Uncertain Allies

In 2005, minister and theologian Wayne Stiles argued "We will always struggle with temptation in this life. But God has not left us alone in the struggle. He has provided all we need to defeat sin and Satan (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 John 4:4). He noted

More than thirty years ago Flip Wilson kept America in stitches with his television characters “Reverend Leroy,” the friendly, pompous pastor of the “Church of What’s Happening Now,” and “Geraldine Jones,” the sassy African-American woman in a miniskirt. Whenever Geraldine would impulsively buy a dress—or do anything she shouldn’t—she excused her urge by uttering the line she made famous, “The Devil made me do it!”

America laughed at Geraldine for her obviously lame excuse. In fact, to say, “The Devil made me do it,” became the rage all over the country. Of course, we all know that the Devil wants us to sin, but everybody knew the truth.

Scofff all you wish, but this applies to the Iran war, in which a few influential far-right figures are claiming "the devil made me do it"- or rather, "the devil made President Trump do it."

In hisletter resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center and "subsequent remarks", Joe Kent

has claimed that President Donald Trump was “led to believe” that military action against Iran would be swift and effective, alleging that Israel played a key role in shaping that perception.

Kent said that following protests in Iran earlier this year, Israeli officials pitched the idea that targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would pave the way for protesters to take control. According to him, the plan was presented as a limited and straightforward operation, similar to past regime-change expectations in other conflicts.

“In essence, we were told we would be greeted as liberators — that strikes on the IRGC would allow protesters to take over,” Kent said, describing the proposal as overly optimistic.

On March 27, Megyn Kelly

criticized right-wing politicians and commentators for “pushing” President Trump to launch military operations against Iran.

“As this goes south, we need to know exactly who talked him into it and what representations were made to convince the president that this was a good idea,” Kelly said.

The former Fox News host specifically named Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “first and foremost” and said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was “equally to blame.”

Kelly also slammed conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro for “pushing this war” on his show and said radio host Mark Levin was “chief among” the right-wing advocates for military action against Iran.

“There were very prominent activists on the right who were frothing at the mouth for this thing,” Kelly said. “And now that it’s not only going poorly, but the president’s poll numbers are in a precipitous free fall, we'd love to see more accountability.Who? Who promised him what?"

Then on March 30, Fox News host Laura Ingraham

called into question whether President Trump understands the “complexity” of the U.S. military operation in Iran.

The host used her opening monologue on “The Ingraham Angle” to talk about how, despite the April 16 deadline set by the president, Trump faces complications to his calls for negotiations with the Iranians amid his threats of further escalating the conflict.

“Now, knowing what little time we have and how quickly this can spiral out of control, we still have a lot of questions,” she said. “For instance, was the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning? And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this? How complex it could actually get, and further possibilities of casualties or other damage –– the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick, in and out?”

So alpha "please, Mr. Trump, no more winning" male was told that the war would be a quick enter and exit, or he was pushed or talked into going into Iran.  However, when this war end- and however it ends- Donald Trump will take credit for not only a "victory" but for attaining peace.

Kent, Kelly and Ingraham are opposed- sort of- to the current war against Iran. But they're also apologists for the President. They can turn on a dime by supporting Trump. and probably will, on another important issue or perhaps even this one.

They are, thankfully, not Tucker Carlson. However, it is almost (almost) as true of them as it is of Carlson, of whom it has been said that he "is one of the clearest examples of how the 'enemy of your enemy' is not in any reliable way your friend".

Share |

Victory Less Elusive Than Far-Fetched

I'm not sure what this right-wing tweeter believes this snippet of an interview proves. However, she deserves credit for bringing it to the attention of the X audience because it is intriguing. It features an anti-Trump, pro-Iran war comedian questioning a center-left Democratic senator and former C.I.A. analyst.

Bill Maher presses Democrat Senator to explain why John Fetterman is the ONLY Democrat backing President Trump on Iran.

MAHER: “Is this really the case? There’s only one person in the whole party who thinks differently?”

“You all miraculously came to the exact same conclusion… pic.twitter.com/3uipZ2yOCE

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 28, 2026

In the video provided, bill Maher is seen tellling Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin

They did say many times, o.k., we found out that they were very close to the bomb I mean, that's what came out in negotiations, that they were bragging that they were, like, weeks away from having enought to make eleven bombs. To me, it's pretty clear.

Well, no, it wasn't because as noted in Scientific American

 “There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA. That further enrichment would take a matter of weeks in a fully functioning Iranian nuclear complex, perhaps explaining the time line within Trump’s declaration.

That declaration was that Tehran "would have had a nuclear weapon within two weeks to four weeks and they would have used it" had the USA not struck Iran. Yet

That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities. The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war, that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration officials reportedly failed to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty. If Iran really had rebuilt these facilities, that might have led—over months and not weeks—to the nation resuming its uranium enrichment, Lewis says. “But this is all ‘if,’ ‘maybe’ and ‘later,’” he adds.

