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 ...

"Commerce first taught nations to see with goodwill the wealth and prosperity of one another."

"[C]ommerce first taught nations to see with goodwill the wealth and prosperity of one another. Before, the patriot, unless sufficiently advanced in culture to feel the world his country, wished all countries weak, poor, and ill-governed but his own: he now sees in their wealth and progress a direct source of wealth and progress to his own country. 

    "It is commerce which is rapidly rendering war obsolete, by strengthening and multiplying the personal interests which are in natural opposition to it. And it may be said without exaggeration that the great extent and rapid increase of international trade, in being the principal guarantee of the peace of the world, is the great permanent security for the uninterrupted progress of the ideas, the institutions, and the character of the human race"

~ John Stuart Mill from his 1848 book Principles of Political Economy, under the heading 'Indirect benefits of Commerce, Economical and Moral; still greater than the Direct'

#ANZAC: "And year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what it was we're not to forget"

 

'Sacrifice,' by sculptor Rayner Hoff, inside the Australian War Memorial in Sydney's Hyde Park

"It's gratifying, in a way, that we start Anzac Day every year with a commemoration of a shambolic dawn landing that kicked off a pointless and wholly tragic military campaign that snuffed out some of the best young men of two young nations. It's not a victory march, but a sobering commemoration of the destruction of war.
    "This is healthy. This much is good.
    "'Lest we Forget!' we say"
    "It's said every year. And yet year after year, the numbers grow fewer who remember what it was we're not forgetting....

"THE MYTHOLOGY OF ANZAC is that the battle at the Dardanelles gave birth to two nations. If that’s true, it is an odd birth, fathered out of failure by way of disaster. 

"In the end, the attempted occupation [of the Gallipoli peninsula] was decided upon partly because in any bureaucracy once plans are begun they are very hard to stop ..." 

[T]he reason they embarked [was] not to beat the Hun, but to save the Czar [and to] gift Constantinople to Russia.... as an altruistic gift to an 'ally' who was the most autocratic in Europe, who had shown no sign of earning British trust ... the price for the sacrifice to be paid for in the blood of those Australian, New Zealand and British young men and their families.... 

    "Such is the code of sacrifice under which the decision was made to go.... [in pursuit, said Churchill, of] 'a victory such as the war had not yet seen.'
    "It never would. It never could. 
    "Instead, it all turned to omnishambles. The only thing in the end about which anyone had anything about which to boast was a successful and well-executed withdrawal. 
    "It was a bloody mess that achieved nothing, that could achieve nothing, purchased at the price of a wholesale sacrifice of young lives that could have meant something. It was a total unmitigated disaster, but at least, now, dear reader, some reason for the whole, sordid shambles might be clearer. 
    "The reason however for commemorating the shambles as the botched 'birth' (in some way) of our nation is very much less so."

~ composite quote excerpted from NOT PC's posts 'Lest we forget what?' and 'But what were the ANZACs fighting for, Grandad?'

'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?'

"Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements...."

"Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind... Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships. The political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens. It means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed."

~ Ayn Rand from her article 'The Roots of War' [hat tip Objectobot]

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 ... ?

"Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate."

"Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)"

~ Ayn Rand from her 1967 essay "The Wreckage of the Consensus," collected in her 1967 book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal [ read it here on p.249]

"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.

Your complete five-minute summary of yet another round of 'negotiations' in Geneva

"I’ll save you five minutes of your time today so you don’t have to read the news about yet another round of 'negotiations' in Geneva.

"[First,] Ukraine is still willing to agree to absolutely any ceasefires, compromises, a halt to the war, a freeze along the front line, and all possible and impossible mineral deals to please Donald Trump -- but it is not willing to capitulate and be destroyed by Russia. 

"[Second,] Russia still refuses any ceasefires, any compromises, any halt to the war -- and agrees to nothing short of Ukrainian surrender, with ever-growing demands leading ultimately to Ukraine’s destruction. 

"And [third] the U.S. administration still has neither the power to force Ukraine to surrender, nor the conscience or the wisdom to stop this idiotic charade with Putin and instead to begin pressuring Russia and arming Ukraine so that Ukraine can make Russia accept a stable and lasting peace. 

