifted the sanctions against the sale of Russian oil which will replenish the almost empty cash reserves of Russia, allowing it to continue its war against Ukraine. Because he does not know how to play chess, Trump failed to anticipate that his actions in Iran would vitiate the efforts to allow Ukraine to defend its territory. To abandon an ally and to favor an adversary is a high crime in diplomacy.
During the Vietnam War, Senator Fulbright (D-Ark) wrote a book entitled The Arrogance of Powerwhich raised a perennial problem in diplomacy–the reckless assumption that military power is decisive and that diplomacy can take a back seat as long as the bombs are falling. It appears as if the US is going to double down on its failed strategy. The New York Times has reported that US troops are being sent to the region as a potential ground invasion of Iran is being contemplated:
“About 2,500 Marines aboard as many as three warships are heading to the Middle East, as Iran blocks the world’s most important choke point for oil. The deployment, after two weeks of war, comes as Iran’s response has proved more resilient than U.S. officials had anticipated. The Marines will join more than 50,000 American troops in the region.”
Iran has about 100,000 soldiers in the Revolutionary Guard and even more troops in the regular army. I’m not sure how Trump thinks that a ground invasion could be successful. But it is difficult to account for his ignorance and delusions.
R.I.P Country Joe McDonald. Thanks for showing us how hubris manifests itself on the battlefield. The US never thought it would (or could) lose the war in Vietnam.
The number of justifications offered by the Trump Administration for its attack on Iran is a hodgepodge of assertions that are not really supported by available evidence. So far, I have detected 9 reasons:
The Trump Administration’s Stated Justifications for the War on Iran
Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeatedly framed the strikes as a response to an “imminent threat” to U.S. forces or interests. This language appears designed to fit the War Powers Resolution, which allows unilateral presidential action only under extraordinary imminent danger.
There is no evidence provided except for Trump’s gut feeling. Karoline Leavitt argued that Trump “had a good feeling that the Iranian regime was going to strike”.
Officials have claimed the war aims to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. However, reporting notes that this justification has shifted, especially since the administration also claimed early on that Iran’s nuclear program had already been “obliterated.”
There is no evidence that Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb. It is also impossible to destroy the knowledge and expertise that Iranian nuclear scientists possess. Perhaps an attack would delay them, but Trump argued that he had destroyed the nuclear program a few months ago.
Another stated objective has been to destroy Iranian missile stockpiles and missile‑production facilities. This justification has appeared and disappeared in official statements, contributing to the sense of a moving target. One should remember that missiles are also a component of a space program, including launching satellites. Telling the difference between a peaceful missile and an aggressive missile is impossible.
Trump and senior officials have invoked the idea of helping Iranians overthrow their government, describing the war as a campaign for “freedom” or “liberation.”
Trump’s initial announcement video framed the operation as both a defensive strike and a call for Iranians to “take back your country.” This rationale conflicts with other statements denying that regime change is the goal.
Trump has cited “47 years of Iranian aggression”, referencing the 1979 hostage crisis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian‑backed militias. This frames the war as a long‑overdue reckoning rather than a response to a specific event. It ignores the fact that the US overthrew a legitimately elected Iranian government in 1953. A good reason for hostility.
Secretary of State Rubio suggested that Israel was preparing to strike Iran, and the U.S. intervened preemptively to avoid higher American casualties. This justification has been controversial even among Trump’s supporters, who see it as contradicting “America First.” Rubio offered no evidence for his claim, but it is believable. But why would Iran attack the US if only Israel was conducting the air strikes?
At times, officials have claimed Iran was preparing an attack on U.S. forces or assets. But other statements have conceded that Iran was not planning such an attack, further muddying the rationale.
Trump has described the mission as an effort to “destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.” This overlaps with the nuclear and missile justifications but is framed more broadly as degrading Iran’s military capacity.
Some messaging from within the administration has invoked a religious justification, suggesting the war aligns with “God’s divine plan.” Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is quoted as following:
“This morning our commander opened up the combat readiness status briefing by urging us to not be ‘afraid’ as to what is happening with our combat operations in Iran right now,” one complaint reads. “He urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.'”
Forget the fact that these justifications lack substantive evidence. The incoherence of the justifications is also a serious problem because it indicates that no one in the Trump Administration has forged a consensus on what the war is supposed to accomplish. That lack of clarity means that there is no condition which will qualify as “victory” for the US. The Iranians have identified their objective: the regime must survive. As long as the US fights this war from the air, there is essentially no way to overthrow the regime. Even the protesters are unlikely to demand the overthrow of the regime since that is tantamount to being an ally of the US and Israel. Thus, Iran wins the war simply by surviving with no change to the regime.
Israel has one clear objective: the regime must be overthrown. And Israel will follow the same playbook as it did in the Gaza Strip. The strategy is to make the Gaza and Iran unlivable. Whether Israel has enough bombs to reduce Iran to rubble is questionable. Trump likely will not support a “Sherman at Atlanta” policy (at least before the midterms). At some point Trump will have to stop Netanyahu from the scorched earth strategy. Better soon, rather than later.
