Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, March 23, 2026
Truth Details | Truth Social
Truth Details | Truth Social
Avatar
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Sunday, March 22, 2026
[Salon] Netanyahu: one red line too far? - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Netanyahu: one red line too far?
Summary: the attack on the South Pars gas field and the heavy Iranian response reveals how a weak and foolish Donald Trump has allowed Israel to rampage through regional security and threaten a global economic meltdown.
Benjamin Netanyahu in his prosecution of the Gaza war has crossed one red line after another with little or no disapproval from Israel’s friends and allies. The results are all too clear: Gaza is largely destroyed, more than 75000 Palestinians have been killed of which more than half of that figure are women, children and the elderly and more than a million are internally displaced and living in appalling conditions.
Emboldened by Western silence and the staunch support of the US Netanyahu launched the war against Iran three weeks ago with the full backing of President Trump. Though it is abundantly clear almost since the conflict began that Trump has been unable to explain to the American people why he has joined Netanyahu’s war, the Israeli prime minister has always had a precise strategic objective. That is the destruction of the Iranian regime. He was able to convince Trump that now was the time to strike the lethal blow.
As Sanam Vakil noted in our 18 March podcast Trump bought that line from the Israeli prime minister apparently unaware that:
this war was organised and executed based on faulty assumptions. Rather than basing analysis on evidence, the Israeli system concluded, I don't know how, but perhaps influenced by activists, that the Islamic Republic was weak, and thereby this was an opportune time to get the job done and finish what was not completed after the 12-day war (in June 2025.)
That was a severe miscalculation by Netanyahu and one that Trump was foolish enough to believe. In three weeks of war, though Iran has been grievously wounded with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and much of the leadership of the military, security and government structure assassinated and its armed forces heavily degraded, it is using asymmetrical warfare to successfully defend against the massive fire power arraigned against it.
A key weapon of attack has been to target the economies of the Gulf states. While ostensibly claiming to be hitting US military bases in those states the regime in Tehran has stepped up its strikes hitting civilian targets while focussing on energy facilities. Throughout the war the GCC states have protested in strong language against these attacks but to little avail. That’s because as the Islamic Republic is pushed to the wall it has played its ace card. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz coupled with hits on energy infrastructure is moving close to crippling the global economy.
In a major escalation, Israel attacked South Pars in Iran, the world’s largest natural gas field.
Netanyahu sensing that Iran was winning this asymmetrical war and noting that Western allies have ignored Trump’s plaintive pleas for naval interventions into the Strait crossed one more red line with the attack on Iran’s South Pars gas field. That triggered a huge response from the Iranians. Qatar’s massive Ras Laffan LNG facility was severely damaged yesterday and Saudi Arabia and the UAE were targeted with missiles.
South Pars is part of the largest offshore gas field in the world divided roughly equally between Qatar and Iran with the Qatari portion known as North Dome. The Israeli strike infuriated the Qataris and angered other GCC members. These countries knew that Israel had put them at even greater risk of Iranian retaliation which was quick to come.
Donald Trump claimed on his Truth Social site that “the United States knew nothing about this particular attack.” It was an extraordinary admission from the Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful military. His ally had just plunged the region and the world into a new and even more dangerous crisis. Energy prices immediately spiked. Fear streaked through countries around the world that rising prices would hit everything from food to interest rates to mortgages. The dreaded phrase “a global depression” was mooted on Nicky Campbell’s popular BBC 5 Live phone in programme.
Israel immediately put out a claim supported by the media site Axios that Trump had “green-lit”the attack but on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme (after 8 AM) the Israeli spokesman did not answer directly to the question had the President been advised while insisting “there is no daylight between Israel and the United States.”
Either way it is a bad look for Donald Trump. Either he knew and was incapable of understanding the consequences of the attack or Netanyahu simply chose to ignore the man who is providing him with the weaponry to conduct his wars in Gaza, in Lebanon and in Iran. Trump wrote in his inimitably bombastic but increasingly silly and juvenile style:
NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar - In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.
