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!
The Munich Security Conference is an annual event held in Germany every year. It is an assemblage of experts in security matters, and generally it focuses on military matters. It issues a security report after each meeting and this year’s report is quite stunning in its bluntness. This is an excerpt from its Executive Summary:
“The world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction – rather than careful reforms and policy corrections – is the order of the day. The most prominent of those who promise to free their country from the existing order’s constraints and rebuild a stronger, more prosperous nation is the current US administration. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
“In many Western societies, political forces favoring destruction over reform are gaining momentum. Driven by resentment and regret over the liberal trajectory their societies have embarked on, they seek to tear down structures that they believe will prevent the emergence of stronger, more prosperous nations. Their disruptive agendas build on widespread disenchantment with the performance of democratic institutions and a pervasive loss of trust in meaningful reforms and political course corrections. In all G7 countries surveyed for the Munich Security Index 2026, only a tiny proportion of respondents say that their current government’s policies will make future generations better off. And both domestically and internationally, political structures are now perceived as overly bureaucratized and judicialized, impossible to reform and adapt to better serve the people’s needs. The result is a new climate in which those who employ bulldozers, wrecking balls, and chainsaws are often cautiously admired if not openly celebrated.
“The most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions is US President Donald Trump.”
The report is, no doubt, a response to the National Security Strategy white paper issued by the Trump Administration in November 2025. But the perspective of the US paper is radically different:
“Over the past nine months, we have brought our nation–and the world–back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster. After four years of weakness, my administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to restore American strength at home and abroad, and bring peace and security to our world.
“No administration in history has achieved so dramatic a turnaround in so short a time.”
This juxtaposition of perspectives defies an easy explanation–both cannot be true at the same time. One is clearly wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that the Munich group is much closer to the mark. That raises a serious question: Who is writing this delusional nonsense for Trump? And why are Americans and the world not doing more to stop this ignorant fool?
As I have argued before, Trump is reviving the balance of power (or, at least, being explicit about his intentions) which also suggests that he is a practitioner of Realpolitik. There was little question in my mind that his adviser, Stephen Miller, is a hardline realist (sovereignty seems to be his favorite word which is the holy mantra of all realists). The New York Times has published a good overview of the lineage of realism, and all its varied meanings. The rubric, realist, gives too much credit to Trump since I doubt he is aware of any of the possible implications or significance of what it means to be a realist: a realist wants to enhance the power of the state while Trump seems to be interested in enhancing personal benefit. The Times article points out the crucial difference:
“For Walt and other realist thinkers, Trump’s aggressive and chaotic actions on the world stage — his antagonism of U.S. allies, threats of territorial conquest and assertions that the U.S. is not afraid of putting ‘boots on the ground’ — undermine any claim he could make to practicing a realist foreign policy. Realists largely opposed the U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, preferring policies of restraint. The failures of those episodes vindicated the realist worldview.”
I was reminded of this difference by a conversation with a colleague about the Venezuelan attack who reminded me of earlier episodes of US balance of power moves. One earlier intervention in hemispheric affairs was the US intervention of Haiti which lasted from 1915 to 1934. It was a brutal occupation:
“In 1910 an American investor acquired Haiti’s National Railroad with rights to establish banana plantations on either side of the track between Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien. This land had sustained rural farmers and their families for generations. The Haitian Constitution did not even permit foreigners to own land – a safeguard against restoring slavery. The abrupt eviction of peasants from their land to make way for banana plantations prompted fierce resistance. Four years of insurrection followed, involving peasant armies – the Cacos – along with urban elites and members of Parliament who were opposed to foreign domination.
“This period of government instability became the pretext for the US occupation. By August 1915, there were 3000 US Marines in Haiti. They seized the customs houses, imposed martial law, instituted press censorship, and outlawed dissent. The US installed a compliant president, imposed a “treaty” that was ratified only by the US Senate, disbanded the legislature, and rewrote the Constitution eliminating the ban against foreign land ownership.
“Haiti’s indigenous religion, Vodou – so central to the war for independence – was banned. US Marines – all white, many Southern, replaced local heads of every town and rural district throughout the country. By 1922, the US completely controlled Haitian finances – including the treasury, collected taxes and forced Haiti to repay American loans.”
Butler was a highly decorated Marine: “Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.” Butler wrote a pamphlet entitled “War is a Racket” in which he argued that there was no national interest involved in the occupation of Haiti, but that it served corporate interests (Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that this pamphlet does not rest with the other writings by Butler: “at the Library of the Marine Corps at Quantico, Butler’s anti-war writings are isolated from his memoirs and other texts about him—in a separate bookshelf for radical thought that includes the works of Marx.”)
