And meanwhile, the Iranian regime continues political executions at the rate of nearly 6 per week ... [updated]

"Only Trump could be stupid, ignorant and immoral enough to start a (just) war against an evil regime, and to leave them better off and more powerful than before the war. What a complete pile of shit he is."

~ @RyanSchenck

"I am still shocked that Secretary Rubio announced that 'The operation is over - Epic Fury,' without achieving any of their war objectives: 

(1) no removal of enriched uranium and elimination forever of Iran's nuclear program, 

(2) no constraints on missile production, 

(3) no end of funding for terrorists & 

(4) without liberating the Iranian people..

"Epic Fury is going to be remembered as Epic Failure."

~ @MichaelMcFaul

TRUMP, Jan 13: "Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY"

"Donald Trump promised to come to the aid of Iranian protesters if the regime used lethal force against them. This undoubtedly played a role in their rising up. Now, possibly thousands lie dead ... this is another low point in a presidency of low points: making promises without the means to back them up, and now people lie dead. Shameful. This is the issue with a presidency incapable of thinking through second- and third-order effects. ...
    "Trump was very specific in the support he offered. 'Knock hell' out of the regime. It is clear that promise was made when the US was not in a position to deliver."

~ @AndrewFox

"If this deal is actually signed, it would be a fitting end to a campaign that began as 'Epic Fury' and is ending as 'Epic Disaster.' What started as a war supposedly aimed at toppling the regime and dismantling its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities may instead leave Iran’s regime stronger than before — empowered by sanctions relief, still retaining significant missile capabilities, continuing support for its proxies, and almost certainly preserving uranium enrichment on its own soil. And then there’s the additional 'bonus' nobody even mentioned at the outset: the Strait of Hormuz is now firmly back at the centre of global strategic risk. The truly grim reality is that this may still be the best available option for the administration out of a set of deeply flawed alternatives. At least Iran is [possibly] unlikely to obtain a nuclear weapon in the immediate future. But the central question remains: what was the strategic logic of launching a war whose end state may ultimately be worse than the conditions that existed before it began? A failure from beginning to end."

~ @Danny(Dennis)Citrinowicz

"Of all the objectives floated before and after the war began, almost none have been achieved.
    "Yes, the US and Israel destroyed a lot of Iranian military assets. But strategically, Iran still holds the uranium, the regime, and the Strait. ...
    "What I see is an American president desperately looking for a way out of the mess he created. So the administration is trying to put a bow on it ...
    "This whole catastrophe rested on a false assumption that the regime would collapse once the supreme leader was killed. Everybody knew Iran would try to block the Strait. You cannot just bluster through everything and expect reality to bend to you."

~ former Commander General USArmyEurope Ben Hodges

"[A]n end to the conflict and long-term peace requires an end to the evil Islamic regime of Iran. Any 'agreement' is just a new Munich Pact of 1938 with the failed promise of 'peace in our time'."

~ @AdamMossoff 

UPDATE:

We're all still talking about Iran as if the only relevant thing is the price of a barrel of oil ...

'Who Deserves Our Support?'

"Whenever I begin to debate certain issues such as the war in Iran or the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, I am confronted with the fact that the side I support has done some pretty stupid (sometimes evil) things. America supported the Shah, who was an oppressive dictator. Israel enabled the rise of Hamas by supporting Islamist social and charitable organizations within Gaza in order to create a counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). And then there allegations of even more sinister actions, ranging from the plausible to the ridiculous. It is easy to see why so many people retreat to a kind of neutrality. They shrug and say both sides have some valid points. Who can know which is worth supporting?

"Without a well-grounded philosophical framework, there really IS no way to know. ... if you’re not thinking conceptually, it might be hard to make a distinction between this group dropping bombs and that group dropping bombs.

"You might be tempted to view the conflict in terms of who is the underdog. Who is the David fighting Goliath? Of course, even on these terms, it’s pretty bizarre to view a nation of about 10 million (Israel) as the Goliath when they are facing down Iran (a nation of about 90 million) or the entire Arab world (around 500 million) or the entire Islamic world (perhaps as many as 2 billion).

"But regardless, this is the wrong way to look at the conflict. Instead, we should be thinking in terms of what kind of civilisation does each side represent? What values would we like a society to uphold — and which of these 'sides' [if any] better represents those values? ... it does mean understanding the fundamental distinction between [semi] free and unfree societies — between good societies that sometimes makes mistakes, and fundamentally bad societies that (like all societies) have many good people in them who are just trying to live their lives.