As the Michigan senator, a highly successful politician, knows, this would have been too much to explain to a television audience. Nonetheless, she might have said something akin to "that claim about eleven bombs came from Trump's negotiator Steve Witkoff, who is only marginally more credible than the Liar-in-Chief himself and is contradicted by evidence." Instead, she responded

,,,. but until the Strait of Hormuz is open, you literally, you just can't say we won this war when another country has a veto over what ship goes in and out. So I don't think-

No matter what has happened or will happen, you literally can say we won this war, and Donald Trump will say it no matter what- even a nuclear conflagation- ensues.  A declaration that "we" won this war cannot be, must not be, the litmus test.

Nor will the USA- and Israel or the West generally- have "won" (whatever that means) this conflict simply if- probably when- the Strait of Hormuz eventually opens. It was open before the USA and Israel launched the assault upon Iran. What followed has been death and destruction on a massive scale. Civilian targets have been hit and in addition to the US 5th Fleet Service Center in Bahrain, a USA base in each of three Mideast countries- Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates- has been struck. These nations believed that hosting an American base would bring them added security, and now will question that judgement. Our credibility has taken a hit.

Additionally, the day after Maher's interview of Slotkin, Iran-backed Houthi rebels entered the war

claiming two missile launches at Israel. About 2,500 U.S. Marines arrived in the region....The Houthis' entry could further hurt blobal shipping if they again target vessels in the Bab el-Mandeb Straif off the Red Sea, through which about 12% of the world's trade typically passes.

This portends the arrival of more widespread terrorism in the MIddle East once this war ends. But, hey, once the Strait of Hormuz is open as it had been previously, the USA can declare "victory."  That appears to be the opinion of Senator Slotkin and probably of Bill Maher. More accurately:

:

Mearsheimer: We had assumed we were going to win a quick and decisive victory. Once we ended up in a long war, it's the Iranians who hold most of the cards.

There's nothing Trump can do to escalate that works to our advantage. We're stuck in a war that U.S. can't win. 2X pic.twitter.com/VKCQ8NOcOF

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) March 28, 2026

 Share |

Basic Misunderstanding

Not quite, fella.

He brought the receipts.

Senator Fetterman takes a sledgehammer to the Democrat narrative on gas prices under President Trump.

FETTERMAN: “I checked where gas was a gallon, two years ago in 24 and it was around $3.60-3.65 a gallon, and the world wasn’t on fire.”

“And you know,… pic.twitter.com/TSkMt7U1Pa

— Overton (@overton_news) March 26, 2026

In the video above, you'll notice that Senator Fetterman referred to a Sheetz- not Sheets- store/gas pump in York, Pennsylvania, not in New York. There is a total of 826 Sheetz stores in seven states in the USA, with Pennsylvania being the location of the greatest numbe (316). Eight of those are in York, located in central Pennsylvania, the region from which Fetterman hails.

Yet while the tweeter (Xer?) is wrong on that minor point, Senator Fetterman is wrong on the large point. On March 18, 2024, the average price in the USA for regular gas was $3.453 per gallon and a week later it was $3.523 per gallon.

That is 29 cents or, as they post on gasoline pumps, .29$ more per gallon than a year ago, and the price is rising weekly.

Fetterman undermines his own argument as he notes "when you're having a military engagement, of course you're going to find some fluctuation on it." But that's just the point. The price of a barrel of oil now is not rising for the same reason that it normally has. In the past, it has risen because we came out of a pandemic or because of r elatively normal, fluctuating market forces. It now is soaring because of an attack President Trump decided to launch.

The jump in energy prices is not the most important reason to oppose the Iran war. However, it is one reason and Tehran has proven that its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz and surge global economic insecurity is a powerful weapon. It will play a critical role in any negotiation between the USA/Israel and Iran and would put Iran in a stronger bargaining position than it would have been without this armed conflict.

Give John Fetterman credit for having the courage to buck the colleagues in his Party on an important issue. Give him absolutely no credit for being dangerously wrong.

Share |

An Award Suitable for a God

An award is not a kegitimate award if it's created for a particular individual rather than because it's something worthy of creating for itself.

Just when you thought the GOP couldn’t be a more embarrassing cult, Speaker Mike Johnson presented Donald Trump with the “first-ever America First Award”:

“We have created a new award. We are going to do something we’ve never done before. We will honor him with a new award…… pic.twitter.com/CduOTi6k5X

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) March 26, 2026

As explained by USA Today 

The Republican Party gave the first-ever "America First award" to President Donald Trump on March 25, an achievement that follows backlash from legislators over his receiving of these newly created honors.

The award was presented to Trump at the National Republican Congressional Committee annual fundraising dinner by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said it was created with the president in mind.

"We’re going to do something we've never done before. We’re going to honor him with a new award that we'll present annually from this point forward, but he is the suitable and fitting recipient of the first-ever America First award," Johnson said. "We can think of no better title for what that is...that's this beautiful golden statue here, appropriate for the new golden era in America."

Not silver, not bronze, black or white, but gold, President Trump's favorite style of decoration. But now it has gone to a new level, one which has historical precedent.  In Exodus 32

When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods[a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”

Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.”  So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

However, Moses persuaded God to back off- temporarily. When Moses actually

approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

A day or two later

Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

A golden calf, then a few thousand years later, a golden statue, an idol Republicans will bow down to as a fancy representation of their earthly god.  This has gone beyond fondness and even reverence and now constitutes worship- an award created out of whole cloth, specifically for one person. It is no longer an earthly god alongside a heavenly one; the former has replaced the latter.