When he retired from the Marine Corps, Butler assessed his role in the military:
“I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force—the Marine Corps.… And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”
It is always dangerous to compare events in different historical periods, but the US attack on Venezuela resonates with Butler’s final analysis. The Trump Administration offered a number of explanations for its acts of war against Venezuela. First it was to interdict Fentanyl (very little of which comes from Venezuela). The intervention was also justified as a means of countering Chinese influence in Venezuela. The US has also claimed that its attack on Venezuela was not an intervention but rather a “law enforcement operation” since the US had indicted Venezuelan President Maduro on drug trafficking charges. This last explanation ignores the fact that attacking the capital city of a state and kidnapping its President are both acts of war, even if the US claims it does not intend war (just think what the US response would be if a country attacked Washington, DC and kidnapped President Trump).
The real explanation is somewhat tortured, but it revolves around oil. The claim is that Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world. Technically, this assertion may be true, but it is highly misleading. Venezuelan oil reserves are considered “heavy” which means that it has a high sulfur content and high viscosity. These characteristics make the refining of the oil a very expensive process, one that would not be profitable with today’s oil prices of around $59 a barrel. According to World Energy News:
“…estimates that breakeven costs for the Orinoco belt’s key grades are already above $80 per barrel. This puts Venezuelan oil on the high end of the “global cost scale” for new production. The average cost to break even for heavy oil produced in Canada is around $55 per barrel. Exxon has set a breakeven price of $30 per barrel for its global oil production in 2030, largely due to low-cost fields located in Guyana and U.S. Permian Shale Basin. Chevron also has a similar goal, and Conoco is working on a plan that will generate cash flow for the company even if oil drops to $35 per barrel.”
Nonetheless, Trump invited oil company executives to a meeting at the White House to persuade them to make the necessary investments to produce Venezuelan oil. The executives seemed unenthusiastic and an Exxon executive all Venezuela “uninvestable” (which I do not believe is a real word). I also find it hard to believe that Trump would prefer oil to be priced at $80 a barrel.
As far as I can tell, the real reason for attacking Venezuela was to gain control of its oil reserves but no oil company really wants to drill in Venezuela. Ordinarily, I would be flummoxed by this contradiction, but rationality does not seem to be an important consideration for Trump’s foreign policy. Smedley Butler would probably not be surprised at all.
The New York Times conducted an extensive interview with President Trump which is definitely worth reading with a very critical eye. Much of the interview was simple gibberish, but the Times highlighted an astonishing excerpt:
“President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
“Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: ‘Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’
“’I don’t need international law,’ he added. ‘I’m not looking to hurt people.’
When pressed further about whether his administration needed to abide by international law, Mr. Trump said, ‘I do.’ But he made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States.
“’It depends what your definition of international law is,’ he said.
“Mr. Trump’s assessment of his own freedom to use any instrument of military, economic or political power to cement American supremacy was the most blunt acknowledgment yet of his worldview. At its core is the concept that national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide.”
The quotes reveal a mentality toward governance that harks back to Louis XIV: “L’État, c’est moi“. It is a perspective that generated abject misery among the poorer classes during Louis’s reign and ultimately led to the French Revolution. It is a perspective that has no place in a democratic republic. And it epitomizes an arrogance that is truly sinister and frightening.
We all woke up to the news that the US had attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its President and his wife. This outcome was not on my bingo card. I fully expected Trump to overthrow Maduro, but I honestly did not think that Trump would be so blatant in violating US obligations under the United Nations Charter (which outlaws wars of aggression). I am still digesting the few scraps of real information that we have and will probably write more as additional information becomes available. Right now, however, I can make some general observations.
First, the act is the literal end of the world order under which we have lived since 1945. This world order was based upon a repudiation of balance of power politics which was the norm since 1648. Under the balance of power system, states are free to use any and all means available to increase their power and an important part of the system was an implicit recognition that powerful states can take actions to preserve their spheres of influence. Thus, for example, Russia simply asserted that Ukraine was an integral part of the Russian sphere of influence and justified its aggression in those terms. China makes similar claims to the South China Sea and to Taiwan. The US now is firmly entrenched in that 19th century doctrine and we now live in a world where, as the Athenians said to the Melians in the Peloponnesian War: “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must”.