"Once you understand the distinction, you might come to understand that the only way to 'Free Palestine' or to truly support any of the “underdogs” in the world is to free them from the ideological chains of their terrible belief systems. Fundamentally, these people are not angry at the West because they have (sometimes legitimate) grievances about particular actions, but because they resent the example that even a semi-free society presents. While we can’t force people to be free or even to believe in freedom as an ideal, we can (and should) show them the utter futility of continuing to support the death cult of Islamism. It was only utter defeat that discredited Nazism in Germany and emperor-worship in imperial Japan — and allowed them to develop into much happier, freer, and more prosperous societies. That is what I wish for Palestine, Iran, and all the oppressed people of the world."

~ Stewart Margolis from his post 'Who Deserves Our Support?'

Trump’s “victory timeline” claims (actual quotes)

June 25, 2025: "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated."
Jan 2, 2026: threatens a "locked and loaded" military intervention if Iran kills peaceful protesters.
Jan 13: "Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY"
Feb 13: Regime change "would be the best thing that could happen" in Iran
Feb 24: "We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words, 'We will never have a nuclear weapon.'" "My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's No. 1 sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon."
Late Feb: "I'm not happy with the fact that they're not willing to give us what we have to have."

Feb 28: [Oman says a deal is "within reach."]

[IRGC kills 36,000 protestors to March. No "help" appears.]

Also Feb 28: Trump releases an 8-minute video on Truth Social announcing strikes have begun, saying Iran's "menacing activities" endangered the US and its allies; cites the Iran hostage crisis, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, the killing of protesters, and Iran's chanting of "Death to America." He called on the Iranian people to overthrow their government.
Mar 2: "First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones. Second, we're annihilating their navy… Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon… And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders."
Mar 3: Iran is building "powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions."

Mar 3: Iran poses an "imminent threat" because it is going to retaliate against US forces when Israel attacks.

Mar 3: "We won the war." 

Mar 7: "We defeated Iran." 

Mar 9: "We must attack Iran." 

Mar 9: "The war is ending almost completely, and very beautifully. 

Mar 10: practically nothing left to target 

Mar 11: “You never like to say too ⁠early you won. We won. In ​the first hour it was over.” 

Mar 12: "We did win, but we haven't won completely yet." 

Mar 13: "We won the war." 

Mar 14: "Please help us." 

Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will certainly remember it." 

Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all." 

Mar 16: "I was just testing to see who's listening to me." 

Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer something very bad." 

Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help." 

Mar 17: "I don't need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO." 

Mar 18: "Our allies must cooperate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz." 

Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip - step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz." 

Mar 20: "NATO are cowards." 

Mar 21: "The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don't use it, we don't need to open it." 

Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours. Open the strait" 

Mar 22: "Iran is Dead" 

Mar 23: "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST." 

Mar 24: "We’re making progress." 

Mar 24: We "won" the war. Iran wants "to make a deal so badly."

Mar 25: “They gave us a present and the present arrived today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize.” 

Mar 26: "Make a deal, or we’ll just keep blowing them away." 

Mar 27: "We don’t have to be there for NATO." 

Mar 28: No major quote 

Mar 29: Claimed talks were progressing 

Mar 30: "Open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, or face devastating consequences." 

Mar 31: Claimed a deal was "very close" and that Iran would "do the right thing" 

Apr 1: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' death. They're all dead,"

Apr 1: "We’ll see what happens very soon." 

Apr 2: Repeated that a deal was likely, while warning of continued strikes if not 

Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen." 

Apr 4: Said Iran must comply "immediately" or face further consequences. 

Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah." 

Apr 6 : "...a whole civilization will die"

Apr 6: "We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation."

Apr 7: Total and complete victory 

Apr 8: "Double ceasefire ... We have already met and exceeded all Military objectives" 

[Hormuz Straits that were formerly open will now be tolled. Iranian regime continues nuclear programme. Iran regime continues political executions at the rate of nearly 6 per week.]

So what was achieved ... ?

"This is what Israeli intelligence penetration of Iran actually looks like in practice: millions of Iranians who want this regime gone and are willing to risk everything to make it happen."

"Israel is not just targeting Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders. They are specifically going after the officers who killed protesters -- the people who ran checkpoints and shot Iranians in the streets during the January uprisings when the regime massacred thousands of its own citizens. 

"And they're calling them first. Victor David Hansen described one exchange [in the video from 10:03]: an Israeli contact reached an IRGC officer and told him he was a dead man. The officer's response: 𝘠𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨. He did do something wrong. He killed protesters. And Israel knows exactly who he is, where he is, and what he did -- because Iranians inside the country are feeding them the intelligence. Cell phones. Starlink. A population that hates this regime so deeply that ordinary citizens are calling in GPS coordinates of checkpoints from their apartment windows. 

"This is what Israeli intelligence penetration of Iran actually looks like in practice. It's not just satellites and signals. It's millions of Iranians who want this regime gone and are willing to risk everything to make it happen."

