From citizen judgment to constitutional right

Cavedon traces the jury’s origins to ancient Athens, where ordinary citizens collectively judged disputes as part of direct democracy. That tradition carried into medieval England, culminating in Magna Carta’s guarantee that no free person could lose liberty or property except “by a jury of their peers.” Over time, this principle hardened into a defining feature of common law.

By the 18th century, legal scholar William Blackstone had formalized the idea that a criminal conviction required the agreement of 12 peers. This tradition crossed the Atlantic, where American colonists embraced jury trials not only as a legal safeguard but as a political right. The Constitution enshrined this protection twice, in Article III and the Sixth Amendment, reflecting its centrality to the new republic.

Cavedon emphasizes that juries were never meant to be passive fact-checkers. Historically, they evaluated both facts and the justice of the law itself, exercising what some have termed “jury nullification.”

Revolution, resistance and jury autonomy

The American Revolution reinforced the importance of juries. Singh and Cavedon note that British attempts to bypass colonial juries — by shifting trials to admiralty courts or even to London — provoked widespread alarm. Cavedon describes this as an “absolute panic,” as colonists feared the loss of local accountability and community judgment.

Two landmark cases illustrate the power juries once wielded. In 1670, a jury acquitted Quaker leader William Penn despite judicial pressure; their case established that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. In 1735, a New York jury acquitted publisher John Peter Zenger of seditious libel, even though the law offered no defense for truthful criticism of the government. In both cases, juries asserted their authority to interpret justice beyond strict legal instructions.

Singh contrasts this tradition with civil law systems, where judges and legal professionals dominate decision-making. In the Anglo-American system, by contrast, juries historically acted as a democratic check on state power.

The rise of the modern “assembly line”

Cavedon states that over the past century, the criminal justice system has transformed into what he calls a “utilitarian… assembly line to produce convictions.” He traces this shift to Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s, which expanded federal enforcement mechanisms that persisted long after alcohol bans ended.

Today, the overwhelming majority of cases never reach a jury. Roughly 97% of federal convictions and 94–95% of state convictions result from plea deals. Prosecutors wield significant leverage through what is often called the “trial penalty” — the threat of much harsher sentences if defendants refuse a plea and lose at trial.

Cavedon also points to structural incentives that reinforce this system. Many judges are former prosecutors, and law enforcement funding can be tied to arrest and conviction rates. Grand juries, once intended as a safeguard, have largely become procedural formalities. As Cavedon notes, they are often seen as “rubber stamps” for prosecutorial decisions.

The cumulative effect, he says, is a system that sidelines ordinary citizens and concentrates power in legal institutions.

Blinding juries to context

Even when jury trials occur, Singh and Cavedon argue that jurors are often constrained in ways that limit meaningful judgment. Courts typically instruct juries to focus narrowly on factual questions while ignoring broader context, legal interpretation and consequences.

Cavedon highlights cases where this restriction leads to troubling outcomes. In one federal trial in California, jurors convicted a man for growing marijuana without being told he was part of a city-authorized medical program. In another case, a juror later learned that a defendant he helped convict received a 40-year mandatory sentence, prompting deep regret.

For Cavedon, such examples illustrate a broader problem: Jurors are excluded from considering the full moral and social implications of their decisions. He believes that this undermines both fairness and the democratic purpose of the jury system. “If people do not have confidence that ultimately it will be their neighbors and their peers who will make judgments,” he says, “then I think we have lost a significant amount of personal liberty.”

Can the jury system be reclaimed?

Singh and Cavedon conclude with a question: Can the jury’s original role be restored? Cavedon believes it can, but only through a cultural and educational shift. He describes the forthcoming Cato Institute initiative, “Your Verdict Counts,” as an effort to reframe jury duty as an active form of citizenship rather than a burdensome obligation.

He feels that jurors should see themselves as participants in a democratic process, bringing “their conscience and their values” into deliberations. This could revive the jury’s function as a check on state power and a protector of individual liberty.