Second, Trump apparently made the decision to attack Venezuela without consulting any members of Congress and without informing its allies of what was going to happen. In other words, he made a unilateral decision: it was neither democratic nor multilateral. It was an imperial order and that apparently means that Trump is prepared to do whatever he thinks necessary to secure what he believes are US interests. Unless the decision is restrained in some way by Congress, the Supreme Court, or by widespread protests, we now effectively live in a dictatorship.
Third, I suspect that the US will relearn the same lessons it ignored in its earlier attempts at regime change: Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Vietnam. It’s easy to overthrow a government, but very difficult to establish a viable, legitimate government to replace it. That task will be even more difficult in the case of Venezuela since Maduro was the only authority removed. All his henchmen are still there, and it is very likely that there will be political instability as the different groups compete for power. In this press conference Trump said that the US would “run” Venezuela for the immediate future. The profound irony of that assertion is that Trump has yet to learn who to “run” the US. And with Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio in charge, I expect that the Keystone Kops will meet their match in incompetence.
Fourth, Trump asserts that Venezuela “stole” US oil when it nationalized some US companies holdings. TO be clear, Venezuela never gave up its sovereign rights to its own oil. It simply gave the US oil companies the right to lift a certain number of barrels of oil and set a price for that sale. The companies never “owned” the oil; they simply agreed to pay Venezuela for its oil. So nothing was “stolen”. It is true that Venezuela refused to renew those contracts, but for Trump to argue that contracts are sacrosanct is absurd after he’s fired so many Federal employees who had their contracts simply annulled.
I suspect that I will have more to say about this matter as more information is available. But I can assert confidently that this decision to invade Venezuela will go down as one of the most egregious diplomatic failures in American diplomatic history.
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.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy, and the act should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Such condemnation is appropriate, but it should also be directed against the exceptionally large of people who die every year from gun violence.
Guns kill 128 people a day in the US, or about one death every 11 minutes, and is the leading cause of death for children aged 1-19.
It is disturbing that the discussion about Kirk’s assassination has not included consideration of these facts. Instead, the discussion has focused on the political polarization in the US. For example, US President Trump made these comments about the assassination:
“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”
It may be the case that the alleged shooter was indeed a radical leftist. He has been apprehended and we will know more about his motives soon. But to attribute the atrocity to leftists ignores the acts of violence against individuals who were allied with the political left. The list is long, as cataloged by The Huffington Post:
I will not attempt to explain why Trump did not mention these other acts of violence against political figures, but neglecting to mention these facts is in itself reflective of political polarization. Refusing to acknowledge that gun violence seems to be explainable for reasons other than, or in addition to, political ideology leads to a sterile and vapid conversation.
“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — “wow, that’s radical, Charlie, I don’t know about that” — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you’ve not read any 20th-century history. You’re just living in Narnia. By the way, if you’re actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you’re living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don’t know what alternative universe you’re living in. You just don’t want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.”
I have posted about the 2nd Amendment previously, and Kirk’s defense of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed. I argued on 27 March 2023 that the Militia Act of 1792 required all young men to join the various militias, and that they were required to provide their own weapons:
“That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder…”
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the militias were armed, not to make sure that citizens could overthrow the central government. For those who support an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, the correct strategy would be to get rid of the newly named “Department of War” and to require universal military service to all National Guard units in the fifty states and the US territories. We should also remember that there was an armed insurrection against the Federal Government in 1861 and that it was suppressed in a very bloody war. The lethality of the Federal Government’s arsenal today far exceeds the alleged strength of armed civilians.
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”
I suspect that Kirk’s wife and children might have some questions about his assessment of the risks. We all must acknowledge that the individual right to bear arms, as codified in the Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was wrongly decided and completely inconsistent with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
This morning’s headline for the online version of the New York Timeswas “U.S. enters War Against Iran”. The headline is misleading. The more accurate headline would have been “US President Trump Declares War on Iran”. The actual headline ignores the fact that the US has been engaged in coercive diplomacy against Iran since 2018 when President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was considered by most analysts as an effective check on any nuclear ambitions that Iran might have held, although there was no evidence at the time (nor two days ago) that Iran had made a decision to build a nuclear weapon:
“More than three years of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA from January 2016-May 2019 demonstrated its nonproliferation benefits. Taken together, the array of restrictions on uranium enrichment ensures that Iran’s capability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium sufficient for one warhead would be approximately 12 months for a decade or more. The JCPOA also effectively eliminated Iran’s ability to produce and separate plutonium for at least 15 years. Just as importantly, the JCPOA mandates unprecedented international monitoring and transparency measures that make it very likely that any possible future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had held for a long time that Iran’s nuclear program represented an “existential threat” to Israel. Indeed, he warned about the Iranian nuclear program when he was just a member of the Knesset in 1992:
“Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel’s Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. ‘Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,’ he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism.