So the president has told Netanyahu he mustn’t do it again, he has told the Iranians they mustn’t do it again but beyond that it is anyone’s guess as to how he will secure those aims. Meanwhile his allies in the Gulf are continuing to bear the kinetic brunt of a war they never wanted. And the rest of the world is joining them in experiencing the economic misery it is now inflicting upon all of us.
So has Benjamin Netanyahu finally crossed one red line too far? The only way this war will end is through negotiations not firepower. Pressure therefore must be brought to bear on Donald Trump. He is already experiencing significant blowback from his MAGA base for breaking his promise to them not to bring America into another Middle East war. America’s allies in the West, much insulted and derided by Trump, and those in Asia need to join forces with the Gulf States and bring abundant pressure to bear on the president at the point where he is now increasingly vulnerable. The world needs to say to Donald Trump enough. Use the threat of halting the weapons flow to Israel as leverage on Netanyahu to bring this madness to an end.
Saturday, March 21, 2026
[Salon] A war that Trump is losing - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
A war that Trump is losing
Summary: nearly three weeks into the Iran conflict Donald Trump is learning that a war he believed would be a quick win is shaping up to become one of those forever wars he promised to keep America away from.
Today’s newsletter features excerpts from the transcript of our 18 March podcast with Sanam Vakil the Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. You can find the podcast here.
Sanam, something I do to keep myself sane is to flip on its head pretty much everything Donald Trump says. So, for example, in a recent Truth Social screed he called Ukraine's President Zelensky “P.T. Barnum,” okay, I flip that and the true circus salesman is Donald Trump. The President says the US is winning the war hands down. I flip that. So should I be thinking it is Iran that is winning the war right now?
Well, I don't know if this makes me sane to think about things in converse ways but I think it's rather smart, Bill, for you to do so. Let me put it this way: I don't think that Iran is winning in a conventional sense. Iran's strategy is predicated on survival. It cannot win this war from a military perspective. It is taking blows, very heavy blows, day to day from the United States, the most formidable power militarily, as well as Israel, the region's military power. But for Iran, if it does survive, and if the Islamic Republic regenerates itself, that will be a win on its own. Oftentimes in the Middle East, and we've seen this in the history books, not losing to a superior, if not superpower, is a victory. So that's what they're trying to achieve. But what matters is not just survival but how Iran and how, specifically, the Islamic Republic survives. It needs a deal that guarantees its survival but prevents another war from resurfacing in six months or six years and ultimately it needs sanctions relief, and in this moment, it’s very hard to see how those objectives can be achieved especially from a US president who might be a circus salesman but he's definitely not a trustworthy one.
Much of the criticism being levelled at the Trump administration is that it went to war without a strategy. That's a fair criticism and I'm just looking at my phone, Sanam, and Joe Kent, who is the head of the National Counterterrorism Centre, has just quit. He was a big Trump fan. He's left because he says Israel called the shots on this war. Is that a fair comment, that it was Netanyahu who pulled Trump into this war?
I think it's easy to just lay blame for this war on the Israeli prime minister who certainly has had Iran in his sight since October 7. But I think we can't just assign full blame or responsibility to the Israeli prime minister. He certainly was influential enough to convince Donald Trump to go along with the war. And I think that the agency and the decision does lie with the US Commander in Chief. What's problematic, though, about this war that was clearly planned from many months ago, not just as a reaction to the protests and the brutal crackdown seen in Iran on January 8 and beyond, is that this war was organised and executed based on faulty assumptions. And what do I mean by that? I think this is where the Israelis are culpable, and of course, Donald Trump is guilty for falling for it. Rather than basing analysis on evidence, the Israeli system concluded, I don't know how but perhaps influenced by activists, that the Islamic Republic was weak and thereby this was an opportune time to get the job done and finish what was not completed after the 12 day war last year. And as this war began on February 28, President Trump intimated that it would be a four or five day war, and since then, has clearly expressed his surprise the war has lasted longer, that Iran's response has been much more fierce and we know that (the Americans) have not prepared for a longer term war or tried to plan or mitigate against the uncertainties of a war, the so-called known unknowns that Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, spoke about during the 2003 Iraq War. So, today, we've seen the cost of this war spread. Markets are reacting. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. And there are many more risks on the horizon and this looks like it will be a longer war and one that Donald Trump, on his own, won't be able to decide when it's over.
