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 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.
Trump continues to dismantle the world order created after the end of World War II. It was a system based upon a belief that multilateral cooperation should replace the national systems that had fostered the tensions that created the mistrust that had led to World Wars I and II. It was an aspirational system that never really realized its ambitions, but the new system proved sufficient to dampen the pressures among Great Powers sufficiently to avoid another cataclysmic war. Trump believes that the multilateral system compromises US autonomy and prevents it from realizing certain national objectives.
Today Trump activated Executive Order 14199 and ordered the US to withdraw from 66 multilateral organizations. I am not familiar with most of these organizations, but among them are ones that I consider crucially important, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the UN Conference on Trade and Development. I am also not certain how much advantage the US gains from not being a member of all these organizations, but I think it is safe to say, that many of the organizations will not survive without US financial assistance.
“America First” is clearly “America Alone”. Trump apparently believes that the US does not need to maintain close relations with the rest of the world. He is profoundly mistaken.
Here is the list of affected organizations:
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw.
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
World Politics News 