Singh closes by considering the stakes. If juries no longer serve as a meaningful counterbalance within the justice system, then a key pillar of democratic accountability may already be eroding. The question is not just how the system functions today, but whether citizens are willing to reclaim the role it once gave them.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Talks: The American Jury System Explained: Democracy or Illusion? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As journalist Janan Ganesh recently in the Financial Times, “Trump is the one US president elected this century under whose watch Russia has not launched a foreign invasion. Putin attacked Georgia under George W Bush, Crimea under Barack Obama and Ukraine entire under Joe Biden.” The pattern is suggestive, if not conclusive.

Calculated unpredictability

Many observers have portrayed Putin as a deranged autocrat bent on restoring a lost empire, surrounded by subservient aides too intimidated to challenge him. Yet, over time, his behavior has come to seem grimly legible. His aims are extreme but comprehensible; his methods brutal but procedural. He is consistent — consistently malign, perhaps, but consistent.

Trump, by contrast, presents a different figure. He is erratic, self-contradictory and prone to sudden shifts in manner and position. Where Putin’s menace is intelligible, Trump’s is properly inscrutable. And that difference raises the possibility that not knowing someone may itself function as a form of power.

This is the essence of what Ganesh calls Madman Theory. More a strategy than a theory, it involves a political leader deliberately cultivating the appearance of irrationality so that neither adversaries nor allies can reliably anticipate responses. All they can do is act with caution. The leader need not be mad, but others must not be certain. The seed of doubt is crucial.

Ganesh illustrates this with former US President , who presided over the nation from 1969 to 1974, a period overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Nixon’s Secretary of State, , was tasked with negotiating American withdrawal. Nixon, with Kissinger, incubated a stratagem: to convey to North Vietnam that the president was unstable, beyond even Kissinger’s control. Thus, Kissinger could imply in negotiations that Nixon might take extreme measures — even nuclear ones — regardless of advice.

Picture it: After hours of high-level with Vietnamese negotiators Lê Đức Thọ and Xuân Thủy, Kissinger concludes, “Excellent. I’ll take this back to the president. But honestly—he might throw it in the trash.” The goal was simple: force concessions by making the consequences of resistance unknowable and potentially catastrophic.

This was Madman Theory in its purest form: calculated unpredictability. Nixon himself did not appear overtly unhinged to the American public, at least not before the Watergate scandal. But he wanted adversaries — and even allies — to believe that he might be. The performance of instability was designed to create leverage.

Yet even here, the results were ambiguous. The war dragged on; the costs were immense; the strategy failed to produce decisive gains. As Ganesh observes, the problem is built into the logic: If the threat is too extreme, it lacks credibility; if carried out, it becomes catastrophic.

Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler and Marcos

In the 1532 political treatise , philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli argued that rulers must sometimes act immorally, inconsistently and against expectation. It’s safer to be feared than loved, if one can’t be both. Appearances matter. Machiavelli understood the uses of terror, ambiguity and deliberate inconsistency. He admired deacon Cesare Borgia, whose ruthlessness and unpredictability helped secure his power.

While Machiavelli didn’t cite Genghis Khan, the latter embodies many of these principles. Khan’s backdrop was the tribal, wind-scoured steppe of Inner Asia in the late 1100s. His reputation for sudden, overwhelming violence was not incidental to his success — it was central. Cities that resisted could expect annihilation; those that submitted might be spared.

The effect was psychological as much as military. Opponents did not merely calculate their chances; they confronted the possibility of total destruction at the hands of a leader who seemed to operate beyond restraint. Whether Genghis Khan was irrational is beside the point; others behaved as if he might be.

operated in a very different setting: the bureaucratic, industrializing Soviet state of the 20th century, where power was exercised through institutions, purges and fear. As General Secretary of the Communist Party, he inherited the machinery of Vladimir Lenin but took it in a direction few anticipated. His Five-Year Plans transformed the economy at immense human cost, while purges eliminated enemies, real and imagined. Even fellow revolutionaries were not safe: Leon Trotsky was exiled and eventually assassinated.

Crucially, Stalin’s rule was characterized not just by brutality but by unpredictability. Decisions appeared arbitrary; loyalties could reverse overnight. No one could be certain of the limits, because there were none.