While the Iranian government is under immense pressure, the lack of a clear strategy or a unified opposition means the war may only result in a wounded but surviving Islamic Republic.
There is much debate about the extent of support the Iranian regime has inside Iran, and there is an assumption made by Trump and others that the Iranian people will rise up. But on your feed X you asked a very good question: “who is providing the analysis for this assumption?” So how do you read the situation in Iran and how likely is it that the regime will fall anytime soon?
Well, as I said earlier, I think this war has been prosecuted with faulty assumptions: that the regime was weak, that this would be a quick operation. And I think the third assumption is that the ground will be made fertile for a change in the regime or an Iranian revolution. And unfortunately I'm of the view that this war began without preparing the terrain or working with Iranians inside and outside to help nurture that outcome which is almost impossible to nurture anyway. It's still early days. And I do think that the Islamic Republic is very cognisant that it has a broad-based internal security threat. Iranians continue to protest. In January, we saw very serious protests across the country, thousands of people were killed and this war hasn't eradicated that threat to the regime. But to assume that this system would quickly collapse and Iranians would be able to work together and marshal an alternative is, I think, naive and not reflective of the reality on the ground. There is an opposition in Iran but it's been repressed; there is an external opposition but it's very divided. So we have to see what happens when the war comes to an end and how this war comes to an end. Because if the Islamic Republic gets what it wants out of this war, it will be its survival as well as a guarantee that somehow it won't be struck again. And that will, of course, leave the Iranian people - who have been hopeful for a change in governance and waiting for the death of Khamenei to perhaps see that through - it will leave them wholly disappointed and let down.
Is there a way out?
I have to say I'm personally struggling to think of what the way out is because obviously the off ramp, or the quick off ramp, is a deal but that deal will leave an empowered but wounded system in place and Donald Trump will have helped breathe life back into a weakening Islamic Republic. And you know for Iranians I think that is a devastating outcome. But ultimately I also think that prolonging the war is not going to deliver the positive outcomes for the region more broadly and also for the Iranian people. I'm caught between my hope and impulse to support change in Iran and hampered by the reality of the facts on the ground and so it is hard to see how this is going to end but I do think it does have to end.
[Salon] Fwd: "EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (GRAPHIC) - Guest Post by John Whitbeck
[Salon] Fwd: "EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (GRAPHIC) - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail
FM: John Whitbeck
With U.S. military bases abroad being prominently in the news these days, I am transmitting herewith a graphic which appears in my distinguished recipient David Vine's latest book, The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts (2020).
This graphic offers a country-by-country breakdown of the 738+ known U.S. military base sites outside the United States as of 2020, when they were then backed up by 4149 military base sites located within the United States.
For the GCC countries currently claiming neutrality in response to Iranian retaliation, the numbers are 12 base sites for Bahrain, 11 for Saudi Arabia, 10 for Kuwait, 6 for Oman and 3 each for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
It should by now be clear that permitting one's country to be militarily occupied by the United States, whether in the Persian Gulf, in Europe or elsewhere, makes one's country less, not more, secure by making it complicit and a potential target for retaliation in any of the seemingly endless succession of American wars of choice against other countries which pose no conceivable threat to a host country.
Germany and Japan have been militarily occupied by the United States continuously since their unconditional surrenders in 1945, with each of them now serving as "host" to 119 U.S. military base sites. Notwithstanding the acquiescence of German and Japanese governments, these perpetual occupations are not being perpetuated for the benefit of the people of Germany or Japan.