When the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin. There are consequences, God reminded Moses. Punishment already has come upon the American people for the great sin of worshipping a mere mortal, Donald J. Trump. But the real punishment awaits.

Share |

Stop Putting Up With This

In many cases, it's critical to check original sources and not omit a critical response.

Jake Tapper just put Senator Cory Booker on DEFENSE, pressing him to explain why Democrats are REFUSING to fund the United States Department of Homeland Security while security concerns remain high.

Tapper pinned the standoff directly on Senate Democrats.

TAPPER: “So in terms… pic.twitter.com/k7MtCw16fR

— Overton (@overton_news) March 15, 2026

 The tweeter's transcription of this segment of the interview, following "So in terms":

of the security of our home, there have been a number of attacks — ISIS inspired bombing attempt in New York City outside Mamdani’s house. A shooting target at an ROTC class at Old Dominion and on and on and on.”

“Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is still shut down because Senate Democrats are blocking the funding bill over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.”

 “Given the security concerns you just expressed and given the fact that that honestly, Secretary Noem has been fired, Tom Homan took over from Greg Bovino and Noem in Minnesota you could argue Democrats won the debate.”

“Isn’t it time for Democrats to reopen and refund DHS?”

 BOOKER: “So, first of all Democrats have tried multiple times to try to get TSA, CISA, the Coast Guard funded. Republicans have refused time and time again to fund…”

TAPPER: “Yeah, they want the whole agency funded.”

"Cory Booker (pu)t on DEFENSE" as to "why Democrats are REFUSING to fund the United States Department of Homeland Security while security concerns remain high" is, well, highly misleading. And that goes beyond the reality that security concerns are high now because of the war Donald Trump launched in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (and international law, for what that's worth), without consulting our allies in the Gulf or Europe and apparently without considering the ramifactions of is reckless action.

Booker's response after "they want the whole agency funded" was 

They want the whole agency.

ICE is still out there doing reckless things in communities. ICE is still arresting and detaining American citizens. ICE is still having unmasked people jump out of unmarked cars abducting people from the streets, barreling into homes. Even Americans, even veterans are being swept up in ICE's chaos.

I will not approve another dollar for ICE, given all that they're doing, but we should be funding those TSA agents that keep us safe, CISA, Coast Guard. And for Republicans to refuse to do it is unacceptable.

Out of time, Tapper then concluded the interview.

That was a good response from Booker; as good or better than most Democrats would give. And I'm not saying that because he's one of the two best Senators from my state.  However, there was an even better response New Jersey's senior senator could have made.

Objection- assumes facts not in evidence. Tapper's question "isn't it time for Democrats to reopen and fund DHS?" was less accusatory, implying that it is the fault of Democrats that the federal government isn't open and their responsibility to end the impass they've allegedly created.

In response to Tapper, the question should be reversed. He should be asked "isn't it time for Republicans to reopen and fund DHS?"  That rhetorical question probably would be mean with silence. Once Tapper regains his footing, the priority should be to point out that Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. If the government isn't working, it's on the Republicans. It's their government!

Make sure that viewers understand that it is Republicans who are creating the long lines at the airport. Moreover, Booker- or any Democrat- earns extra credit if he or she turns the question against Jake Tapper himself.  Why are you even asking that question, Jake?   

Republicans have understood for a long time that Americans do not like the media, ever since a Nixon Administration speechwriter (either Pat Buchanan or William Safire) had Vice President Spiro Agnew refer to the "nattering nabobs of negativism" who have "their own 4-H club- the hopeless, hysterical hypchondriacs of history." (There is disagreement over whether Agnew initially was referring to the media or to Democratic politicians but it was taken up by conservative critics of the press as a blueprint.)

Although they no longer appreciate awesome alliteration, Americans like and respect the media even less than they did at that time. Democrats, seemingly unaware of the relationship between the voters and professional journalists, seem to believe that the former have some regard for the latter. Moreover, they act as if they believe the GOP myth that the media is partial to Democrats.

They must not continue to be fooled. The very promient Jake Tapper, with Alex Thompson, wrote "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again."  Evidently, they have not gotten around to writing a similar book about incumbent president Donald Trump, whose physical and mental decline is threatening not only our constitutional republic, but world stability.

Washington Democrats also mistake political epedience for dmocratic tradition.. Much tradition is good; much needs to be reversed. The obvious answer to Jake Tapper's plea that Republicans "want the whole agency funded" is that not all of it should be. The eerily-named Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the 9/11/01 terrorist atttacks, and should not have been. It has become a monstrosity, a ridiculous behemoth, lumping together Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, FEMA, and twelve other operational and support components.

Enough- actually, much too much. It's time to split off ICE, either with or without Customs and Border Protection, and not crush innocent airport travelers because congressional Republicans are unable or unwilling to rein in President Trump's anti-immigrant crusade. And it's time for Democrats to challenge media members who treat those Republicans with kid gloves and know they'll never get any pushback from the other side.