"[In conclusion:] The parties agreed on nothing and will meet again at yet another meaningless 'summit' in a month, so that Russia can continue buying time and making a fool of Donald Trump while continuing to destroy Ukraine. 

"You’re welcome."

~ Ilya Ponomarenko

"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

"There are two Putins."

Recently-retired MI6 head Richard Moore, Financial Times

“'I fundamentally assess that Putin is not interested in negotiations. There are no negotiations, not real negotiations. He’s attempting to play us,' [says former MI6 chief Richard Moore].

"According to Moore, there are two Putins. One is the cold-eyed realist, the ruthless leader who cuts deals when he has to. This is the Putin who last year accepted the loss of Syria and the ousting of his ally, the dictator Bashar al-Assad, and sought only to protect Russian bases there. The other Putin is ideological and has 'a deeply wired feeling that Ukraine doesn’t have the right to exist.' This Putin invaded Ukraine and his objective, says Moore, is not to bargain over slices of territory but to dominate.

"In Moore’s view, the only way to confront the ideological Putin is to pile so much pressure on him that he is forced to choose between fulfilling his legacy project in Ukraine and holding on to power. That’s why Moore argues that Ukraine should have the right to strike deep into Russia, and that more economic pressure should be brought to bear on the Putin regime. 'This is a very, very winnable contest,' he says. 'It’s particularly important that we don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.'”

~ from an interview with the outgoing head of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service on the rise of China, why Putin is not interested in talks — and how screen spies aren’t always far from the truth, 'Former MI6 chief Richard Moore: Britain must regain the ‘power of example’'

Ukraine betrayed. Again.

"After months of alternately sucking up to Vladimir Putin and seemingly expressing anger towards him, it turns out the Trump administration has been secretly negotiating with Russia for a while now, cutting the Ukrainians out of the process, and a report at Axios* says they’re now planning to present the plan to Ukraine and force it on them. As for Europe, 'We don’t really care about the Europeans.' I tried to warn them."

~ Robert Tracinski from his post 'Tyranny Is Unaffordable'

* The report is behind a paywall. The Guardian reports the plan "would require Kyiv to surrender territory and severely limit the size of its military.

The draft plan, reported on Wednesday as Russian drone and missile strikes killed at least 25 people in the city of Ternopil, was reportedly developed by Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Kremlin adviser Kirill Dmitriev, would force draconian measures on Ukraine that would give Russia unprecedented control over the country’s military and political sovereignty. The plan is likely to be viewed as surrender in Kyiv.

Should we end capitalism? Or embrace it.

"Capitalism ... has been, blamed for various ills, from poverty and income inequality to pollution, inflation, child labour, and war. ... Capitalism is misunderstood because it is often confused with today’s mixed economy that combines varying degrees of economic freedom and statism. Statism gives the government unlimited power that it uses to tax, regulate, and subsidize individuals and businesses and to hand out favors (government contracts, lower tax rates, subsidies) to companies that make political contributions and do the government’s bidding.

"Because of this confusion, people blame capitalism for problems caused by the mixed economy and statism in particular.

"Consider poverty and income equality. Poverty is most persistent in countries where the government deters wealth creation through high levels of market controls, taxation, and corruption that constrain economic growth, entrepreneurship, job opportunities, and people’s ability to work themselves out of poverty and improve their incomes. The same can be said of child labour (a consequence of poverty), inflation (caused by government manipulation of the money supply, not by business seeking to maximise profits in a free market), and war (caused by government invasion of another country).

"Capitalism does not cause the problems it is blamed for but provides solutions by safeguarding freedom. ...

"In Ayn Rand’s definition, “capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” In such a system, the government’s role is limited to protecting individual freedom ... by deterring and punishing the initiation of physical force against others ... Under capitalism, the only way to get others to collaborate is through persuasion and voluntary trade.

"Although pure laissez-faire capitalism has never fully existed ... some historical periods and countries have approximated capitalism ... [Northern] America during the 19th century (the longest uninterrupted period of peace); England, France, and other European countries during the Enlightenment (that brought about the Industrial Revolution); Hong Kong (before China’s takeover); and smaller countries like Estonia (that liberalised their economies after the collapse of the Soviet Union).

"Capitalism is good for people and their environment because it produces and protects freedom, the social condition that human flourishing requires. ... [C]apitalism did not create today’s problems but has helped solve or reduce them. ...