~ Michael Rothman

UPDATE: Is this wishful thinking, below? I hope not. Remember, when collapse happens, as Vaclav Havel used to say, the crack are see first from below:

Was there a strategy?

UPDATED 8:53am: We said last week the risk, once started, is Trump chickening out. As of this morning our time, Trump chickened out. Trump always chickens out (TACO). Which, here, long term, is disastrous.

"President Trump has created the conditions for another quagmire in the Middle East, and the question is whether American military excellence can rescue him from his own impulsiveness and incompetence.

"Here is the present situation, in a nutshell: The United States and Israel have established absolute air dominance over the nation of Iran. ... The intention of the air campaign is clear: to destroy the regime’s capacity to harm its neighbours while also creating the conditions for a revolution on the ground. ...

"So why, then, is Trump lashing out at American allies? Why was he 'shocked' that Iran struck Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait in response to American attacks?

"Perhaps the answer lies in a Wall Street Journal report from last Friday. According to The Journal, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Trump that Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and Trump shrugged off the threat and launched the attack anyway. ...

"But Iran did not capitulate. ... Instead, it has effectively closed the strait, and it’s reportedly done so without choking off its own oil exports. In other words, while other nations can’t ship oil through the strait, Iran still is.

"Iran ... could well emerge from the conflict with its regime intact (and perhaps even more hard-line) and its power over the world economy undiminished. ...

"Trump launched a major war on his own initiative while announcing competing and potentially contradictory war aims. Is the goal regime change? Unconditional surrender? Or is it much narrower — the destruction of Iran’s missile and drone forces, sinking its navy, stopping its nuclear programme and destroying its ability to wage war through its proxy forces, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and the kaleidoscope of allied militias in Syria and Iraq. ...

"Even when wars are carefully planned, with allies brought on board and a majority of the public in support, they are still highly volatile and unpredictable. ...

"My great concern is that Trump has [instead] created the conditions for failure. ... And now, dismayed that the war has not resulted in the regime’s immediate capitulation or destruction, he’s flailing about, once again threatening the viability of NATO if our allies don’t come and bail him out from a war they did not start and did not ask for.

"As an American, I want our forces to succeed, once they are committed. I want to see the military open the Strait of Hormuz as quickly and painlessly as possible. I want to see the Iranian regime collapse and replaced by a democracy. That regime is loathsome. It’s an enemy of the United States. It deserves to fall. If it does, I will cheer its demise.

"At the same time, however, my patriotism can’t blind me to reality. This is not how our democracy should go to war. Trump is not the right man to lead our nation into battle. People I respect applaud Trump for his courage in taking on Iran. But I don’t see courage. I see recklessness. I see thoughtlessness.

"I see a man who plunged a nation into a conflict without fully comprehending the risks. I see a man full of hubris after achieving success in much more limited military engagements. And he’s now counting on two of the world’s most competent militaries to essentially bail him out.

"He’s counting on them accomplishing a mission without clear precedent in military history: destroying a hostile regime and forcing its compliance entirely from the air and sea, and to do so quickly enough that the economic pain doesn’t overshadow the military gains. ...

"Trump has only himself to blame. He led America into an unconstitutional war. And now he’s compounding that sin by proving to be every bit as reckless a commander as he is a president."

~ David French from his column 'Trump Has Only Himself to Blame' 

"Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians."

~ Allister Heath from his column 'This is a turning point in history, the moment the West could be lost'

"Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. ... Whether or not it was tactically correct [or strategically mapped out] ... only history will tell.

"As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. ...

"Overthrowing the regime would be a success; weakening it so it falls due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success --- but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be ... a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

"For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond ... This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all. ...

"At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a 'deal.' There is no 'deal' with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead. As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran ..., that horse has bolted."

~ Liberty Scott from his post 'Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran'

"But as with Bush II's Iraq War, the question to come is: do they know what the hell they're going to do next. With this administration, that's unlikely .... So it will need every circumstance to go the way of those Iranians celebrating [in these photos]. As Eliot Cohen says, 'Something of an exercise in ambivalence here. I would like to see the Iranian regime go down hard -- and am not confident Trump knows what he is doing.'

"Let's [still] hope with crossed fingers for a lion of freedom to arise from the attacks."

~ PC from the 2 March post Iranians: Yearning to breathe free!

UPDATE: Posted last night from the White House press corps, and now going viral on Twitter:

 

Iran: The risk is TACO

"It's 2029 [the Iranian regime] was bloodied and enraged, but not defeated, in a 3-week aerial campaign in 2026. They've had 3 years to rebuild. Not their civilian infrastructure -- their arsenal of drones and hypersononic missiles. Plus their capacity to manufacture them.