It has been difficult to figure out what is happening with the war against Iran. We have been treated to a variety of possible objectives which might lead to an end to the war, but none is coalescing into a coherent policy. Trump outlined his objectives in his speech to the nation. The White House has compiled a slew of statements from all over the world to justify the war, but most of those statements do not really address the fundamental disagreements between the US, Israel, and Iran. At this point, the war is a military mismatch: Iran really has little capability to protect itself against the aerial bombardment. But one could easily have said the same thing about the North Vietnamese and the Afghans who also had few capabilities to defend themselves against the US and the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, both states succeeded in defeating more powerful states.
Trump’s speech justifying the war on 28 February takes no notice of this fact. Indeed, Trump touted the power of the US military (which is undeniable) but failed to account for the political factors that lead to victory or defeat in war. Trump also failed to offer Iran any alternative to war which might satisfy US interests. His opening remarks in the speech were hyperbolic:
“A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. A vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world.”
We should be clear: there was no “imminent” threat. Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon, nor did it have missile capabilities that could directly threaten the US homeland. The war is being fought to prevent a threat in the future, a reality that belies any sense of “imminence”. The more prudent course of action would have been to engage in diplomacy to prevent these outcomes. Indeed, the Obama Administration had succeeded in forging a comprehensive policy to achieve both outcomes, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). By all accounts, that agreement was successful in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. It was also a plan supported by Great Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany giving it tremendous leverage and weight.
The JCPOA accomplished much: The deal imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle that directly blocked the pathways to a bomb:
Centrifuges reduced and older models required, sharply limiting enrichment capacity.
Enrichment capped at 3.67%, far below weapons‑grade levels.
Uranium stockpile cut to a fraction of what would be needed for a weapon.
Reactor redesigns at Arak and restrictions at Fordow and Natanz ensured no plutonium pathway.
These measures increased Iran’s “breakout time”—the time needed to produce enough fissile material for one bomb—to about one year, compared to just a few months before the deal.
Iran implemented the IAEA Additional Protocol, allowing access to declared and suspect sites.
Continuous monitoring and real‑time surveillance made covert diversion extremely difficult.
Experts widely regarded the inspection system as the strongest in nonproliferation history. Bottom line: During this period, Iran was not able to develop a nuclear weapon without being detected, and its technical capacity to do so was sharply constrained.
Despite its success, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 breaking the agreement. Note: Iran did not break the agreement, a conclusion verified by on-site inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Trump himself jettisoned the agreement that would have prevented Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The current war is therefore a consequence of Trump’s failure in 2018.
Trump’s other justifications for the war are ridiculous. He dredges up acts committed by Iran that are clearly heinous but ignores the context of the Iranian opposition to Israel and the US, most notably the fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government in 1953. And there are many states committing heinous crimes in the international system (the Israeli destruction of the Gaza Strip will undoubtedly go down in history as a mass atrocity).
The evidence suggests that Trump was most interested in overthrowing the regime. The photographic evidence of the compound of the Ayatollah which was destroyed on the first day of the attack indicates that regime change was the highest priority. No doubt, Trump was emboldened by his “success” in Venezuela. He succeeded in removing President Maduro, but Maduro’s political infrastructure is still in power except for decisions regarding the sale of Venezuelan oil. The New York Times reports:
“’What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,’ Mr. Trump said.
“Then he offered a very different model of what the transition of power in Iran might look like, referring repeatedly to his experience in Venezuela after he ordered a Delta Force team to seize Mr. Maduro.
“His answer implied that what worked in Venezuela would work in Iran, a nation with about three times the population and a military and clerical leadership that has ruled with increasing repression since the 1979 revolution. Over the past several weeks, Mr. Trump has repeatedly brought up Venezuela as the model of a successful operation and hoped to replicate aspects of it in Iran, identifying leadership that would be more cooperative and friendly to the United States.
“But he has been told by his advisers that the vast differences in cultures and history made it virtually impossible to apply the strategy used in Venezuela — in which the existing government was kept in place, after it agreed to take instructions from Washington — and try to replicate it in Tehran.
“Nonetheless, Mr. Trump appears enamored of using a Venezuela-like model in Iran.”
Trump made two huge mistakes. First, the situation in Venezuela is nothing comparable to Iran. The Ayatollah did not rule in a vacuum. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard is a formidable political and military organization and will persist as the ruling force in Iran. It is nothing like the motley crew of sycophants that supported Maduro. Second, he ignored all the lessons about regime change. It did not work in Iran in 1953; it did not work in Guatemala in 1954; it did not work in Cuba in 1962 at the Bay of Pigs; it did not work in Vietnam in 1963; it did not work in Iraq in 2003; it did not work in Afghanistan in 2014. Outsiders can never produce legitimate new regimes and only a fool would entertain such a preposterous thought.
This fixation on regime change is perhaps the most insidious aspect of the Iranian intervention. Trump loudly asserted that he was working on behalf of those Iranians who opposed theocratic rule:
“Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.