If any German or Japanese government dared to prioritize its own national interests and assert its sovereignty and independence by asking the United States to vacate its military bases on their country's territory, does anyone believe that the United States would do so?
NOTE: I take this opportunity to recommend again all three of David Vine's essential-reading books, including his two prior ones, Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (2009) and Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (2015).
Friday, March 20, 2026
As Israel continues to wreck the world and expect American troops to fight and die for it, these are how many Israeli troops were deployed to fight alongside the US:
US Troops Fighting
Israeli Troops Assisting
Korean War (1950–1953):
0
Lebanon Crisis (1958):
0
Yemeni War (1962–1970):
0
Dhofar War Oman (1962–1976):
0
Gulf War (1991):
0
Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988):
0
War in Afghanistan (2001–2021):
0
War Against AQAP in Yemen (2002–2009:
0
Syrian War (2011–2024):
0
Libyan War (2011, 2014–2020:
0
Yemeni War (2014–Present):
0
War Against ISIS (2014–Present):
0
Israeli does not send any of their men and women to die for any nation.
Thursday, March 19, 2026
War On Iran: Energy War Moves From Disruption To Destruction – Moon of Alabama
War On Iran: Energy War Moves From Disruption To Destruction – Moon of Alabama
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/03/war-on-iran-energy-strikes-move-from-disruptive-to-destructive.html
War On Iran: Energy War Moves From Disruption To Destruction
March 18, 2026
War On Iran: Energy War Moves From Disruption To Destruction
The war on Iran continues to be the most important issue currently moving the world.
Israel and the U.S. are continuing their assassination campaign of Iranian officials. It was confirmed today that Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, was killed by an Israeli airstrike on the house of his daughter. The strike caused several dozens of additional casualties. Larijani was a highly capable pragmatist, not a hardliner. His death is a loss for everyone who seeks peace in the Middle East.
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
Fr. Bob's Reflection for the Fourth Sunday in Lent - Guest Post
Many things can challenge and unsettle our Christian faith, leading us to question God’s presence in our lives. Few things do this more powerfully than the suffering of a child – especially when a child is born with illness or deformity. It feels like the clearest example of innocent, senseless suffering. There is no easy explanation for it.
As adults, we sometimes bring hardship upon ourselves through poor choices. We may neglect our health, eat poorly, drink or smoke too much, or make decisions that eventually affect our well-being. In those cases, we can often see some connection between cause and effect.
But a newborn has done none of these things. When a baby is born with something wrong, it feels deeply unfair. Our hearts naturally cry out in protest.
This same anguish appears in today’s Gospel. The man Jesus encounters had been blind from birth, and like us, the disciples wanted to know why. In their time, many believed suffering was a punishment from God for sin. Yet that explanation falls apart immediately. How could a newborn be guilty of sin?
Jesus firmly rejects that way of thinking. He makes it clear that the man’s blindness had nothing to do with sin. Still, Jesus does not offer a reason for why the man was blind. He doesn’t attempt to explain it away. For Jesus, blindness was not a theoretical problem to be solved, but a human need to be met. His question was not, “How did this happen?” but, “How can I help?”
One of the most striking moments in this story is that Jesus looks directly at the suffering man. Many others had likely walked past him, day after day, without a second glance. He had been there so long that he had become part of the background, almost invisible.
That is often how we respond to suffering as well – we avoid it. We turn away because it makes us uncomfortable. But Jesus does the opposite. He faces suffering head-on. He acknowledges it. He refuses to ignore it.
There is, however, a surprising twist in the story. Jesus says that through this man’s blindness, “the works of God would be made visible.” This does not mean that God caused the blindness. Rather, it means that through healing the man, Jesus would reveal Himself as the Light of the World. From a tragic situation, something holy would emerge.
Human suffering is real and painful, and Jesus never pretends otherwise. We must remember that. Yet He also shows us that suffering is not the final word. There can be meaning, compassion and healing that come from it.
Suffering can soften our hearts and make us more sensitive to others who are hurting. It can move us to action. Jesus not only heals the man; He befriends him. He restores dignity to someone who had long been ignored and alone.