Share |

The Shoe Moves From One Foot to Another

For the moment at least, common sense seems to have overtaken President Trump. As of 10:18 a.m. ET on Monday, March 23, 2026 The New York Times is reporting  

President Trump told reporters that the U.S. and Iran had held “very strong talks” that would continue today by phone. He said his envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were leading the talks from the U.S. side, and had been dealing with a “top person” in Iran, but wouldn’t name the person. Trump said the person is not Iran’s supreme leader. Iran, at least publicly, appeared to reject any progress in ending the U.S.-Israeli war earlier on Monday.

At 7:44 p.m. ET on March 21, Trump Truth Socialed (tweet/tweeted; Truth Social/Truth Socialed)

If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!

On March 14, the President stated that he's not ready to negotiate with Iran "because the terms aren't good enough yet." However, a few hous after Trump's threat of March 21 to target Iran's power plants, Tehran said the Strait would be "completely closed"   if the American president followed through on his threat.

Iran- for the moment- is balking at talks- as its ministry of foreign affairs claiming Trump's entreaty, Times explains, is in part an attempt "to reduce energy prices and to buy time for implementing his military plans."  Tehran believes (or at least seems to believe)  that for the moment, it holds the cards.

As the French would say (were it a French expression), "La situation est inversee."  The shoe is on the other foot. "The Art of the Deal" guy- or almost anyone- should have foreseen this situation. If this tweeter's translation from Hebrew is accurate, a former Prime Minister of Israel realized (Sunday evening, 3/26, in the eastern USA, it appears)

 “Can the Strait of Hormuz be opened? You need to deploy two American divisions there and prepare to stay for months. That’s how the start of the war in Vietnam looked, the start of the war in Iraq, and the same in Afghanistan.

It succeeds at first. By the way, all wars, including this new chapter of ours, one must know: an initiated war starts with a brilliant achievement and impressive damage.

Then comes the stage of treading water, which I believe we have entered.

And if you don't know how to get out of it and cut it short in time, it ends in negotiations under conditions inferior to what existed before it all started, or in defeat.

And America hasn't won a single war. It won almost every battle, but it hasn't won a single war in the last 60 years.

All of this needs to be considered, and I very much hope I am wrong.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said,

“Can the Strait of Hormuz be opened? You need to deploy two American divisions there and prepare to stay for months. That’s how the start of the war in Vietnam looked, the start of the war in Iraq, and the same in Afghanistan.

It… pic.twitter.com/GTA7eVHNd5

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 23, 2026

Even before Trump's warning to Iran, Geoffrey Corn, described here as "a law professor at Texas Tech University and a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army who served as a military lawyer," noted of the President's zig-zagging "it certainly has a feeling of ready, fire, aim. He overestimated his ability to control the events once he unleashed this torrent of violence." 

Hopefully, the shoe will move back to the other foot. Better yet would be shoes for both sides, the USA/Israel side and Iran's side (enough of this metaphor!) Too much power in the hands of The Great Dealmaker, a convicted felon, would likely be very dangerous for the Middle East, and  ossiblybeyond.

 

Share |

When Playing Dumb Is Considered a Sign of Strength

In this past week's ironic news

President Donald Trump slammed NATO allies ⁠over their lack of support for the US-Israel war on Iran as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, with no end to the conflict in sight.

NATO countries are “COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!” he posted on his Truth Social platform on Friday.

The US president complained NATO countries did not want to join the fight against Iran, yet still complain about high oil prices.

NATO countries are "cowards"? That's interesting because on Wednesday Donald had posted on his Untruth Social site

Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran. A relatively small section of the whole has been hit. The United States knew nothing about this particular attack, and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar’s LNG Gas facility. NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar....

 The following day, Trump in the Oval Office made the same claim when, as The Guardian reported

“I told him, ‘Don’t do that,’ and he won’t do that,” Trump said. “We didn’t discuss [the strikes]. We do independent, but get along great. It’s coordinated. But on occasion he’ll do something, and if I don’t like it … and so we’re not doing that any more."

Israeli attacks on the South Pars gasfields have opened a Pandora’s box of retaliatory strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure, including pipelines and natural gas processing facilities that serve LNG (liquefied natural gas) to economies around the world, particularly in Asia….

Significantly, it appears President Trump did have prior knowledge of the Israeli strike because, as the Guardian added, "Israeli officials disputed that claim, telling US and Israeli media that Washington had in fact been informed of the South Pars gasfield attack before it took place."

We've seen this play before, when on September 9 of last year

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed US President Donald Trump of plans to strike Hamas leaders in Qatar before the attack took place, contradicting White House claims that it was notified only after missiles were launched, Axios reported Monday.

Netanyahu called Trump around 8 am Washington time (1200GMT) Tuesday to brief him on the impending strike, Israeli officials with direct knowledge told the online outlet. Initial reports of explosions in Doha emerged 51 minutes later.

The White House maintained it was informed after missiles were airborne, claiming Trump had no opportunity to object. "The US Military informed him (Trump) of Israel's attack on Hamas leaders in Doha, and he immediately directed his Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to inform Qatar," White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told Axios.

However, acknowledging he had limited time to halt the operation, Israeli officials suggested the White House was aware earlier. "Trump knew about the strike before the missiles were launched ... (and) didn't say no," a senior Israeli official claimed.

Another said the US was informed at the political level "well in advance" and "if Trump had wanted to stop it, he could have."

The officials insisted missiles had not yet been fired during the Trump-Netanyahu conversation and claimed Israel would have canceled the strike if Trump had objected.