“For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny, and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”
With this pronouncement, Trump effectively de-legitimatized the protest movement in Iran. He has undermined the authenticity of the internal dissent because anyone who opposed the theocracy will now be associated with the US intervention. And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has more than enough military, political, and economic power to continue the violent suppression of dissent in Iran. In a very real sense, Trump has created the conditions for a bloody civil war, one which the protesters cannot win. This mistake was made by President Eisenhower when Hungarian protesters challenged communist rule in 1956:
“The United States considers the development in Hungary as being a renewed expression of the intense desire for freedom long held by the Hungarian people. The demands reportedly made by the students and the working people clearly fall within the framework of those human rights to which all are entitled, which are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations, and which are specifically guaranteed to the Hungarian people by the treaty of peace to which the Governments of Hungary and of the Allied and Associated Powers, including the Soviet Union and the United States, are parties.
“The United States deplores the intervention of Soviet military forces which, under the treaty of peace, should have been withdrawn and the presence of which in Hungary, as is now demonstrated, is not to protect Hungary against armed aggression from without but rather to continue an occupation of Hungary by the forces of an alien government for its own purposes.
“The heart of America goes out to the people of Hungary.”
It was a nice sentiment, but it gave false hope to the protesters. The US did not take any action to support them, and they felt betrayed by the empty promises. Which will leave Trump with a difficult decision. If the IRG does violently suppress the protest movement, will Trump send in ground troops to prevent the bloodshed? No matter how this question is answered, it ends in tragedy.
The US and Israel have attacked Iran. I will wait for more information before I make any comments on the conduct of the war. But there are some initial points that need to be made.
First, the attack was unprovoked. I am well aware of the fact that President Trump listed a number of times Iran has attacked either US facilities, troops, or those of its allies. But at the time of the attack, Iran had not launched any strikes on either the US or Israel. There are a lot of grievances that states have against each other, but war demands a violent threshold to justify self-defense. Otherwise, states would always be at war. Trump started his list of grievances with the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The Iranians would start with the CIA supporting a coup that overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. Similarly, Trump did not mention the bombing of Tehran that killed General Sulemani in 2020 or the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025.
Second, the objectives of the attack are not at all clear. It appears from the photographic evidence that there was a concerted attempt by Israel and the US to assassinate the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. At this point, both Israel and the US are claiming that Khamenei is dead. The photographs show that this was a definite objective:
Third, there was little or no attempt to justify the attack to the American people or the US Congress, which has the exclusive authority to declare war. Julian Borger, writing for the Guardian is explicit:
“The first war of Donald Trump’s Board of Peace era has begun – an unprovoked attempt at regime change in collaboration with Israel, with no legal foundation, launched in the midst of diplomatic efforts to avert conflict, and with minimal consultation with Congress or the American public.
“Trump’s recorded eight-minute address after the first bombs had fallen made clear that this would be no limited strike aimed at cajoling Tehran into concessions at the negotiating table.
“He warned that if Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) did not surrender, they would be killed, and the country’s armed forces, its missiles and navy would be smashed.
“The way would then be open for the Iranian opposition and the country’s ethnic minorities to rise up and bring the regime down.
“’It’s time for all the people of Iran – Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Balochis and Akhvakhs – to shed from themselves the burden of tyranny and bring forth a free and peace-seeking Iran,’ Trump said. There are no Akhvakhs in Iran. They are a small minority in Dagestan, and it is unclear how they were included in Trump’s list.”
I will wait for more substantive information before I offer further thoughts. In the meantime, Randy Newman anticipated this attack way back in 1972. Such prescience!
We should keep our eyes on Jerusalem for the next month. Since 1967, there have been a number of accommodations made around the site of the al-Aqsa mosque. That mosque is considered by many Muslims to be the third holiest site in Islam and is visited by Muslims for prayers during the month of Ramadan. The mosque was also used as a church by the Christian crusaders after they captured Jerusalem in 1099, but after Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1149 it has remained a mosque. After Israel captured Jerusalem during the Six-Day War in 1967, the control of the mosque was given to Jordan and regulated by a series of agreements between Israel and Jordan. The difficulty is that the mosque rests on the Temple Mount, which is the site of the Jewish First Temple (built by King Solomon and destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar) and the Second Temple which was destroyed by the Roman Empire. Many Jews (but not all) believe that the area of the Temple Mount should be completely under Israeli control. The site is the scene of unresolved conflict.
“The administrative body responsible for the whole Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is known as “the Jerusalem Waqf“, an organ of the Jordanian government.
“The waqf employed architects, technicians and craftsmen in a committee that carry out regular maintenance operations. The Islamic Movement in Israel and the waqf have attempted to increase Muslim control of the Temple Mount as a way of countering Israeli policies and the escalating presence of Israeli security forces around the site since the Second Intifada. Some activities included refurbishing abandoned structures and renovating.
Those agreements have periodically been tested, and the current situation is highly volatile. After the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023, there has been a systematic campaign to increase Israeli control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and a concerted effort to bring the Temple Mount under complete Israeli control. The Guardian outlines the collapse of the previous agreements:
“A six-decade agreement governing Muslim and Jewish prayer at Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site has ‘collapsed’ under pressure from Jewish extremists backed by the Israeli government, experts have warned.
“A series of arrests of Muslim caretaker staff, bans on access for hundreds of Muslims, and escalating incursions by radical Jewish groups culminated this week in the arrest of an imam of al-Aqsa mosque and an Israeli police raid during evening prayers on the first night of Ramadan.