We may not be able to cure blindness, but we can offer company to someone who is lonely. From our abundance, we can share with those who have little. We can support organizations that go into the streets to care for the poor and forgotten.
My friends, human suffering remains a mystery. We may never fully understand why it exists. But if our desire is to help, to heal and to love, then Christianity is the right place to be.
Jesus saw suffering as a tragedy that demanded compassion and response. You and I are invited to join Him in that work.
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Monday, March 16, 2026
Sunday, March 15, 2026
Saturday, March 14, 2026
[Salon] Iran digs in for a long struggle - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Iran digs in for a long struggle
Summary: America's illegal and brutal war on Iran has catastrophically backfired, trapping Washington and its Gulf state allies in the Iranian mangle while the myth of US and Israeli invincibility is systematically dismantled.
This is a war that is illegal, immoral and brutal, a crime of aggression and a naked violation of the United Nations Charter, launched without international sanction or the justification of self-defence. It is built on the cynical manipulation of public opinion, on nuclear smoke screens and recycled propaganda borrowed from Iraq and Libya. And it is exceptional in its brutality, from the Tomahawk missile strike that killed at least 175, almost all of them school girls, in the town of Minab in the south of Iran to the relentless bombardment that has seen the United States and Israel launch hundreds of strikes on Iran since February 28.
But for all its firepower, this war represents something far more damning than a military and moral failure. It is a self-inflicted wound for the United States. Washington and Tel Aviv have catastrophically mistaken “inflicting punishment” for “strategic victory.” Thirteen days into their illegal adventure, there is no victory, no surrender, no collapsed regime. There is only a dangerous stalemate, a quagmire that promises no escape.
Nowhere is this miscalculation more painfully evident than in the Gulf states. These absolute monarchies long wrapped in an American security blanket now find themselves exposed, hostages to a war they never wanted, being fought using bases on their soil, wreaking havoc on their cities.
The United Arab Emirates has borne the heaviest punishment. More than 1,800 missiles and drones have targeted this tiny state, a near ceaseless rain of fire – much of it hitting Dubai – that American-supplied defences cannot fully stop. Officials frame the 93% interception rate as a “successful outcome” but the psychological shock of sustained attack has shattered something far more delicate: Dubai's carefully constructed aura of stability.
Civilian infrastructure has been directly and repeatedly hit. Debris from interceptions caused a fire at the towering landmark Burj Al Arab. Direct strikes hit the Fairmont Hotel on the Palm Jumeirah. A drone attack on Dubai International Airport on March 11 wounded four labourers, the very people who built these monuments but cannot afford to flee them. A British national was arrested simply for filming the missiles.
Now America and Israel's illegal war has catastrophically backfired Iran is seeking to decolonise West Asia
The psychological shock has been profound. The myth of Dubai as a “safe haven,” robustly cultivated by Western influencers paid in petrodollars, has been shattered. Real estate transactions have halted, with analysts predicting price drops of 25% to 33%. An institutional investor reportedly withdrew a bid worth hundreds of millions for a logistics park in Jebel Ali after it was struck. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil once flowed, has virtually stopped. The economic model that built modern Dubai - low taxes, stability, openness - is under existential threat.
Meanwhile, the human reality is one of division and desperation. Some residents stay, buoyed by influencer campaigns insisting “everything is normal.” Others flee at any cost. Private jet evacuations for a family of four can reach US$250,000. Taxi fares to Oman’s capital Muscat have jumped from a few hundred dollars to over US$5,000. Banks are evacuating staff: Citi and Goldman Sachs have ordered Dubai employees to leave their offices and there are credible reports of unofficial capital controls introducing a US$100,000 limit on outbound transfers.
The Gulf states import over 90% of their food, with 70% passing through the now largely blocked Strait of Hormuz. Logistics giant Kühne+Nagel warns that Dubai may have only ten days of fresh produce left. Emergency airlifts - LuLu Group has flown in 80 tonnes of meat and 80 tonnes of vegetables from India - are expensive stopgaps, not solutions.