American or Israeli officials have neither confirmed nor denied the report.

Israel's attack, which killed five Hamas members and a Qatari security officer, prompted "an intense new wave of global outrage" and "was roundly condemned as an escalation that threatened to derail efforts to end the war."

Actually, the strike had the opposite effect. Talks in Doha were briefly suspended but when renewed, swiftly led to a ceasefire. Nonetheless, presumably unaware of the impact it would have on negotiations, Trump told reporters that he was "very unhappy" with the attack, evidently because he couldn't own up to knowing about a mission he couldn't stop.

And yet, we keep seeing piles of manure like this stuff:

Left claims Trump’s ‘goaded’ on Iran. Bongino drops truth bomb: He’s in charge. America First strength, not weakness.

— Jason Hughes (@JasonHughes716) March 19, 2026

Sure, Trump is in charge, sometimes. At other times, he is not. Israel tells him that it's time for it to launch a war aginst Iran, and he follows suit; Israel tells Trump of an impending strike (with sever repercussions) on an Iranian gas field and Trump later denies foreknowledge; Israel sends a missile into the heart of one of Donald's besties, Qatar, and he plays dumb so Doha doesn't blame the President.

It's Trump's secret sauce. Start with the bluster, perhpas by portraying a riuthless boss on reality television. Be impulsive and loud. Shamelessly display a cockure attitude, and hone your skill by kidnapping a foreign leader, threatening conquest of a country or two, and starting a regional war. Trump deserves credit for one thing, though. He calls NATO "cowards" and he knows cowardice, intimately.

 

Share |

Tell It to Marco

On March 17, Joe Kent, a subordinate of Tulsi Gabbard, sent a letter to President Trump announcing his resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Therein, he stated "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby." because of the war in Iran. 

This energized a disturbing sentiment among this nation's conservative. It included  a "moderate" from Nebraska who announced months ago that he is not running for re-election. Representative Don "The Pig" Bacon*  posted this:

 

I respect differences of opinion on Iran, but blaming the “Israeli lobby” for the war echoes some of the oldest anti-semitic tropes, dating back centuries, the false idea of a hidden Jewish cabal secretly controlling our country. That has no place in our party. I will not be a… pic.twitter.com/Ck9MUuwhMd

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) March 18, 2026

The same day, remarks by a CNBC host made Trump apologists giddy:

CNBC’s Sara Eisen sends the women of The View into a SPIRAL after DEFENDING President Trump: “I think what jumps off the page here about this resignation letter, which I think we have to just call out here, is that [Joe] Kent writes it is clear we started this war due to pressure… pic.twitter.com/tuKSSzQJ9y

— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) March 18, 2026

The tweeter transcribes the discussion as

 “I think what jumps off the page here about this resignation letter, which I think we have to just call out here, is that [Joe] Kent writes it is clear we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

“Now, there are two things about that. Number one, I think it’s disrespectful and wrong to assume that the United States and the president, especially this president, whatever you think of him, does not act on his own agency and on behalf of the United States of America.”

Sunny Hostin: “This corrupt president? You don’t think he acts in his own benefit?”

Sara Eisen: “I’m saying that he acts. He does not get coerced by other nations, like Israel.”

Sunny Hostin: “Really?! Okay.”

Sara Eisen: “It’s also an old-school anti-semitic trope to blame the Jews and Israel. It’s as old as time. When you have problems in the world, you know, blame the media. Blame the bankers, blame the Jews.”

The Trump Administration did not launch a war against Iran because of pressure from Israel's American lobby, AKA the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. However, as Kent argued, Iran posed no imminent threat to the USA and pressure from Israel was a factor in the timing of the American attack.

Take it from Marco Rubio, whom both Eisen and Bacon pretend never to have heard of, who in his news conference of 3/3/26 explained 

The second question I’ve been asked is: Why now?  Well, there’s two reasons why now.  The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.  The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.  It was automatic, and in fact it beared to be true because, in fact, the – within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch.  In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.

 The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.  And so the President made the very wise decision.  We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.

The Administration promptly went into cleanup mode, with the Secretary of State backtracking that evening and the President issuing an ambiguous statement the next day. The star of the Access Hollywood tape once boasted "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet.Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can't do anthing."  After that tape was disclosed, the underdog Trump turned his campaign around and won the election. It would not do- would not do at all!- for such a man to admit that he didn't have the strength to tell another country (Israel) "no".

Yet, Sara Eisen apparently is as easily conned as those women Trump said succumbed once he started kissing them. She says "it's disrespectful and wrong to assume that... the President, especially this president, whatever you think of him, does not act on his own agency and on behalf of the United States of America."

Obviously, Donald acts most of all on behalf of his own personal wealth, but that has been clear for a long time. Moreover, if Marco Rubio was to be believed, Trump has taken to war at this time not out of his own agency.  

The "anti-Semitic trope" gaining traction now is reprehensible. But it didn't start with Joe Kent, who was a known, rabid anti-Semite well before Donald hired him for an important national security job. Just as a car with an internal combustion engine cannot run without fuel, most of the anti-Semitism now rearing its ugly head would have laid dormant without President Trump, without consultation with allies or Congress, launching a war against an enemy resonding more robustely than expected with repercussions more dramatic than the President anticipated.