"Now the hardened underground facilities where they make, store, and launch them are now safely below the penetration depth of US bunker-busting bombs.

"In technology development, three years is an eternity.

"The new drones are faster, have a smaller radar signature, and are much smarter. Their hypersononic missiles have much longer range. They can hit anywhere in Europe. From a ship, they can hit anywhere in the US.

"Three years was also enough for [the regime] to enrich uranium to weapons grade. And to perfect their warhead design. And to manufacture dozens of them

"One fine morning -- Sep 11, by purest coincidence -- the US Fifth Fleet is hit by a swarm of drones. In the chaos, distracting the US military, three salvos of hypersonic missiles are launched. Tel Aviv goes up in radioactive smoke six minutes later. 15 to 20 minutes later, countries friendly to the US -- Germany and the UK -- get hit.

"And ships disguised as tankers launch at the US from both oceans.

"The survivors wonder what happened. They had confused two different things:

1. the 2026 war had an unconstitutional start;
2. Iran was not a serious threat.

"And nuclear. ...

"This is what the next Iran war would look like if the US abandons this one (i.e. loses) now. ...

"There is an elephant in the room. Let's acknowledge it. If we lose now, [the Iranian regime] will be emboldened. It may take them a year to rebuild their arsenal and make longer range missiles, and nuclear warheads. But they will do it, and unleash terror on a global scale. ...

"I did not say that I think the US will do this. I say if the US does this, then the result is predictable. ... 

Not immediately. [The regime's] capability has been degraded. They will rebuild capability, and add much more (including nukes). And start the next war, at the moment they choose.

"I have made no secret of the fact that I think Trump is a terrible president, a dishonest narcissist who operates on whim and whose whims change ten times a minute. 

"The major risk of a war like this with a terrible Commander in Chief like this is that his whim will change. ...

"The risk is TACO [i.e., Trump always chickens out]: the risk of Trump leading this attack is that he will chicken out, and give up. 

"[Now it's begun] we shouldn't work to push him to do that. ...

"This is an argument for not going to war in the first place. But once the war is going, it is not an argument for abandoning it!

"'When you're going through hell--keep going!' (Winston Churchill)."

~ Donal Coyote

"All of a sudden mass media is interested in the civilian casualties of the war in Iran!"

The media is slowly waking up to the reaction inside Iran to US-Israeli bombing, beginning to report on the perspective of Iranians living inside there who look forward to a regime change.

It's an unusual moment. People being bombed who are welcoming the bombing.

The New York Times spoke to an engineer in Tehran who said many in the city were comfortable with U.S. bombings and that “they are upset if there is a night without bombing, and fear the war might end while the regime remains. You can see this clearly":

The experience of being bombed is even more terrifying because the government is sharing little information and sending few alerts, said Ali, an engineer in Tehran. Ordinary Iranians are cut off from the internet, and Ali said people had resorted to calling friends and relatives in areas where they saw fighter jets headed.

The ferocity of the attacks has divided sentiment among opponents of the government after a brutal crackdown on nationwide protests by security forces last January. Thousands were killed.

"Some people are comfortable with the bombings - I know that may sound strange," said Ali. "They are upset if there is a night without bombing, and fear the war might end while the regime remains. You can see this clearly. People say we have already paid enough of a price and the Islamic republic must go."

Ali said he was sympathetic to that view. "Our lives have no value for the Islamic republic," he said. "We are the government's human shields."

[PS: Click through for the videos and posts.]

International Women's Day in Iran

It was International Women's Day earlier this week.

An appropriate time to be reminded that Iran executed approximately 64 women in 2025. 

Reasons for execution do include murder, but also such outrages as: 

• not wearing the Islamic veil ;
• not wanting to marry their relatives;
• not accepting beatings from their husband;
• having different political beliefs.

"Fortunately," being stoned to death for "crimes" such as adultery has not happened since 2000. Too late for 20-year-old Zoleykhah Kadkhoda, sentenced to be stoned to death in August 1997 after being convicted of "sexual relations outside marriage." But she was one of the "lucky" ones. After a botched execution, Zoleykhah was found alive in a morgue. (And following international pressure, her death sentence was lifted, and Iranian authorities informed Amnesty International she was released on November 26, 1997.)

Reasons for threatened executions today include not singing the regimes' National Anthem in the women's Asian Cup soccer tournament in Australia, following which the whole team of non-vocalisers were branded as “wartime traitors” and threatened with execution -- with their families being held hostage against their return.

Given these multiple and still ongoing horrors, an Iranian-born expat feminist "want[s] to clarify a few things for people in the West about the current war."