“The actions by the Jerusalem police and the Shin Bet internal security force, both now under far-right leadership, represent a rupture in the status quo agreement dating back to the aftermath of the 1967 war, which stipulates that only Muslims are permitted to pray in the sacred compound around the mosque, known as the al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims, which also encompasses the seventh-century Dome of the Rock shrine. To Jews it is the Temple Mount, the site of the 10th-century BC first temple and second temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in AD70.”
“Police extended visiting hours for Jewish worshipers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by an hour more than is customary during Ramadan on Wednesday, the first day of the Islamic holy month.
“The change comes as Israel has repeatedly shifted norms on the flashpoint holy site where the Biblical Jewish temples stood and that today houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Shrine under far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.
“Jewish visitors were able to ascend the flashpoint holy site in the morning from 6:30 to 11:30 a.m., following pressure from activists. In previous years, visiting hours during Ramadan were from 7 to 11 a.m, with the Al-Aqsa compound completely closed to Jewish visitors throughout the afternoon.”
The issue is not necessarily the limitation of prayers, but rather the unilateral moves by Israel which stimulates fear among Muslims that Israel is moving toward complete control of the site. The Guardian outlines some of the moves that have inspired this fear:
“Tensions have escalated steadily around al-Aqsa mosque as far-right Israelis have taken up key security positions. The national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir – who had eight criminal convictions before taking office, for supporting a terrorist organisation and incitement to racism, among other charges – has said he wanted to raise the Israeli flag at the compound and build a synagogue there.
“Ben-Gvir has made inflammatory visits to al-Aqsa over the past year, and backed a series of unilateral changes to the status quo, allowing Jews to pray and sing in the compound. In January, he installed an ideological ally, Maj Gen Avshalom Peled, as the Jerusalem police chief, and with the reported backing of the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, allowed Jews to take printed prayer sheets on to the site, in ever-more clearcut violations.
“’The status quo has collapsed because there are prayers on a daily basis,’ Seidemann (Daniel Seidemann, a Jerusalem lawyer) said. ‘In the past, the police were very strict about preventing any kind of provocation … but these measures are displays of ‘we’re in control here, get used to it or get out of the way’.”
“In the run-up to Ramadan this year, the Jerusalem Waqf, the Jordanian-appointed foundation charged with managing al-Aqsa’s site as part of the status quo agreement, has come under increasing pressure. Waqf sources said five of its staff had been put in administrative detention (detention without charge) this week by the Shin Bet, while 38 staff members had been banned from entering the site. Six imams from the mosque had also been denied entrance, they said.
“They said six Waqf offices had been ransacked in recent weeks and the staff prevented from rehanging doors or doing other repairs. The Waqf has been prevented from installing sun and rain shelters or temporary clinics for worshippers. Officials allege they have even been prevented from bringing toilet paper on to the site.
“The cumulative effect, the officials said, had been to strain the Waqf’s ability to cater to the 10,000 Muslims expected to come to pray at al-Aqsa mosque over the month of Ramadan.”
The Palestinians have lost control over the land in the Gaza Strip and are witnessing the steady encroachment of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Losing access to the al Aqsa mosque would amplify these fears to an incredible extent. At this writing, however, there does not seem to be any US to restrain the Israelis. Many states in the rest of the world are objecting to the creeping annexation of the West Bank and the UN Security Council has condemned many of the moves. The Washington Post reports:
“This month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, in a closed-door meeting, adopted measures to make it easier for settlers to purchase land and circumvent the Palestinian Authority in areas it has controlled since a 1995 agreement under the Oslo accords. The move was widely condemned in the Arab world and globally as a violation of international law and an undoing of decades-old regional security agreements….
“In the meantime, Palestinians continue to face an ever-quickening transformation of the West Bank, which, in the shadow of war on Gaza, has seen new Jewish settlements approved at record rates — and more than 1,300 Palestinians killed by settlers or Israeli forces — since Netanyahu took office in 2022, according to U.N. statistics.
“Now, many say they fear not only being displaced, but losing all legal claim to their land. Many international lawyers and even some Israeli cabinet ministers who supported the measures say they are a clear reach toward seizing territory.
“’We are continuing the revolution of settlement and our hold on all regions of our land,’ Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said, adding: ‘The State of Israel is taking responsibility for its land and acting according to the law with transparency and determination.’”
We should pay attention to how this situation evolves over the next month.
The Trump Administration is currently engaged in diplomatic talks with Iran, ostensibly over Iran’s nuclear program. If the issue is simply halting the Uranium enrichment program in Iran, there are some reasons to be optimistic. Iran seems willing to return to the agreement forged by the US, Germany, Russia, China, France and Great Britain during the Obama Administration. That agreement limited the level of enrichment to those levels necessary to build a nuclear bomb in return for the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran. But the US and Israel are demanding other limitations, including restrictions on Iran’s missile program (which was never part of the original deal).
In order to buttress his demands, Trump has ordered a significant expansion of the US military presence near Iran, including the dispatch of another aircraft carrier to the region. Axios describes the scale of the buildup:
“Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way.
More than 150 U.S. military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East.
In the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets — F-35s, F-22s and F-16s — headed to the region.
“Between the lines: Trump’s military and rhetorical buildups make it hard for him to back down without major concessions from Iran on its nuclear program.