We have a President.whose antics and avarice should be of greater concern to Bacon, Eisen, and others than the bias of a few opponents- and some supporters- of this war. Being a leader requires more than being belligerent, bombastic, and bellicose. It requires actual leadership where and when it counts, and that we don't have.

 *not a real pig or real nickname.

Share |

Pitiful President

I almost (almost) feel sorry for Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League. Here he remarks

I ean, whatever your views on the conflict may be- and reasonable people can hold very reasonable differences- what happened next was not about policy. It wan't about geopolitics. It was about blame and the blame- as it so often does- was placed at the feet of -who else- the Jews. For some, they pointed fingers at the Israelis who- they claimed- whispered a few many times in President Trump's ear. 

For the senior senator from Maryland- a state with one of the most large, most active, most observant Jewish populations in America,, he blames AIPAC, whom he slandered as un-American. Then there is the U.S congressman who says he stands against the quote neo-conservatives who led the U.S. into the current war and instead- his word- he's proud to stand with Hasan Piker, one of the most outspoken, toxic, virulent anti-Semitic influencers in the world, who the congressman described as one of the representatives of "a new moral order." Again, his words.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tells 2026 Never is Now conference that it's "anti-Semitic" to blame Israel for the war on Iran that Israel started.

He accuses Sen. Chris Van Hollen of anti-Semitism for blaming "AIPAC" and slams Rep. Ro Khanna for blaming "neocons" and saying he's… pic.twitter.com/3MpTxFiSwE

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) March 17, 2026

Hasan Piker is despicable and loathsome and Representative Ro Khanna of California. And Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen is wrong when he contends "AIPAC may call itself pro-American. They may call themselves pro-Israel. But they are neither."  They're an American lobby which advocates in the federal government for policies which it believes will benefit Israel. That's why it's called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

However, Greenblatt complained also that some individuals "pointed fingers at the israelis who- they claimed- whispered a few many times in President Trump's ear. His memory may be faulty At a news conference on March 2, Rubio was asked whether there had been an "imminent threat" from Iran and whether he had told lawmakers that there was an imminent threat. He responded

There absolutely was an imminent threat and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked- and we believe they would be attacked- that they would immediately come after us and we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded because the Department of War assessed that if we did that, if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked- and by someone else,Israel attacked them, they hit us first and we waited for them to hit us- we would suffer more csualties and more deaths. We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them for inflicting higher damage. had we not done so, there would have been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was going to happen and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life.

The crux of Rubio's defense was that the Administration believed that Iran imminently would be attacked and that Tehran then would "immediately come after us." Or more simply: Israel was going to hit Iran and the latter promptly would attack the USA.

This does not fit the definition of "imminent," a term of special importance in the War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973.  An attack against the USA is not imminent if there is another event which must occur, such as an Israeli offense against Iran. That is especially the case given that an Iranian attack upon the USA absent an American attack upon Iran was speculative. 

Greenblatt maintains that critics of Israel are wrong to believe that the USA attacked Iran because the Israelis "whispered a few many times in President Trump's ear."  But if Rubio's comments were accurate  the President's behavior was worse than if Trump had been persuaded by AIPAC lobbyists. (Rubio tried to clean up his words a few days later when he realized that what he earlier had said was politically toxic.)

Any President should be open to persuasion. However, that is not what Little Marco was suggesting. Instead, he was suggesting that the USA was powerless to persuade Israel not to launch an attack.  On March 17, Donald J. Trump tweeted/Truth Socialed 

... because of the fact that we have had such MILITARY SUCCESS, we no longer "need," or desire, the NATO countries assisistance- WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!

We are by far the most powerful country anywhere in the world, yet we allowed Israel's actions to dictate our own. We do not need the help of anyone- yet, we're powerless to make a major policy decision on our own terms.

A confident and secure President, as contrasted to one merely projecting that image, would have told a much smaller country, an ally, that the timing wasn't right for us. If that nation chose to forge ahead nonetheless, we would not interfere, but would recconsider our relationship to it.

Greenblatt would have been more accurate had he defended Israel against the charge that it was responsible for President Trump's action.  It wasn't Israel's fault, rather the character flaws and bad judgement of the President of the USA. 

Share |

"Terror and Hate"

To be fair- and if not fair, generous- President Trump has been ambivalent toward the effort of Iranians to overthrow the extreme Islamist government of Iran. A Persian-language news operation based in London, possibly financed by Sausi Arabia, and which has been designated as a terrorist group by Tehran reported on March 9 that when "asked if he still considers helping people of Iran," Donald Trump responded

I'd like to, if they can behave, but they've been very menacing. You know, they're great people. They have an amazing population. It's amazing, smart, brilliant, energetic. They have a great I'd love to help them, but they have to be in a system that allows them to be helped, and right now they're in a system that only allows failure.

The money quote was if they can behave but they've been very menacing. As is surely obvious to Donald, Iranians cannot overthrow their tyrannical theocracy unless they're menacing, and even more than menacing.

Trump approved of the protests, initially. In echoes of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, on January 13, he

urged Iranians to keep protesting and to “take over your institutions”, telling them “help is on its way”, as reports grew that a strike on Iran was imminent. But just a day later, Trump abruptly did an about-face, telling reporters that he had received assurances that Iranian authorities would not execute anyone, walking back from military intervention in Iran, at least temporarily.