"If we want human flourishing to increase, we must not reject and banish capitalism but embrace and defend it ... "

~ Jaana Woiceshyn from her post 'Should we end capitalism?'

"Israel surrendered"

 

"If you've seen my 'Why I Stand With Israel' video, you would know that I really wasn't interested in talking about things outside of the US when I first started making content. But that changed on October 7th. ... 

"So last week was the 2-year anniversary of October 7th. And it's crazy to think that 2 years have gone by because I don't feel really any better about the state of the world right now. Hamas killed so many of the hostages and hundreds of Israeli soldiers have died in battle since that day. And Hamas is still using innocent people, using children as human shields. They are publicly executing dissenters and promising that they're going to continue attacking Israel. 

"And then there's the West Bank. People talk about the West Bank as if it's any better than Gaza. As if the Palestinian Authority hasn't allowed so many terrorist groups to just flourish under their control. ... 

"And still, with all of this going on, people are pretending that Israel is the villain in this conflict. ...

"So, all this being said, I was very, very disappointed to see that ... President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu proposed another ceasefire deal to Hamas. People are trying to negotiate with jihadists again. Like they haven't tried to do that so many times during this conflict. I mean, we in America keep saying that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but apparently we do. 

"This plan that Trump and Netanyahu proposed has 20 points.... I think this is a very terrible plan. To even contemplate granting amnesty to the people responsible for October 7th is disgusting. It is such an insult to the victims of that day. It is an insult to the soldiers who died in this battle. It is an insult to justice. 

"I mean, this is essentially a surrender. Offering Gaza and the West Bank an independent state is admitting defeat because everyone knows that that is not actually going to solve this problem. 

"[I]t baffles me how many people are still pretending that this conflict is about land. I don't understand why there is still this fantasy that if Israel just gave up enough territory, if they formally recognised a Palestinian state, if they loosened their military presence at their borders, there would just be peace and this conflict would end. Because the two-state solution is not a new idea.  ... 

"Despite decades of negotiations, concessions, and proposals, every offer for a Palestinian state has been rejected and met with violence because they do not want a state. ... 

"This is not a dispute over borders or state recognition. This is a matter of ideology. What Israel is fighting against is the idea that they shouldn't exist as a state at all.... 

"Again, all we have to do is look at Gaza post-2005. They were essentially their own state. They had their own government. Israel was gone. And instead of building infrastructure and being productive, they decided to build rockets and commit October 7th. 

"And it's not like Hamas hid their intentions before October 7th. Their founding charter openly talks about how much they want to kill the Jews in Israel. After they started this war, Hamas paraded the bodies of innocent, murdered Israelis through the streets as people cheered. And their leaders promised to repeat the attack of October 7th over and over again until Israel is destroyed. 

"Now, let me be very clear here because a lot of people think that the issue is just Hamas and that if Israel was to get rid of Hamas that would end everything. But Hamas won the election for a reason. These ideas about destroying Israel are not fringe. They are mainstream culture in Gaza. In Gaza, the anti-Israeli indoctrination is so embedded in daily life. Children's television shows teach kids that they need to slaughter Jews. School curricula completely deny the existence of Israel and glorify martyrdom. Military-style youth camps train young boys to kill Jews from a young age. And public rallies they hold in the streets celebrate martyrs who blew up buses or stabbed Israeli civilians. 

"Yes, Hamas is one of the main issues and one of the main obstacles to peace, but there's not going to be peace if Israel gets rid of Hamas and the citizens of Gaza just rally around another terrorist group to take their place once they're gone. 

"Right now, Gaza is not very happy with Hamas. And a lot of people see this as this really great positive thing that we should be celebrating. But being angry at Hamas because they messed up Gaza is not the same thing as being angry at Hamas because they slaughtered innocent people and attacked a peaceful neighbour that they realise they shouldn't be attacking anymore. 

"So, we'll see exactly what happens because right now it's kind of unclear where the Gazans stand. But most likely the reason that the Gazans are not happy with Hamas is because Hamas was not as effective at destroying Israel as they would have wanted. ...