It’s not in Trump’s nature, and his advisers don’t view the deployment of all that hardware as a bluff.
:With Trump, anything can happen. But all signs point to him pulling the trigger if talks fail.”
It is doubtful that Iran will agree to those additional demands. Robert Reich believes that Trump wants “regime change” in Iran which essentially means the removal of the Supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:
“The United States is being represented in the talks by “Special Envoy” Steve Witkoff (whose son is the chief executive of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency company, nearly half of which was purchased last year for $500 million by an investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates). And by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner (who’s been making private deals with the Saudis and who raised several billion dollars before Trump’s second term from overseas investors including sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates).
“No one from the State Department. Nobody from the National Security Council. No one who knows much of anything about Iran.
“So what’s the real goal?
“On Friday, in a little-noticed remark, Trump said “the best thing that could happen” in Iran would be regime change, noting “there are people” who could take over from Iran’s Islamic ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”
That objective is significantly more complicated than the removal of Venezuelan leader, Maduro. I have given up on trying to predict what Trump will actually do (largely because I believe that often he has no real plan for the consequences of his actions). But it seems to be clear that Israel is pushing hard for a more sustained attack: According to the New York Times:
“In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.
“The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
There are currently negotiations between the US and Iran in Geneva on the nuclear issue. But it does not appear that any progress has been made on the ballistic missile issue. Moreover, the Trump Administration may think that the recent protests in Iran make the possibility of a regime collapse more likely, and that a sustained attack on Iran would usher in regime change. There does not seem to be much discussion on the implications of an overthrow of the regime. Iran is different from the intervention in Venezuela which does not seem to have changed the character of the Venezuelan government much. There are many more fragmenting concerns in Iran: ethnic issues, distributional issues, and the threat of a sustained drought.
“Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Thursday for all Polish citizens to leave Iran, after US President Donald Trump again hinted at military action against the Islamic Republic.
“’Everyone who is still in Iran must leave immediately, and under no circumstances should anyone plan to travel to that country,’ he said at a press conference.
He added that ‘the possibility of heated conflict is very real, and in a few, a dozen or several dozen hours, evacuation may no longer be an option.'”
If the attack occurs, it will mark the seventh time Trump has bombed a foreign power since January. I have not checked, but it seems to me that this is probably a record number of bombed states for any President in the first year of a presidential term.
The US has asserted that it will blockade all oil tankers from Venezuela on a sanction list. This action follows the seizure of the oil tanker Skipper that was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil destined for Cuba. Generally speaking, a blockade is considered an act of war but the Trump Administration has not asked the Congress for a declaration of war, nor has it met the requirements of the War Powers Act. Nonetheless, Trump has deployed a massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela acting on his asserted authority as Commander-in-Chief. The Washington Post listed all the military assets deployed as of today.
AC-130J Ghostrider
Heavily armed gunship
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Air Force (Special Ops Command)
AV-8B Harrier II
Fighter and attack aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
B-1B Lancer
Supersonic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
B-52 Stratofortress
Strategic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
EA-18G Growler
Electronic attack jet
Air
U.S. Navy
F-35 Lightning II
Supersonic fighter jet
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
MH-6 Little Bird
Light observation helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60M Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60T Jayhawk
Medium-range recovery helicopter
Air
U.S. Coast Guard
MQ-9 Reaper
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (drone)
Air
U.S. Air Force
MV Ocean Trader
Floating special operations base
Special Operations Forces
Operated for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
MV-22 Osprey
Transport and cargo aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
P-8 Poseidon
Maritime patrol aircraft
Air
U.S. Navy
Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Air
U.S. Army
USS Bainbridge
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Fort Lauderdale
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gerald R. Ford
Aircraft carrier
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)
Amphibious assault ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Jason Dunham
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Lake Erie
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Mahan
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS San Antonio
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Stockdale
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Thomas Hudner
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Wichita
Littoral combat ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Winston S. Churchill
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
I doubt that the US is contemplating an invasion of Venezuela (but I also doubt that Trump has thought that far). His intention is to create economic chaos in Venezuela that will lead to the overthrow of President Maduro. This particular playbook was actually used by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) in 1951 against Iran after Iran nationalized its holdings. The company effectively blockaded Iran from selling its oil to others by following oil tankers leaving Iran and using the courts to prevent the sale of what it called “stolen” oil. Eventually, the Iranian economy collapsed and with a shove from the US CIA led to the overthrow of the president of the country and leading to the rule of the Shah of Iran.
The Iranian example is instructive since the Iranian regime that toppled the Shah in 1979 led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the longstanding bitterness between Iran and the US today. The US has a poor track record of regime change. It did not work in Vietnam in 1963 when South Vietnamese President Diem was assassinated or when the US overthrew Iraqi President Hussein in 2003. Other examples include the overthrow of Guatemalan President in 1954 and the toppling President Allende of Chile in 1973. Regime change is a policy adopted by states that pay little attention to the long-term consequences of meddling in the internal affair of other states.