1. We don't expect you to be pro-war. There are many reasons to oppose it, and we can discuss them. ... But don't use Iranians' lives and wellbeing as a reason to oppose the war. Inclusion 101: listen to our voices (and amplify them if you truly care). Don't assume you know our lived experiences better than we do. 

2. The general sentiment among Iranians, both inside and outside Iran, is still positive as of now. Of course there’s nuance and many different views on specific aspects. But that doesn't make us "pro-war." 

3. We’ve been calling for humanitarian military intervention because every other method has simply failed over decades, leaving far more casualties than some wars. It’s not an easy choice. We believe it’s the only one left. 

4. We don't blindly or naively support these operations. We support them only to the extent that we believe they serve as the humanitarian intervention we've been calling for. (Sure, some naive people exist, but don't cherry-pick them to paint all of us.) 

5. Iranians generally understand what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria far better than most in the West. They’re our neighbours. Think about whether you may come off as condescending when you “whitesplain” these things to us. 

6. If you oppose the war, you must do so without supporting the Islamic Regime. It may feel easy to just oppose everything, but if you offer no real, effective way to end the oppression, your opposition effectively supports the regime. 

7. If you doubt Iranians support intervention against the Islamic Regime, remember: the regime’s very first response to the war was to shut down the internet. Their propaganda machine still has full access, while only a small fraction of Iranians have unstable, unreliable ways to get online.

PS: Masih Alinejad reports [confirmed by AFP]: 

This is the first reaction from inside Iran to the news that Mojtaba Khamenei has replaced his father as 'Supreme Leader.'
People are standing on their balconies chanting: 'Death to Mojtaba.' A nation is telling the world: we will not accept another inherited dictatorship.

"Death to America" is now a categorical imperative, apparently

 

According to The New York Times, Ali Larijani has effectively 

been running Iran since January 2026. He was in “charge of

 crushing, with lethal force, the recent protests demanding the 

end of Islamic rule.” He is now the key power broker in Iran’s transition.

Larijani is a Ph.D. in Western Philosophy and a specialist

on Immanuel Kant. He wrote his dissertation on Kant and 

three published books [on the German Philosopher].

"Religious fanaticism and radical subjectivism are two sides of the same false coin. One enables another: 

    "Radical subjectivism annihilates metaphysics.
    "The religious fanatic fills his 'void of reality' with his arbitrary assertions (God, miracles, angels, devils, afterlife, etc)."

~ Paulius Lebedevic [hat tip Stephen Hicks, Quote-Unquote Marrk-Goldblatt]

"Ideas have consequences - and in today's volatile world (March 2026), with US-Israel strikes escalating against Iran, regime continuity under power broker Ali Larijani, Russia's enduring war footing in Ukraine, and multipolar fractures everywhere, the intellectual foundations rejecting liberal democracy in favour of "higher duty" and civilisational destiny stand out starkly.
    "In Russia, Alexander Dugin supplies the metaphysical fireworks: a heady mix of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and traditionalism remixed into Eurasianism and his "Fourth Political Theory." ... Duty isn't optional-it's ontological, an existential imperative justifying sacrifice, expansion, and absolute obedience to the state as civilisational guardian. ...
    "[And so] with Iran, where Ali Larijani -- the current top power broker effectively steering the regime ... -- is a genuine Kant scholar .... 

    "Operating within Shia theocratic-revolutionary Islamism, Larijani's Kantian toolkit emphasises deontology: i.e., absolute duty over personal happiness or utility, and reason's limits that 'make room for faith.' This lends philosophical rigour to prioritising collective obligation to the Islamic Republic-categorical imperatives of regime preservation, anti-hegemonic destiny, and order -- over Lockean individual liberties or empirical critique. 

    "Lethal force against dissent or external threats? Not mere power grab, but duty-bound necessity to sustain the higher moral-political order.
    "The parallel is striking: Both reject the British Enlightenment path (Locke, Smith, Mill) that grounds secular democracy in individual rights, free markets, and a limited state that serves citizens. 

    Dugin does it with apocalyptic, anti-modern mysticism and civilisational clash. Larijani does it with measured, pragmatic deontological reasoning adapted to clerical-authoritarian stability.
    "Russia gets the wild-eyed prophetic theorist; Iran gets the calculating insider philosopher. Yet both scaffold regimes where the individual is subordinated to a transcendent collective fate - whether empire or revolutionary faith—precisely when global power shifts demand such justifications.
    "Philosophical coincidence? Or a deeper pattern in how anti-liberal thought sustains authority amid crisis?"

~ Paul Steeper from his comment 'In Our Current Geopolitical Moment - A Contrast of Anti-Liberal Scaffolds: Dugin's Eurasian Destiny in Russia vs. Larijani's Kantian Duty in Iran' [hat tip Stephen Hicks]

Iranians: Yearning to breathe free!