"[And] support for Hamas skyrocketed in the West Bank after October 7th because the people of the West Bank don't see the Palestinian Authority as effective enough at destroying Israel. So all of this to say there is absolutely no way that Israel can give full independence to Gaza and the West Bank and expect there to be peace. It will lead to more slaughter. It will be a repeat of what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005....

"A lot of people have pushed back and have said, 'Look, all we want are the hostages back, and if Hamas breaks any of their agreements, then Israel will just continue to defend itself and they'll have the full support of the US. So what's the problem here?" Here's the thing. If I thought that this was true, if I thought that the plan was to get the hostages out, and then all bets are off, Israel is going to finish what it started, finish getting rid of jihadism in the area. I would be so on board with this plan. I am so for lying to Hamas to get the hostages back and then attacking them again. But I am almost 100% certain that that is not what is going to happen. And the issue here, like the real issue is that Trump is involved in this deal. ...

"Trump does not care about Israel. I mean, Trump really doesn't care about most things. The thing that Trump cares about is feeling good in the moment. ... his policy decisions are entirely based on who's going to make him feel good in the moment. Right now, Trump likes Israel because Netanyahu is being very nice to him. ... [But] He would drop Israel in a heartbeat. ...

"Trump's whole thing isn't about doing what's right. It's not about recognising the facts and acting accordingly. Trump cares about who's going to suck up to him the most. 

"Having someone like that who is so unpredictable as part of this deal means that his support for Israel is unpredictable. He might say that he supports Israel one day and then full support the next. I mean even when it's come to Israel he has gone so back and forth with his support. When he was elected into office, he said that by his inauguration, all of the hostages needed to be released or else he was going to let all hell break loose on the Middle East. And that did not happen. Then in February, he made a similar threat saying all of the hostages needed to be released by a certain day or else he was going to just let Israel do what they needed to do and support them fully in destroying Hamas. And again, that did not happen. Even with this deal now, Trump threatened this 72-hour deadline on Hamas and they just blew right through it and nothing happened. ... 

"He bullied Netanyahu into accepting this deal. Like Netanyahu has been so public with the fact that he does not want to allow the Palestinian Authority anywhere near this new Palestinian government. 

"So long story short, people are pretending. They are pretending that if Gaza or West Bank attacks Israel, Trump is going to be there to help them and Israel cannot rely on Trump. .... 

"I so understand wanting to get the hostages back, especially because we know that some of them are alive. 

"I know that their families and their friends and just normal Israeli civilians want them back. 

"I know that their loved ones and their friends and really just the average Israeli civilian or even just people with a heart want them back because we value human life. 

"And I cannot imagine what they have had to experience being tortured for 2 years in captivity in Gaza. 

"This is not how you do that. This is not how you get them back. 

"We've seen what happens with these 'hostage exchanges,' right? We've seen what happens when hostages are exchanged for prisoners. They're going to release 2,000 prisoners from Israeli prisons. Just a reminder, Sinwar, one of the masterminds behind October 7th, was released in a hostage exchange. 

"And let's be real about what happened. pulling out of Gaza, participating in this exchange, relying on these other countries to support and defend Israel, like that's just going to cause more deaths. It's going to cause more October 7ths like Hamas has promised. And unfortunately, when that happens, I keep saying this, but the world is not going to stand by Israel.... 

"So for Israel to survive, they are going to have to go it alone right now and for the foreseeable future. Which means they are probably going to have to abandon all of these deals that they have made with the US, with these UN, European countries and with all of these Arab countries because they are not going to stand by Israel when, not even if, when Gaza and the West Bank attack again. 

"But I think Israeli leadership has shown that they are not willing to do that. ... it seems right now like Netanyahu and the Israeli government are more worried about international approval than they are about saving the lives of their citizens. So, Israel really just needs to find the strength to do what needs to be done to destroy this terrorist threat, to destroy the infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank that allows for these attacks to happen and to destroy the bloodthirsty anti-semitic culture that is thriving there. But they cannot do that if they are still pretending that the two-state solution is going to solve this problem. 

"They can't do that if they are still pretending that Hamas will willingly demilitarise and accept Israel as a state. They cannot do that if they are pretending that they have allies in countries that do not care about Israeli safety. But that is what needs to happen here. 

"So I really just don't think this conflict is going to end anytime soon."

~ Kiyah Willis [hat tip Craig Biddle]