Adolf Hitler followed a different path but produced a similar effect. His rise depended on fusing charismatic authority with national identity. Once in power, he defied conventional constraints. His impulsive, ideological and often strategically baffling leadership confounded allies and enemies alike. There were assassination attempts, even from within his own ranks, yet he retained intense loyalty from figures such as Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Hermann Göring.

In all of these cases, the pattern is evident: power reinforced by the perception that the leader might act beyond reason, beyond norms, beyond comprehension. The onus is on the leader to sustain that image — psychopath, megalomaniac, obsessive — but never a rational, calculating figure. Madman Theory doesn’t depend on whether the image is true or make-believe. What matters is that others believe it. And the others include followers, friends and, most importantly, enemies.

A more modern and very different case is Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines. She doesn’t belong in quite the same category as the great tyrants of the 20th century, nor did she wield power in the same way. Yet her public persona introduced a distinct, perhaps unique, form of unpredictability. Her rule, alongside President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos, was marked not only by abrupt interventions but by extraordinary extravagance. Where others projected menace through violence, Marcos added theater: excess itself became a signal, unsettling in its disregard for restraint. She famously owned pairs of shoes, bought perfume by the gallon and once splurged $7 million on jewelry.

This was not madness in any clinical sense: It was performative extravagance, an idiosyncratic form of power that kept her followers in awe. Madman Theory need not be fully realized; even its partial expression can shape how others respond.

Trump and the value of uncertainty

And so to today — and a plan that seems crazed, until it starts working. Trump has certainly unnerved the world. His expletive-loaded posts alone betray the lack of dignity and respect typically associated with world leaders. Then there is his penchant for fabrication, and his unfulfilled threats. Often, his hyperbole is excused as “,” but is that all it is? Trump’s impulsivity seems almost too outlandish to be genuine. Surely no human being, never mind an elected president could think and behave so preposterously. Surely.

To be fair, he is not the only political leader to unsettle observers. Putin’s prosecution of the Ukraine war has raised persistent concerns about escalation. North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, has long alternated between provocation and restraint, keeping adversaries uncertain whether they face calculated brinkmanship or something less controllable. Trump belongs, at least in part, in this company.

So, is Trump’s apparent madness real or strategic? His record allows for both interpretations. Allies are praised, then rebuked, sometimes in language that veers from jocular to incendiary. Even high-stakes diplomacy is reduced to the language of “deals,” as if geopolitical conflict were a used car sale.

Surely, other politicians suspect Trump’s departures from established norms are sometimes so aberrant that it’s hard to imagine he actually meant them. But even if they suspect design, they remain uncertain regardless.

It’s not difficult to imagine how this might shape decision-making in Moscow. Let’s return to the question raised in our opening paragraph. Picture Putin at his long table in the Kremlin, advisors gathered at a careful distance.

“We should anticipate what Trump will do,” he begins.

“Nothing,” one replies. Ukraine is not part of NATO.

“You think a technicality constrains him?” another asks. “He may arm them heavily. He may even place American missiles within reach of Moscow.”

“That would be crazy.”

“A�Ի�…?”

Silence.

That silence is the point. The problem with a “madman” is not that he will act, but that he might — and that no one can be sure how far he would go. Faced with such uncertainty, even a nerveless leader may hesitate.

This doesn’t mean Trump has consciously revived Nixon’s strategy. The simpler explanation that he is erratic rather than strategic remains plausible. Nor does it mean Madman Theory always works; history offers as many warnings as endorsements.

But it does suggest an answer to the opening question. Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in the White House? Probably not. Not because Trump would certainly have acted, but because Putin couldn’t have been certain that he wouldn’t.

[Ellis Cashmore is the author of .]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Trump Just Pretending to Be Mad? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Historical modesty warns us to view Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s stunning in Hungary last Sunday as only possibly another such historical inflection, not necessarily an actual turning point. Orbán could come back to power if the opposition fails to live up to its promises. Autocrats in other countries might see the situation in Hungary as a warning sign and crack down even harder on their populations. Nevertheless, his electoral defeat was important.