But there is another thread in the Venezuela situation that has not received sufficient attention. Venezuela has the largest oil deposits in the world although its oil is heavy with sulfur and thus requires significant refining in order to be useful. The main seller of Venezuelan oil in the US is a company called Citgo, and it has three refineries in the US. But the US took control of Citgo properties in 2018 using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA). In December 2025 Citgo shares were sold to a US company called Amber Energy with a $5.9 billion bid.
What’s interesting about Amber Energy is that one of its primary backers is Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund based in West Palm Beach, Florida and whose primary sponsor is Paul Singer. Singer is often termed a venture capitalist (some call him a “vulture” capitalist) and an example of his activities was in profiting from Argentina’s debt problem in the early 2000s:
“Perhaps the most infamous chapter of Singer’s career is his prolonged battle with the government of Argentina over defaulted sovereign bonds. In the early 2000s, Argentina experienced a financial crisis that led to the country defaulting on its debt. While many creditors agreed to restructure their bonds at a fraction of their original value, Elliott Management refused, demanding full repayment. What followed was a 15-year legal and financial battle that saw Singer’s firm seize Argentine naval vessels and block international payments. In 2016, the dispute culminated in a $2.4 billion payout to Elliott Management, a victory that underscored Singer’s tenacity and strategic prowess.”
Regime change might result in a US company controlling all of Venezuela’s oil (if Maduro does leave, his most likely successor would be María Corina Machado who would likely have Trump’s blessing, although her political power will be sorely tested if she does not protest the US actions). In short, a US company would have control over Venezuela’s massive reserves.
Trump’s actions against Venezuela are reprehensible and short-sighted. The long-term consequences of Trump’s “gunboat” diplomacy will weaken US credibility and prestige, all in the name of preserving the viability of fossil fuel hegemony in the US. It is a fool’s errand and completely out of touch with the world as it currently operates.
US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced yesterday that they had agreed upon a plan to end the war in Gaza. The New York Times published the full text of the agreement:
Here is the full text of the proposal provided by the White House.
Gaza will be a de-radicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.
Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.
If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.
Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.
Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after Oct. 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.
Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.
Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the Jan. 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.
Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the Jan. 19, 2025, agreement.
Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza.
This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.
A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.
A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.
No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.
Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.
A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.
The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (I.S.F.) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The I.S.F. will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The I.S.F. will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A de-confliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.
Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the I.S.F. establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (I.D.F.) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and time frames linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the I.D.F., I.S.F., the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the I.D.F. will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.
In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the I.D.F. to the I.S.F.
An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence to try and change mind-sets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.
While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the P.A. reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence.
This proposal is not a peace proposal–it is a land development proposal. Note that Hamas (or any other agent representing the interests of the Palestinian people) participated in forging this proposal. It was conceived by Trump and Netanyahu and it reflects the narrow interests of both men. Creating a transitional government with considerable power before the Palestinians have any effective control:
“This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
Note that the conposition of the “Board of Peace” that has oversight and supervises the transitional committee does has no reference to the Palestinians. And the appointment of Trump as the Chair of this Board of Peace is simply a way to insure that Trump’s vision of a “Middle East Riviera” will indeed serve to give control to Trump over what is built and for whom it is built. In addition, the proposal offers “preferred tariff and access rates” for those who invest in what the proposal calls “New Gaza”. This tactic was no doubt a ploy by Netanyahu to guarantee Trump’s personal support for the proposal by playing to Trump’s ego and self-interest. And I have serious doubts that most Americans would approve of Trump spending a good part of his time as President serving the interests of Israel. Fareed Zakaria explains:
“Netanyahu looked on in the White House on Tuesday as President Donald Trump delivered the most stunning US intervention in the long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“The president repeatedly doubled down on his suggestion that nearly 2 million Palestinians should be relocated from battle-leveled Gaza to new homes elsewhere so that the US could send troops to the Strip, take ownership and build the ‘Riviera of the Middle East.’
“’You build really good quality housing, like a beautiful town, like some place where they can live and not die, because Gaza is a guarantee that they’re going to end up dying,’ Trump told reporters.
“In a few words, Trump conjured up a mind-boggling geopolitical transformation of the Middle East and a political lifeline for Netanyahu – showing why the prime minister, despite their past tensions, was rooting for his host’s return to power in the 2024 election.
“Netanyahu can now bill himself to right-wing factions in his coalition, which incessantly threaten his grip on power, as the unique and vital conduit to Trump. The American president’s views now parallel Israeli hardliners’ desire to see Palestinians ousted from part of what they view as the sacred land of Israel.”
No doubt Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his good friend Crown Prince Salman, will be able to secure the funds for a development project that will cater to the interests of people who wish to live in penthouses overlooking the Mediterranean. I doubt that they will be interested in building affordable housing for the 2 million Palestinians who once lived in the Gaza Strip.
The proposal does state that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza”, but Israel does not need to do either. The Council of Peace will decide where the hospitals, the schools, and the police forces are located. It will decide what dwellings are allowed and where they can be built. Moreover, we have seen this movie before. When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed: “It was anticipated that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). The assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a right-wing settler scuttled that hope, but the Israelis broke their word, not the Palestinians.