In Auckland yesterday we woke to news that Iran's theocratic rulers were dead and dying. 

Within hours, Iranians in Auckland had gathered to celebrate. (Yes, those are Israeli and US flags being waved below, and pictures of a dead Ayatollah being celebrated). 

This was in complete contrast to the hand wringing going on in the homes of (to pick just two people) Helen Clark and Antōnio Guterres, who were quick to bemoan attacks on the regime that had slaughtered at least 35, 000 Iranian innocents -- which they'd ignored.

So too had Iranians in many other parts of the world. Not least in Iran. (Click through for posts and videos.)

It seems the only place these murdering bastards are mourned are in the homes and offices of people with Pro-Palestinian t-shirts in the cupboard and keffiyeh on their hat rack. These people "have no shame," observes Brendan O'Neill. "They said nothing when thousands of Iranians were slaughtered by the theocratic regime. Yet now they’re crying because some regime goons were killed in airstrikes. These people are just apologists for tyranny."

Given the Iranian regime's role in supporting world terrorism, Islamofascism and in trying to destroy western life (in every way possible) -- on raining death and destruction on the world for 47 years -- then if regime change is successful in Iran -- if! -- then it would be the single most momentous geopolitical change for the better since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But as with Bush II's Iraq War, the question to come is: do they know what the hell they're going to do next. With this administration, that's unlikely (it hasn't even bothered to seek Congressional approval, which is constitutionally required). So it will need every circumstance to go the way of those Iranians celebrating above people. As Eliot Cohen says,  "Something of an exercise in ambivalence here. I would like to see the Iranian regime go down hard -- and am not confident Trump knows what he is doing."

Let's hope with crossed fingers for a lion of freedom to arise from the attacks.

"The fall of the Iranian regime would be the Berlin Wall moment for the Middle East. Needs to happen."

 

"The fall of the Iranian regime would be the Berlin Wall moment for the Middle East.

    "Needs to happen."

~ Neil Stone

"[P]eople with empty hands took to the street chanting for freedom, dignity. They want to have a normal life and they are being killed by IRGC, the Revolutionary Guards. 

    "I think this is the Berlin Wall moment in Iran—if the international community gets united the same way when they were all united to help East Germany to bring down the Wall. Now Iranian people are trying to bring the wall of dictatorship down. We need to see action from Europeans [and from the] free world, otherwise ... they will kill more innocent people."

~ Masih Alinejad on the nationwide protests

Summing up

"Just a reminder that as of now, Iran is still run by cruel theocrats, Venezuela is still run by far-left socialists, Russia is still run by a destructive dictatorship, and Ukraine is still run by a vibrant democracy that is is basically left alone to fight.

"Meanwhile, Donald Trump's priority is to invade Denmark and Minnesota. And to invite Putin to help run Gaza."

~ composite quote by Phillips O'Brien, Dan Smith, Clotilde I. & Alastair Twin

"The stakes could not be higher. As I speak there is despair in European capitals and delight in Moscow. That should tell you everything about the dangerous watershed we’ve now reached."

"On January 18, 2026, President Donald Trump sent a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. This is not a gaffe or a joke; it is a declaration of how Trump understands power. It reads:

"This letter is sheer madness.

"A sitting US President openly declares that his commitment to peace depends on whether he personally receives a prize—petulant narcissism elevated to state doctrine. ...

"Worse, the letter rejects sovereignty itself. Questioning Denmark’s ownership of Greenland because 'boats landed there' is pre-modern barbarism. By that logic, no country owns anything—only whoever has the power to seize it. ...

"The phrase 'Complete and Total Control' is the tell. It is an explicit claim that world security requires American domination of foreign territory. No advocate of liberty, no defender of objective law, and no serious supporter of the American constitutional order can accept that premise.

"All of this is wrapped in a protection-racket view of alliances. ...

"It is a worldview that treats the United States as Trump’s personal property, international laws that prohibit aggression as optional, and force as the final arbiter of right. Such a worldview is incompatible with liberty. It is incompatible with objective law. And it is incompatible with the moral foundations of the American republic.

"Anyone still defending this man and his movement is not defending America. They are defending the ravings of a would-be king, stripped of reason, law, and moral restraint. And they should be ashamed."

~ Nicholas Provenzo from his post 'Mad Donald's Letter and the Mind of a Would-Be King'

"Donald Trump now genuinely lives in a different reality, one in which neither grammar nor history nor the normal rules of human interaction now affect him. Also, he really is maniacally, unhealthily obsessive about the Nobel Prize."