“The sense of imminent threat has repeatedly shaped Netanyahu’s engagement with United States officials. In 2002, he appeared before a US congressional committee, advocating for the invasion of Iraq and suggesting that both Iraq and Iran were racing to obtain nuclear weapons. The US-led invasion of Iraq followed soon after, but no weapons of mass destruction were found.”
Netanyahu has worried about Iran for 33 years and yet the Iranians never developed a nuclear bomb, even though it clearly had the expertise and means to do so. Instead, Iran adhered to its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused to take that path, despite being surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia to the north, China to the east, India and Pakistan to its southeast, Israel to its west, and US air and sea forces parked in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and in bases in Oman and Bahrain. Netanyahu went so far as to bring a visual aid to the UN General Assembly to communicate his fears about Iran.
We should be clear about what Netanyahu regards as an “existential threat”. Does Netanyahu actually believe that Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, killing millions of Palestinians in the process? One cannot dismiss the possibility that at some point there will be an Iranian regime that would commit such a heinous crime. But one would have to offer more evidence of Iranian indifference to human life to persuade me that such an outcome was likely. There are currently nine nuclear powers in the world and some of them engaged in reckless propaganda (“godless communists” and “capitalist running dogs” are two of my favorites) that is roughly comparable to Iranian propaganda (“America is Satan”). But none of these states, except for the US, has ever dropped a nuclear bomb
The existential threat that Netanyahu fears is the possibility of Israeli self-deterrence in the face of a nuclear Iran. Nuclear threats are taken seriously by civilian populations and are effective even when palpably implausible. The US threatened nuclear war against China in 1956 over two insigificant islands (Quemoy and Matsu) which were controlled by the Republic of China, now known as Taiwan. Similarly, the US refrained from arming Ukraine with advanced weaponry after Russian President Putin started referring to Russian nuclear capabilities. Israel currently has a free military hand in Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it has used that advantage to its benefit after the attacks of 7 October. A nuclear-armed Iran, however, might restrain Israeli military power just by posing the possibility of a nuclear attack, forcing the Israeli people to ask the question “Is dropping more bombs on the Gaza Strip worth risking nuclear annihilation?” States are reluctant to gamble on their existence, even when the odds are in their favor. An Israeli government may not want to be constrained by an Israeli population afraid of a nuclear attack. And that fear is the real existential threat to Israel.
The last few weeks have been confusing. There were statements that the US wanted to restart the negotiations to revive the JCPOA, but refused to entertain the possibility that Iran would be allowed to enrich Uranium, a right guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. The precipitating event for the Israeli attack on Iran was the Iranian decision on 13 April to enrich its Uranium far beyond the traditional limit of 20% which is considered essential for civilian nuclear power purposes (Iran believes that it makes more money selling its petroleum rather than burning it for energy purposes). But the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute interpeted this decision quite differently than one designed to build a nuclear bomb:
‘On 13 April, Iran announced its intention to enrich uranium to 60 per cent U-235. This was characterized by Iran as a response to a sabotage of its vast underground enrichment cascades at Natanz two days before. The move comes against the backdrop of sensitive negotiations happening in Vienna aimed at rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and bringing the United States back into compliance with the deal…
“Uranium enriched to 60 per cent cannot be used to make a useful nuclear explosive device, and Iran has no other realistic use for this material.
“Nevertheless, 60 per cent was not an arbitrary choice. Cascades of centrifuges are designed to enrich uranium in steps; Iran’s centrifuges are likely set up to enrich up to 20 per cent, from 20 to 60 per cent, and from 60 to 90 per cent. Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.
“This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.’”
One needs to appreciate the position of Iran after Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA: it was placed under punishing sanctions which have severely damaged the Iranian economy and was not offered any way to remove those sanctions without giving up its right to enrich Uranium. The question we need to answer is whether the decision to enrich Uranium to 60% actually signaled an intent to build a nuclear bomb. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was explicit on this question: “In March, Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill that the U.S. ‘continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'” Trump insisted that Gabbard was wrong, but that is not the first time he has disagreed with his own intelligence services.