Finally, there is no mention of the West Bank, which is also occupied territory, but is under siege by Israeli settlers. According to the United Nations:
“The report covers the period from 18 June to 19 September. During this time, Israeli authorities advanced or approved some 20,810 housing units in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
“On 2 July, 15 Israeli ministers and the speaker of the Knesset, or parliament, signed a petition calling for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank. Three weeks later, the Knesset adopted a non-binding motion calling for the ‘application of Israeli sovereignty’ across all settlements there.
“Demolitions and seizures of Palestinian-owned structures also increased while evictions continued.
“’Citing the lack of Israeli-issued building permits, which are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain, Israeli authorities demolished, seized or forced people to demolish 455 structures‘, he said.
The Gaza proposal raises a genuine question: If the Gaza Strip is taken away from Israeli occupation and ultimately from Israeli sovereignty, will the West Bank be annexed to appease the settlers who believe that the two pieces of land are part of “Greater Israel”?
“Judaism defines the land as where Jewish religious law prevailed and excludes territory where it was not applied.[3] It holds that the area is a God-given inheritance of the Jewish people based on the Torah, particularly the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua and the later Prophets.[4] According to the Book of Genesis, the land was first promised by God to Abram’s descendants; the text is explicit that this is a covenant between God and Abram for his descendants.[5] Abram’s name was later changed to Abraham, with the promise refined to pass through his son Isaac and to the Israelites, descendants of Jacob, Abraham’s grandson.”
Is the plan to trade the West Bank for Gaza, if friends of Trump and Netanyahu control the Gaza?
Hamas will ignore the 72-hour time limit for releasing the hostages, thereby assuring that Netanyahu will be given the green light to “finish the job”? Trump’s position after the proposal was clearly one of take-it-or-leave-it, offering a threat if Hamas rejects the proposal:
“Trump gives Hamas ‘three or four days’ to respond to Gaza plan
“Donald Trump has said Hamas has ‘three or four days’ to respond to his Gaza plan or face the consequences.
“Speaking to reporters as he left the White House on Tuesday, Trump said Israeli and Arab leadershad accepted the proposal and “we’re just waiting for Hamas”.
“Hamas is either going to be doing it or not, and if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.
“Asked if there was room for negotiations, Trump replied: ‘Not much.’”
Two prominent Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, have made an explosive charge against the Israeli government, accusing it of committing genocide. Needless to say, the accusation affects the world profoundly given the historical experience of Jews. National Public Radio puts the charge in context:
“The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel’s conduct in Gaza.”
The Genocide Convention was adopted in 1948 after the horrors of the Holocaust became undeniable (there was considerable evidence of genocide during World War II, but these reports were not acted upon for a variety of reasons, including prejudice against Jews). Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Physicians for Human Rights–Israel has issued a paper justifying its charge of genocide and it is thorough and comprehensive. Its conclusion is straightforward:
“Each day, dozens die of malnutrition. Ninety-two percent of infants aged six months to two years don’t get enough to eat. At least 85 children have already starved to death. Israel has displaced 9 in 10 Gazans, destroyed or damaged 92% of homes, and left over half a million children without schools or stability. It has wiped out essential health services – including dialysis, maternal care, cancer treatment, and diabetes management.
“This is not a temporary crisis. It is a strategy to eliminate the conditions needed for life. Even if Israel stops the offensive today, the destruction it has inflicted guarantees that preventable deaths – from starvation, infection, and chronic illness – will continue for years. This is not collateral damage. This is not a side effect of war. It is the systematic creation of unlivable conditions. It is the denial of survivability. It is a genocide.”
The charge of genocide is supported by several leading scholars. The Washington Post ran an article citing many of those scholars:
“The governments that have accused Israel at the International Court of Justice of carrying out genocide believe sufficient evidence exists to show that Israel intends to make Palestinian life impossible in Gaza. In this view, they are backed by an emerging number of genocide scholars. As early as December 2023, the institute on genocide prevention that bears Lemkin’s name put out a statement warning about “the clearly genocidal language being used at virtually all levels of Israeli society,” while also condemning Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7.
“Martin Shaw — the leading sociological expert on genocide and author of the 2007 book, “What Is Genocide?” — wrote last week that many Western leaders and journalists have been determined “to avoid, at all costs, the ‘G-word’ in evaluating Israel’s actions,” partially given the sensitivities around the word, but also because they accepted Israel’s argument of self-defense against Hamas and the insistence of Israeli officials that they were trying to alleviate civilian harm.”
The Netanyahu government strongly disagrees with the characterization of genocide, arguing that Israel had the right of self-defense after the vicious attack led by Hamas in October of 2023. No one contests that Israel did have the right of self-defense, but the continued battering of the Gaza Strip and the willful withholding of food, fuel, water, and medicine has gone far beyond acts of self-defense. The death toll of recovered bodies now numbers over 60,000 and there are undoubtedly many more bodies still buried underneath the rubble.
France has announced that it will recognize a Palestinian state in September, and the United Kingdom has threatened to recognize a Palestinian state if Israel does not agree to a cease-fire. Recognition is now being considered by several states. According to The Guardian:
“France and 14 other countries have co-signed a declaration that suggests a wave of future recognitions of an independent Palestinian state, including by Canada, New Zealand and Australia, could take place in the coming months.
“The New York Call, which was published by the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, said that signatories “have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine”.