Orbán was not just a local strongman, but rather a central model and muse for an entire generation of nationalist right-wing leaders, including US President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) imitators. If the architect of “,” as he boasted, can be routed, despite a captured media, tilted institutions and deep corruption, that raises implications far beyond Budapest.

We cannot yet know whether this is the beginning of a long global backlash against authoritarian nationalism or a localized setback. But several forces now converging — from economic strain and war fatigue to Trump’s visible physical and mental decline and the humiliation of his chosen lieutenants — suggest that the winds may finally be shifting against the nationalist right.

Orbán’s illiberal model

Orbán’s importance was never just about Hungary’s just under ten million citizens. Since returning to power in 2010, he consciously branded himself as the avatar of a modern form of illiberalism, democratic in form but authoritarian in practice. He tightened control over broadcast media and large parts of the press, channeled state contracts to cronies, reshaped the courts and electoral rules, and used xenophobia and culture-war politics as glue. 

For American and European populists, Hungary became a kind of nationalist TED talk convention. Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest while former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, American political activist Tucker Carlson, Claremont Institute intellectuals and social-conservative activists paraded through Orbán’s orbit. Conservative activist, former FOX News commentator and lobbyist Matt Schlapp’s Center for Fundamental Rights approximately��€1 million (~$974,659) in 2022��and over��€2 million (~$2,173,913) in 2023��from state-funded Hungarian foundations to co-organize the CPAC conferences. There is substantial evidence of Hungarian government funding for CPAC events, primarily through state-linked foundations and think tanks.

Hungarian Prime Minister-designate Péter Magyar after his victory that Orbán diverted taxpayer money to fund CPAC as part of a “criminal offense” involving party financing. Magyar an immediate halt to taxpayer funding for CPAC and pledged to establish anti-corruption agencies to investigate these payments. Out in the open, meanwhile, Republican politicians from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Vice President JD Vance to Budapest to pay homage to Fidesz and learn from what they openly espoused as a model for the US.

The rise of Magyar

Despite all the countervailing winds, Orbán did not merely lose; he lost badly. His party’s vote collapsed after years of seemingly unassailable dominance. He had designed a system to entrench himself and suffocate the opposition. Yet voters, mobilized by a new movement under Magyar, broke through. For American politics, the symbolism is powerful. The regime that MAGA elites openly admired as a blueprint has just been overthrown at the ballot box.

The story of ’s rise matters because it shows how to beat a deeply entrenched populist regime. Magyar is not a left-wing revolutionary. He is a center-right figure who came out of Orbán’s own party, roughly analogous to former US Representatives Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, who finally, from inside the Grand Old Party (GOP), broke decisively with Trump. That background gave him credibility with voters who had once supported Orbán.

Magyar built a movement, not merely a party. Deprived of fair access to the media, he went directly to voters, especially in rural areas where Orbán’s media environment had been most suffocating. Magyar traveled relentlessly, holding town halls and rallies, using social media as a force multiplier. The opposition parties, including the left, swallowed their pride, thought strategically and accepted Magyar’s leadership, uniting behind him even though he was to their right on most issues.

Magyar notably rooted his campaign in everyday concerns, what we call the affordability crisis, health care, education and, above all, the cost of living, while still framing Orbán as a threat to Hungary’s democratic future and European orientation. He often the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956 to arouse patriotic feelings and turn the citizenry against Russian domination and interference. Hungarians didn’t just tire of Orbán’s culture war and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s influence; they tired of stagnant living standards, demographic decline and the sense that neighboring countries were doing better.

During the Cold War, Hungary enjoyed “,” the highest standard of living within the Warsaw Pact. Today, the Hungarian economy (in terms of purchasing power) has fallen behind Romania, a significant blow to national pride. Hungarians look across their borders and see that their economic decline was not inevitable, but rather the product of bad, corrupt governance.

Magyar’s campaign promises to defend democracy and fix people’s material problems were crucial. The anti-Trump forces in the US should take note, however, that he did not exaggerate Orbán’s threat to democracy, nor did he concentrate on wedge-issue culture wars; instead, he focused on bread-and-butter issues. Liberal democracy won in Hungary not as an abstraction, but as a promise to improve daily life under an honest government.