~ Anne Applebaum from her article 'Trump’s Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw'

 

"For all of my life Russia has tried to decouple Europe from America and break the North Atlantic Alliance. It never succeeded. ... But now success is staring the Kremlin in the face. All thanks to Donald Trump. ... 

"Nobody should underestimate the catastrophic consequences for NATO if its leading member annexed the territory of a smaller member. It would be the abnegation of everything NATO is meant to stand for. Nobody denies Greenland is gaining in strategic importance to America. ... 

"But the crucial point is that, in security terms, America can have whatever it wants in Greenland without annexing an ally against its will. ... [T]he 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement (renewed in 2004).... gives the US the right to build as many bases as it wants and station unlimited numbers of military folk there. During the Cold War around 15,000 US person were based in Greenland. It’s now 200. 

"Trump claims Greenland is under threat from imminent takeover by China and/or Russia. It isn't, of course. They haven’t seen a Chinese ship up there for 12 years. But if Trump truly believes it, there's nothing to stop him from ramping up US military assets in Greenland back to Cold War levels or more. Moreover his European Nato allies are on side ... 

"The Trump administration depicts Greenland as a defenceless frozen waste in danger of being picked off by NATO’s enemies. It’s a nonsense. Greenland is a self-governing Danish protectorate. As such it is fully covered by NATO security guarantees, including the all-important Article 5 — which says an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. Yet Trump still wants to grab Greenland, all part of his mission not just to be Imperial President of the USA but Imperial Overlord of the whole Western Hemisphere. ... 

"Under Trump America is on the brink of becoming the enemy, not our most important ally. As a lifelong supporter of the US it is chilling to write and say such words. "The stakes could not be higher. As I speak there is despair in European capitals and delight in Moscow. That should tell you everything about the dangerous watershed we’ve now reached."

~ Andrew Neil

"Trump's letter to Norway's Prime Minister makes clear it is Trump — not America — with a psychological need to own Greenland."

~ John Bolton 

"[You say that] 'J6 should’ve been the last straw.' Pardoning the J6 criminals should’ve been the really last straw. 

"Republicans can’t get enough straw."

~ FT

"A lot of good people [sic] are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons [sic]: to stop Hillary or Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations. They rightly applauded [sic] his toughening of immigration policy. ...

"They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic [and also utterly incapable of recognising Constitutional restraints - Ed.], but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd.But he has plainly now lost his mind. There is no other way of reading 'I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize.' It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than 'liberal tears.' Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned."

~ Daniel Hannan

PS:

"The most [surely "one of the many"? - Ed.] irritating aspect of the Greenland farce is that it's a distraction from the tragedy of Iran."

~ Niall Ferguson

"The fate of a 2,500-year-old nation and its 93 million inhabitants rests, for now, in the hands of Donald Trump.

On at least eight occasions over the past three weeks, Trump encouraged Iranian protesters to go into the streets, assuring them that the United States had their back and that “help is on the way.” He threatened that if the Iranian regime killed protesters, the U.S. was “locked and loaded” to take action.

“If they start killing people like they have in the past,” he warned, “we will get involved. We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts. And that doesn’t mean boots on the ground, but it means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.”

Despite Trump’s threats, the Islamic Republic commenced what is almost certainly its bloodiest killing binge since its inception, in 1979. The regime itself admitted to 2,000 deaths; human-rights organizations believe that the figure could be higher than 12,000. This death toll likely dwarfs the number of protesters killed by the shah over the 13 months leading to the 1979 revolution.

Trump now confronts a fateful choice. He can make good on his promise and risk the always-unpredictable consequences of military action, or he can face the shame of having given false encouragement to freedom fighters and emboldened one of America’s fiercest adversaries.

If Trump chooses not to act, his encouragement of the Iranian people to rise up, his repeated promises of U.S. support, and his subsequent abandonment of them will be remembered as one of the most callous examples of presidential betrayal in modern history. Expressing moral support for protesters was the right thing to do. But inciting them to rise up and promising intervention, only to watch them get mowed down by the thousands, will be counted as an act of cruelty."

~ Karim Sadjadpour from his article 'Trump’s Fateful Choice in Iran'

PPS:

"We just reviewed Trump’s recent National Security Strategy and Greenland isn’t even mentioned once. Remember this when Trump officials talk about how conquering Greenland is a top national security priority. They are lying to you."

~ Trump Lie Tracker

"The cause of Iran is the cause of humanity."

"Imagine watching women fling off their hijabs in glorious defiance of the cruel mullahs who rule over them and feeling nothing. Imagine seeing brave youths swarm the streets to confront the tyrants who oppress them and just looking the other way. ...

"The shameful, tight-lipped caginess of progressives in response to the glorious revolt in Iran is more than cowardice – it’s pathology. These people are so lost in the maze of moral relativism that they can’t bring themselves to criticise an Islamic regime. They’re so mind-screwed by intersectionality that the sight of young women throwing their hijabs on to open fires is more likely to baffle than excite them. ...