We should also think about Trump’s decision to declare war on Iran in the context of the US Constitution. Only Congress has the right to declare war: “Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that Congress has the power to declare war. Initially, the draft of the Constitution granted Congress the power to make war. There were suggestions to give this power solely to the President, solely to the Senate, or to both the President and the Senate. However, the Framers decided that involving both the President and Congress addressed their concerns. They didn’t want just one person to decide something so significant, nor did they trust a single branch alone.” The wisdom of the writers of the Constitution has been lost. Iran did not attack the US, so the US claim of self-defense is hollow. Nor does Iran have any ability to hit the US mainland with a nuclear bomb or any conventional bomb. Iran does pose a threat of terror attacks on US citizens, but such threats are better dealt with by local officials and not the US military.
Now the US and Iran are in a state of war. Iran does not need to declare war on the US for a state of war to exist–the US attack on Iranian territory constituted a state of war. For example, the US declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack, but Roosevelt wanted to focus on fighting Germany immediately (he didn’t have much choice since the US fleet was at the bottom of the Pacific and therefore didn’t have the ability to fight Japan immediately). Foolishly, Hitler declared war on the US first, relieving the US of the need to make a decision about declaring war against Germany. Now that the US has created a state of war, it is imperative to ask the question: What are the US war objectives?
The US is still committed to preventing the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb. We have yet to see whether the US attack effectively destroyed Iranian capabilities. Trump declared that the facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” but we have no way to confirm that assessment (it’s not clear on what evidence he based this assertion). More importantly, there is no way for the US to destroy the knowledge that Iran has about building a bomb. That knowledge will endure if the Iranians want it to endure. At best, the US and Israel have gained some time derailing Iran nuclear intentions, but to maintain that respite, Israel and the US will have to keep bombing Iran anytime there is a suspicion that Iran is engaged in nuclear-related activities.
Unless, of course, that the Israeli and US intention is to force regime change in Iran in order to prevent any government that would attempt to build a bomb. The US has often forced regime change (Iran 1953; Guatemala, 1954; the Dominican Republic in 1965; Grenada, 1983; Panama, 1989; and Iraq in 2003). One would be hard pressed to assert that these efforts genuinely served the US national interest. And it is more likely that the Iranian people will want a more aggressive regime given the humiliation inflicted on them by the Israeli and US attacks. They may welcome a new regime that is less stringent in terms of personal conduct. But given the obvious failures of the current regime to prevent the wholesale leakage of Iranian secrets, it is more likely that Iranians would support greater scrutiny (how else does one explain the precision Israeli attacks against specific military and scientific individuals in early June? Someone was telling the Israelis names, addresses, and times, and it is likely that the Iranians will direct most of their efforts to uproot those spies).
I suspect that the Iranians will do two things. First, they will announce their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows states to abrogate the treaty after 90 days of warning. Since Israel and the US did not believe that Iran was adhering to the treaty, the repercussions of such a move would be small diplomatically. There will, however, a great deal of negative press for the Iranians, but both the US and Israel have muzzled the press on this matter already. Leaving the NPT would end the pretense that a nuclear weapon is not necessary for national defense against nuclear powers. Iraq proved that nuclear weapons are the only way to prevent an invasion, and North Korea proved that breaking the NPT does not preclude engagement with nuclear powers. Furthermore, the Iranians do not have a choice unless they wish to submit to the dictates of Israel–their previous strategy of relying on proxies and air defenses was an abject failure. Israel has forced the Iranian hand on this matter.
Second, Iran will likely make noises about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel through which 40% of the world’s exported petroleum passes. Noises could go from verbal threats to actually blocking the channel with sunken vessels. The threats are probably sufficient to force insurance rates for oil-carrying cargo shops to skyrocket. That alone would focus the attention of India, Europe, and China on finding a better solution to this state of war. Moreover, it would force Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to gauge their interests less in alignment with the interests of the US. Finally, a spike in oil prices would doom Republican chances in the mid-term elections in 2026.
For me, the most unfortunate aspect of this remarkable event is that allowing this war to be declared unilaterally by the President has insulated US foreign policy from democratic processes. Foreign policy has almost always been determined by small groups of people (did you notice that as Trump delivered his speech at the White House announcing the bombing, he was flanked by Hegseth, Rubio, and Vance?), and moving foreign policy in the democratic process was an arduous and difficult process which began with the Vietnam War. That process was never completed and today it seems to be unattainable.
World Politics News 