The limits of populist governance

Trump’s rise in 2016 was part of the same global upsurge that lifted Orbán and fueled Brexit. Nationalist parties and leaders could channel legitimate grievances about migration, globalization and the failures of centrist elites into a politics of resentment. They could promise simple solutions and muscular “strongman” leadership without having to demonstrate competence.

But demagoguery governs badly. Orbán’s Hungary offers a case study. Once in power, strongmen face the same stubborn realities as democrats: pandemics, inflation, geopolitics and economic complexity. Populism cannot protect a domestic economy by erecting barriers against the entire globe. Populism cannot pretend to listen to the voice of the people while it silences any dissent. Populism cannot pretend to be defending the interests of the common man while enriching the already wealthy and powerful. After all the bluster, populist authoritarians tend to revert to crony capitalism, institutional hollowing-out and theatrical nationalism instead of sound policies.

Trump fits this pattern. Twice now, he has ridden anti-incumbent waves to power, first in 2016 against the Obama-era Democratic establishment, and again in 2024 against President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris amid post-COVID inflation. Americans who voted for Trump did so primarily because they believed he would turn the economy around for them. But Trump and his family have profited enormously, while the net worth of average Americans has stagnated. As of March 2026, Trump’s net worth has increased by approximately��$3 billion to $4.2 billion��since returning to office in January 2025, with estimating his total wealth at a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024.

Trump’s second presidency is already visibly failing on its own terms. His , launched impulsively and then managed erratically, has rattled oil markets, worsened an already acute affordability crisis and brought the Strait of Hormuz to the brink of closure. Gasoline prices, already a source of voter anger, have climbed further. Voters may not follow every twist of Middle Eastern diplomacy, but they understand six-dollar gas.

Like Orbán, Trump tries to distract from policy failure with melodrama: social-media tirades, personalized feuds and symbolic gestures designed for the base. But there are growing signs that the spectacle is wearing thin. Even many Americans who once voted for Trump now show signs of exhaustion and disillusionment. The man who once seemed, to his admirers, like an iconoclastic outsider now looks like a tired, angry incumbent.

Trump’s late-night screeds on his own Truth Social platform have become longer, more erratic and more self-pitying. At least on Twitter, he was limited to 140 characters. Posting an of himself as Jesus, not merely blessed by Christ, but��as��Christ, and lashing out at the pope is the kind of grandiose behavior that, in any other era, would raise urgent questions about a president’s fitness for office. The “stable genius” shtick is shading into something more disturbing.

Corruption and cronyism exposed

Corruption also lies in plain sight. Americans are increasingly aware that Trump governs as he does business, by enriching family, cronies and co-investors. From Middle East envoys with vast financial stakes in the region to cronies profiting from regulatory changes, the pattern is unmistakable. Special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner not only have no credentials to negotiate an end to the Iran War — they have no technical expertise in the details of nuclear weapons, nor any background in history and diplomacy, as is normally required of high-level negotiators — but they also have substantial business dealings in the region and the outcome of the war will personally affect their own self-interest. Orbán’s downfall reminds voters that crony corruption is not just “how politics works” but rather is what happens when populists with disdain for expertise run a government.

Vance embodies this problem. Once a bestselling critic of Trumpism, he reinvented himself as a loyalist and is now tied to Trump’s misadventures abroad and at home. He for Orbán just before the Hungarian strongman’s rout. The high mark of chutzpah was Vance complaining about foreign interference in domestic elections while he was actively on the stump for Orbán’s party. He then traveled to Islamabad to help sell Trump’s Iran policy and came home empty-handed as the war worsened. Even Trump’s treatment of Vance, sending him to do the dangerous, thankless work while Trump an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event with Rubio, underscores the dynamic.��

In any other presidency, a foreign war would take precedence over just about any other issue. But Trump thought it would be a good idea to take Rubio to watch UFC fake fighters put on a Vaseline-rubbed mixed-martial-art cosplay rather than deal with statecraft. This is not the behavior of a confident leader grooming a serious successor, but rather that of a flailing boss toying with subordinates.