In Iran, protesters despaired. Despite Trump’s reassurances, killings of demonstrators continued.

The streets of Tehran were empty, except for pickup trucks with armed security forces patrolling where tens of thousands had marched just days before...

If regime change were the President's goal, Jnuary would have been the opportune time to attack Iran. But it has not been a chief aimof his and on March 12, according to Iran International, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Gurards Corps warned

that opponents could face a blow “even stronger than January 8,” signaling the possibility of a renewed and harsher crackdown if street protests resume.

The warning came from the intelligence organization of the Revolutionary Guards, which said street unrest would be treated as a precursor to military action. “Those we call the ‘Neo-ISIS elements’ should know that a blow even harsher than that of January 8 awaits them,” the statement said.

More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during a two-day crackdown on nationwide protests on January 8–9. Iran International confirmed the death toll after examining obtained classified documents along with field reports and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.

In its statement, the Guards accused foreign adversaries of trying to stir unrest inside Iran after failing to achieve their goals on the battlefield. It said enemies were now attempting to “spread fear and provoke street protests.”

The warning came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s military campaign was intended in part to create conditions that could allow Iranians to protest against the Islamic Republic.

Israel is determined to end the regime in Tehran so that Iran can never reconstitute its nuclear program. If met, these objectives would be of invaluable assistance to Prime Minister Netanyahu as he faces a difficult re-election campaign and prosecution for corruption. It's a war he cannot afford to lose.

By contrast, Donald Trump can afford to lose this war, one which he will declare victorious no matter how it turns out. It's not clear what he intended to accomplish by joining this war, which is a major reason he has been ambiguous and ambivalent- confused, actually- as to when it will end and what the end will look like.

Nonetheless, it now should be clear that, though Trump would like to own the next leader of Iran (think Venezuela), an explosion of democracy is far from the top of his mind.

 

Trump calls Iran “a nation of terror and hate.”

The nation, not the government.

Trump lumps the people and government together while simultaneously calling on the people to rise up against the government... pic.twitter.com/fKejWIsakY

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 13, 2026

 

Share |

Disdain

Sorry, Sir (as you like to be called), but you can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. And you let the cat out of the bag. Donald Trump has Truth Socialled (inappropriate capitalization and bad spelling his)

The united States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destrotying the Middle East and, indeed, the world. I won't ever let that happen! Thank you for your attention to this matter.   President DONALD J. TRUMP

It's as if Donald realized that he had just advocated higher oil prices for American consumers and inorder to avoid the trouble of deleting what he had typed, claimed stopping Iran is "of far greater interest and importance to me, as President."  Of course, as a world-class grifter, making a boatload of money is of far greater importance to him, and if facilitated by the suffering of Americans on a tight budget, so be it.

I was thinking of this tweet when I came upon a tweet with an accompanying video. The X'er helpfully provided transcript of a portion of the conversation:

SMITH: “Do you believe there is such a thing on the left as Trump Derangement Syndrome? Which is what the right accuses people of, do you believe that exists?”

CARVILLE: “Can I say something to the people that accuse Democrats of having Trump Derangement Syndrome?”

“I got it, and I got it BAD!”

“And I don’t want to get better, I just want to get worse!”

SMITH: “You want to get worse, James?”

CARVILLE: “This is a condition that I’m not trying to get rid of.”

SMITH: “Why not?!”

CARVILLE: “Make my disease worse!”

SMITH: “Why, why James, why do you want to make the disease worse?!” “Trump Derangement Syndrome, why do you want to make that worse?!”

CARVILLE: “Because in my opinion, he doesn’t like the United States.” “He doesn’t like our laws, he doesn’t like our allies, he doesn’t like our treaties, he doesn’t like the fact that we’re an inclusive country, that is built in a large part on immigration…”

Smith eventually had heard enough and fired back at Carville.

SMITH: “Okay, how do you feel about people who say the same thing about the left because of some of the stuff that we were seeing with woke culture, cancel culture, identity politics?” “What about that?!”

Carville notes, as is obvious to anyone- whether unfavorable or favorable to Trump- that the President "doesn't like" our laws, allies, or treaties or that we're an inclusive country that is built in a large part on immigration." More interesting, though, is the charge that the President who is pleased that his subjects are paying higher prices for oil also "doesn't like the United States."

As I've noted roughly 131 times, Donald Trump on at least two occasions has made clear, unequivocal statements about this country and/or its people which make clear that Carville is right. On October 30, 2022, complaining about Joe and Hunter Biden, Donald tweeted "Our Country is Rigged, Crooked, and Evil"  And not that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, which it demonstrably was not. Not that President Biden was crooked and evil, which would have been true of Biden's immediate predecessor and successor. But "our country," the USA: evil.

On February 26, 2025, Trump was responding to a question at the tail end of the first Cabinet meeting of his second term when he blurted out "this country has gotten bloated, fat, disgusting, and incompetently run." Or was this really a complaint?

And early this week

President Donald Trump donned a white “USA” baseball cap Saturday afternoon as he saluted a transfer case draped with the American flag when the remains of the first six service members killed in the war with Iran were carried off an Air Force transport plane.