Even more alarming is the water crisis. Saudi Arabia depends on desalination for 70% of its water; a single plant provides 90% of the water for Riyadh. Kuwait relies on desalination for 90% of its needs, Oman for 76%. With a plant in Bahrain heavily damaged by the Iranians these are not abstract vulnerabilities. With the destruction of desalination plants Iran could render these states virtually uninhabitable.
If the war ends soon, the UAE has options: the “Covid playbook” of stimulus packages, perhaps even the long-discussed “casino option” to lure back tourism. But if the fighting continues, the consequences are profound. A prolonged war threatens the fundamental social pact of the Gulf monarchies: very limited political rights in exchange for extreme prosperity and safety. If oil revenue and investment dry up, the contract between rulers and the ruled will crack.
On March 9, US Senator Lindsey Graham issued a threat: Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries must join the fight against Iran. “If not, consequences will follow.”
The response from the Gulf was instructive and unprecedented. Khalaf al-Habtoor, a billionaire close to the UAE's ruling circles, delivered a stinging rebuke - later deleted but widely understood to reflect regime sentiment. “If President Donald Trump and Senator Graham are prepared to risk their country and the lives of Americans for Israel’s interests, that is their choice,” Habtoor wrote. “As for us, we will not do the same. Anyone who hears your statements might think you're a member of the Israeli Knesset.”
Saudi influencers joined the chorus, openly cursing Graham on social media. “You are a senator from South Carolina, not the President of the United States and certainly not the commander of Saudi Arabia's military. So STFU and know your place.”
This exchange exposes the deep fracture separating the Gulf states from their supposed allies. They no longer trust any party to this war. They cannot rely on the US for security, seeing Washington prioritise Israeli goals over Arab stability. They fear America will declare victory and leave behind a mess. They fear Israel dragging them into the conflict. They fear Iran. But most of all the ruling families fear prolonged war will expose their own fragile foundations.
Gulf rulers face an impossible choice. Join the American war and become legitimate targets for Iran's retaliation. Refuse and risk the wrath of their protector. This is the trap of client status, the inevitable cost of allowing America to be the GCC's security guarantor.
As discussed by Andreas Krieg in our 5 March podcast the United States has no strategy. Its war plans have changed multiple times. It is running out of interceptor missiles. Meanwhile, Iran executes a strategic plan decades long in preparation without deviation. It has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, crashing global energy markets and sending US petrol prices climbing toward $4.00 per gallon, directly threatening Trump’s political base.
The colonial strategy of “divide and conquer” has been reversed. Iran now fractures its enemies. A growing gap separates Washington and Tel Aviv based on incompatible war aims. Israel, driven by its quest for “Greater Israel” and a racist supremacist ideology wants destruction regardless of global economic fallout. The United States, bound by material interests, must calculate the cost of what could become a global economic apocalypse.
Trump, characteristically, is in denial, attempting to manage a military catastrophe with the playbook of a New York con man, changing his story every few hours, hoping to talk his way out of reality. But reality cannot be talked away.
Washington and Tel Aviv now face a prolonged conflict they did not prepare for, cannot sustain and cannot win. By destroying US early detection systems and radars in the first ten days, Iran has pushed the American military into a corner it had failed to anticipate. The American plan to escalate will backfire as Iran can damage the Gulf states more than the United States can defend them.
Iran is prepared to endure significant punishment. It has learned from Vietnam, from Algeria, from every successful struggle against colonial domination. Though for most Iranians survival and an end to the war will suffice, the regime’s goals are grander: the complete defeat of American imperialism in West Asia, the humiliation of the Trump administration and the final decolonisation of the region.
As Mohsen Rezaee a former Revolutionary Guard commander observed: “Look, the big mistake they made was that they came and designed a short-term war, but they didn’t realise this might turn into a long-term one.”
Friday, March 13, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)