"The extraordinary valour of the young in Iran has exposed the moral bewilderment of the young in the West. Inculcated with that cruel, truthless idea that ‘All cultures are equally valid’, this new generation is struck dumb by a fiery foreign revolt against an Islamic government. ...

"Everything will change if the ayatollah classes fall. Hamas and Hezbollah, already battered by the Jewish nation’s resistance against their regime of terror, will be starved of resources. Israel will breathe easier. Russia’s wings will be clipped as its key, crucial ally in the Middle East is laid to rest by the very people it oppressed. A chastened Russia will be to the benefit of all Europeans, not least the long-suffering people of Ukraine.

"The West will be that bit freer, too. Free from the Iranian regime’s exporting of terror and its exploitation of mosques and charities to spread its misanthropic creed through our societies. ...

"The cause of Iran is the cause of humanity. Those brave souls are fighting first and foremost for themselves, as they should. After 47 years in the medieval gloom of Islamist rule, they deserve to see the light of liberty. But their revolt, their valour, their unshakeable yearning for freedom is a gift to the world, too. A stunning defeat for the forces of Islamism, delivered by women whose hair flows freely and men who want the right to think for themselves – it is exactly what humanity needs right now."

~ Brendan O'Neill from his column 'Iran's uprising and the moral bewilderment of Western youth'

"Pics like these almost make me want to start smoking in solidarity." ~ Amy Peikoff

"Iran’s Islamic Republic is no ordinary autocracy—it’s a theocratic prison-state exporting death while devouring its citizens."

"As of January 12, 2026, Iran stands at a historic precipice. What began as scattered demonstrations in late December 2025 over skyrocketing inflation, currency collapse, and economic despair has exploded into the largest nationwide uprising since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—and arguably the most serious challenge to the Islamic Republic in its 47-year history. ...

"Chants of 'Death to the Dictator' (targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) echo alongside calls for the return of the Pahlavi monarchy, symbolised by the pre-1979 lion-and-sun flag. Strikes cripple markets, universities burn with student fury, and reports from human rights groups document thousands arrested, hundreds (possibly thousands) killed by security forces using live ammunition, and hospitals overwhelmed by gunshot wounds.

"The regime’s response has been savage ...

"This is not merely an 'economic protest' or reform movement. At its core, Iranians are rebelling against the suffocating fusion of clerical theocracy and state socialism that has crushed liberty, prosperity, and dignity for generations. ...

"Iran’s Islamic Republic is no ordinary autocracy—it’s a theocratic prison-state exporting death while devouring its citizens. ...

"The regime’s foreign aggression compounds the horror. Tehran bankrolls terrorist proxies that slaughter innocents and wage war on liberty [across the Middle East: Shi-ite fighters in Syria; PMF forces in Iraq;] Hamas’s October 7, 2023, atrocities in Israel; Hezbollah’s rocket barrages on civilians; the Houthis’ attacks on global shipping. These groups—armed, trained, and funded by Iran—hide behind human shields, commit rape and torture, and pursue jihadist domination. Israel’s repeated defeats of these proxies (through precision strikes and resilience) have humiliated Tehran, shattering illusions of regional hegemony.

"Defeated abroad, the mullahs now unleash fury at home. The current uprising—sparked by economic collapse but fuelled by decades of repression—has seen security forces open fire on unarmed crowds, including families and the elderly. ...

"Iran’s savagery stems from Islam itself—not as a personal faith, but as a totalising political-religious doctrine demanding submission. ... Islam’s core texts call for jihad, infidel subjugation, and harsh punishments. From stonings to apostasy executions, these elements inspire terror waves: 9/11, Bataclan, ISIS caliphate horrors. ...

"Iran’s theocracy exemplifies this incompatibility with modernity: liberty is criminalised, women enslaved under veils, economy strangled by ideology. The uprising’s core demand—rejecting clerical rule—strikes at Islam’s fusion of mosque and state. ...

"Iran’s uprising is humanity’s cry against tyranny: clerical fascism fused with state socialism, fuelled by Islam’s dogmatic conquest ethos, shielded by Western leftist cowardice. The regime funds terror abroad while slaughtering at home; proxies fall, so oppression intensifies. ...

"The free world cannot afford denial. Iran’s people fight for what we take for granted—liberty. Ignoring them betrays them and ourselves. The time for harsh truths is now. The regime teeters; history will judge who stood for freedom and who looked away."

~ Roberto Rachewsky from his post 'The Axis of Oppression: Iran, Islam, and the Postmodern Left’s Betrayal of Freedom'