“The signatories include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino, each of which has not yet recognised an independent Palestinian state. They also include Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia and Spain, which have. Emmanuel Macron last week said that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in the near future.”
It is not clear what effect recognition will have since the Palestinians cannot claim to have control over a clearly defined territory nor does it have any of the normal powers over that territory to claim sovereignty. But the act will grant the Palestinians a more credible voice in international organizations such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
The most important actor is the United States, without whose support the Netanyahu government would not be able to continue the slaughter. Despite some signs of movement from the Trump Administration in disagreeing with Netanyahu that mass starvation is occurring in the Gaza, it is extremely unlikely that the Trump Administration will withdraw its financial and diplomatic support for the genocide. But public opinion in the US is decidedly turning against unqualified support for Israel as indicated by the Gallup poll:
Israel has launched a ground assault, including tanks, into the Gaza city of Deir al-Balah, the last remaining city in the Strip that has largely avoided devastation. The Associated Press puts the incursion in context:
“Tens of thousands of people have sought refuge in Deir al-Balah during repeated waves of mass displacement in Gaza.
“The U.N. humanitarian coordinator says 87.8% of Gaza is now under evacuation orders or inside Israeli military zones, “leaving 2.1 million civilians squeezed into a fragmented 12 per cent of the Strip, where essential services have collapsed.”
“Israel has taken over large areas of Gaza and split the territory with corridors stretching from the border to the sea as it seeks to pressure Hamas to release more hostages.”
The move comes after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mossad Director, David Barnea, visited Washington for discussions with President Trump. According to Axios, the topic of discussion was the evacuation of the Palestinians in Gaza. The report indicated that the Netanyahu government was talking with Ethiopia, Indonesia and Libya as possible evacuation sites. According to Axios:
Israel has been developing a plan for moving all two million residents of the enclave to a small “humanitarian zone” near the border with Egypt.
That plan has sparked concerns in Egypt and many Western countries that Israel is preparing for the mass displacement of Palestinians out of Gaza, something Netanyahu’s ultranationalist coalition partners and many inside his own party have been pushing for years.
A senior Israeli official claimed that, as part of the understandings with the three countries, the transfer of Palestinians would be “voluntary and not forced,” and that Israel would commit to allowing any Palestinian who leaves to return to Gaza at any time.
There is no question that the forced removal of civilians from the Gaze Strip is a war crime. But what is more unsettling is that the Netanyahu government either believes that the evacuation could be voluntary or that, after at least 59,000 people dying, that any person could believe that the Palestinians have many choices.
The other part of the Netanyahu strategy to encourage “voluntary” evacuation is to starve the Palestinians to death. Israel refuses to allow humanitarian groups to distribute any food, water, or fuel to the Palestinians. Instead, Israel relies upon a corrupt organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to distribute aid in places where the civilian population can be better controlled. There have been a substantial number of Palestinians killed at these distribution centers as Israeli troops have fired upon them because starving people started looting the supplies. I am not sure what the Netanyahu government considers appropriate behavior under the circumstances. Soumaya Ghannoushi describes the situation:
“She died on the floor of a collapsing hospital, her tiny ribs rising and falling like wings too fragile to lift. Her body had no fat left to burn. Her eyes had sunken. Her voice – once a whisper of laughter – had long since vanished.
“She did not die quickly. She died slowly.
“She died watched by her mother, who begged her to hold on. Watched by a doctor who had no more syringes, no more saline, no more words, and by a world that tuned in – then turned away.
“Her death was not a tragedy. It was a sentence, written not in haste, but in policy.
“Razan is not alone. She is one of thousands.
“Between March and June – well into the total blockade – the UN agency for Palestine refugees, UNRWA, screened over 74,000 children in Gaza. More than 5,500 were diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition. Over 800 were already critical.
“That was months after food was declared a threat. After flour became contraband and milk became memory, now children die in their parents’ arms.
This atrocity is not an accident nor is it merely a sad attribute of what often happens in war. Starvation is a deliberate policy to encourage “voluntary” emigration. Peter Beinart explains the policy well:
“Right. This freedom — phrase “freedom to choose” is so Orwellian. First of all, what kind of freedom is it when you have a territory where most of the buildings and the hospitals and the schools and the bakeries and the agriculture have all been destroyed, where you have more child amputees than any other place on Earth? And now you’re talking about people’s freedom to choose?
“The deeper irony is that Palestinians have actually been — in Gaza and beyond, have been asking for the freedom to choose, the real freedom to choose, since 1948, because the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are not from Gaza. They were expelled from their homes in what’s now Israel. Many of them can see the lands from which they were — their families were expelled in 1948. So, they do want the freedom to choose. They want the freedom to return to the places from which their families were expelled.”
Israel could not be conducting this slaughter without the active support of the United States. Israelis and Americans both have the blood of innocents on their hands for allowing their governments to commit the slaughter. Netanyahu has consistently prevented the implementation of a ceasefire and the return of the hostages so that he can continue the process of ethnic cleansing. Once the hostages are released, the Israeli people will be able to turn their total attention to the atrocity being committed in the name of self-defense. This war stopped being a war of self defense many months ago. It is now another chapter in the brutal and sordid history of imperialism.
World Politics News 