The sartorial choice set off a controversy that continued into Monday, as critics — including some Republicans — derided his hat as disrespectful and also criticized Fox News for airing footage that inaccurately showed Trump hatless.

Trump’s cap emblazoned with “USA” in gold letters appeared to be a model that retails on the Trump Organization’s online store for $55.

Each of the two derogatory statments about the USA or its people, by an individual with contempt for his country and its military, was underplayed on print media and social media and virtually ignored on broadcast media. It's very difficult for mainstream media figures working for a major corporation to acknowledge that the President of the USA, elected by the American people and treated as a legitimate individual by the media, actively dislikes this nation. And so it was left to James Carville to state "because in my opinion, he doesn't like the United States."  If that be "Trump Derangement Syndrome," any other pespective ignores reality.

 

Share |

Only the Best Dudes

Let's give it up for Republican senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who once accurately sized up Teamster president Sean O'Brien in November of 2023 when he

challenged the head of the Teamsters union to a physical fight at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday intended to showcase how labor unions are making families’ lives better.

The tense confrontation at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing stemmed from acrimonious posts on social media, as well as a confrontation between the two at an earlier Senate hearing.

Tuesday’s episode started after Mullin read aloud one of Teamsters chief Sean O’Brien’s posts on X, formerly known as Twitter. In the post, O’Brien had called Mullin a “greedy CEO who pretends like he’s self made.”

O’Brien, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, ended the post by writing, “You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy.”

“So this is a time, this is a place,” said Mullin, who has a mixed martial arts background, to O’Brien, seated at a witness table in front of him. “You want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.”

“OK, that’s fine,” O’Brien said. “Perfect.”

“You want to do it now?” Mullin asked.

“I’d love to do it right now,” O’Brien said.

“Well, stand your butt up, then,” Mullin said.

“You stand your butt up,” O’Brien said.

Both men rose to their feet. Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an 82-year-old Vermont independent, intervened and called for them to sit down.

“You’re a United States senator,” Sanders told Mullin. “This is a hearing. God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress, let’s not make it worse.”

For Mullin’s remaining time asking questions of O’Brien and other witnesses, the two continued to throw verbal insults at each other. Sanders pounded his gavel and shouted over them in attempts to shut down the heated exchange.

“We’re not here to talk about fights or anything else,” Sanders said.

Mullin and O’Brien also had a tense moment at a previous committee hearing back in March. In another post on X,  O’Brien told Mullin, “Sounds like you need to shut your mouth & get to work for the people of your state.”

 

During the near-fight in sixteen months ago, Senator Mullin, a former mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter, referred to O'Brien as "this thug."  The observation was unavoidable and bears recollection at this moment in tiem, as Mullin has been nominated by President Trump tor replace Krisi Noem as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  (He will not, however, replace Noem in bed with Corey Lewandowski.) Thr nominstiom was natural for Donald, who (successfully) nominated a retired Air Force lieutenant general to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the latter was known as Dan "Razin" Caine. Like Donald himself, he's a macho man!

A few minutes after President Trump announced Mullin as his choice to replace Kristi Noem, Democratic senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania tweeted that he would be an "aye" on he vote to approve the Oklahoman as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Then

Fetterman joined Kayleigh McEnany on Fox News’ Saturday in America where he criticized his fellow Democrats not supporting “Operation Epic Fury,” the U.S. military operation targeting Iran’s current regime.

The senator also addressed throwing his support behind Mullin so quickly after Trump announced he would be replacing Kristi Noem. Noem faced bipartisan calls to step down, facing criticism over DHS spending and her response to federal immigration agents shooting and killing two American citizens in Minneapolis.

Fetterman told McEnany he got to know Mullin well during a trip Turks and Caicos (TCI) in 2024 to advocate for detained American citizens to be released.

“I was the only Democrat that joined him on that mission the Turks and Caicos to help save those Americans being locked up in prison because they had a couple random bullets in there as accidentally… I mean, he’s a good dude. I know it’s a significant upgrade, and I’m absolutely going to vote for him,” Fetterman said.

To be fair, that "good dude" was right about Teamsters president O'Brien, who shas responded to the nomination with "if anyone is willing to stand ther butt up to protect Aerica,it's Markwayne Mullin.". In return, the latter has praised O'Brien as a "workout fanatic" who "pulled himself up from his own bootstraps and grew up in a blue-colllar household."   (It's a good thing that toxic masculinity is a myth.)

Makwayne Mullin very likely will be approved by the Senate, short of photographic evidence that he's sharing closet space with Lindsey Graham. (Sure, that 's a cheap shot at Graham. And iIf such a thing were revealed, Mullin still would get approved, though Trump's leverage over the South Carolina senator would be eliminated.) Republicans still bow at the altar of Donald Trump, and M.M. is a Senator himself. He's no less qualified for the position than was Noem when she was nominated, probably will be a little less reprehensible as the DHS secretary, and probably won't be the worst member of Trump's cabinet.

Nonetheless, someone in the media should ask John Fetterman a basic question about Senator Mullin. If a United States senator credibly- with full intention of following through- challenges a witness at a hearing to a fistfight, what would a bad dude look like?

Share |