Authoritarian decline and coalition fractures

Trump’s actions are reminiscent of late-stage authoritarian movements elsewhere, when once-feared lieutenants begin to look ridiculous, and being close to the leader starts to look like a political liability rather than an asset. Vance’s much-touted conversion to Catholicism now sits awkwardly alongside a with an American pope who embodies a morally serious, anti-authoritarian Catholicism, and who clearly wants nothing to do with Trump’s court. The Pope is also a savvy organizer, against whom Trump is flailing.

When US President Richard Nixon was behaving as erratically as Trump does now, as the consumed his presidency, there were similar worries about whether the chief executive was mentally capable of carrying out his duties. The (which addresses presidential succession and the temporary transfer of power) was seriously considered. But in Trump 2.0, there is no adult backup in the White House or conscientious generals in the military — such as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, retired Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster or retired General Mark Milley — to guide us through such a constitutional crisis.

The clash with the pope matters politically because it exposes a fissure inside Trump’s own coalition. For years, many white evangelicals and conservative Catholics offered elaborate rationalizations for their support of Trump, casting him as a flawed but necessary instrument in a larger culture war. Many believed God had chosen him to lead America. They accepted his insults, his affairs and even his boasts about sexual assault as the price of power.

But many of those voters are recoiling from the imagery of Trump as a quasi-divine figure and from direct attacks on a pope who speaks in recognizably Christian terms about peace, human dignity and the perils of idolatry, with a Chicago accent. When rank-and-file evangelicals and Catholics criticize Trump openly on these grounds, they offer what political scientists call “,” the cues elites give their followers to take unpopular stances. These kinds of changes do not happen overnight.

In Hungary, Orbán retained impressive support on paper until quite late. But once a critical mass of respectable figures begins to defect, or simply to speak candidly about a leader’s failings, momentum can shift quickly. Voters suddenly feel they are not alone in their misgivings. What was once unthinkable, breaking with “their” leader, becomes, at first, possible, and then inevitable.

Historical parallels and future implications

History does not repeat itself, or even rhyme, as the old cliché goes, but it does offer patterns. The current moment has resonances with several earlier inflection points in liberal democracies. The Progressive Era marked a reaction against the corruption and inequality of the Gilded Age. Reformers did not overthrow capitalism, but they imposed constraints, antitrust laws, regulation and social insurance, which made it survivable for ordinary people.

The civil-rights movement equally represented a profound moral and political break with the “respectable” segregationist laws of the mid-20th century. For years, it was unclear whether the cause would prevail. Then, abruptly, the combination of movement pressure, political leadership and cultural change produced a new consensus and a new generation of leaders that would have been hard to imagine in the 1950s.

The Thatcher–Reagan era then saw a turn away from postwar social democracy and activist government toward market liberalism and limited government. For young conservatives at the time, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory, soon followed by US President Ronald Reagan’s in 1980 and the emergence of Pope John Paul II in the Vatican, created a sense that history’s momentum had shifted in their favor.

Orbán’s defeat, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s resistance in Ukraine and Magyar’s emergence in Hungary may play a similar galvanizing role for defenders of liberal democracy today. Two leaders from small countries with big megaphones in Central and Eastern Europe are showing that it is still possible to both resist Kremlin-linked illiberalism and speak convincingly to their citizens’ immediate material needs. Their example should put to rest the idea that only a nationalist strongman can channel popular frustration or that only the far left can credibly oppose inequality and corruption. A broadly liberal, anti-authoritarian politics can be tough on borders and security, serious about economic grievances and uncompromising on democratic norms.

If Orbán’s defeat offers lessons for the US, they are not about importing Magyar’s precise policy platform. They are about coalition, leadership and moral clarity. In Hungary, long-time liberals and leftists accepted a center-right, ex-Orbán figure as their standard-bearer because he was the candidate best positioned to win. In the US, that translates into a willingness among Democrats, moderates and anti-Trump conservatives to unite behind candidates, sometimes imperfect ones, who are serious about defending democratic norms, fighting corruption and improving living standards. Above all, it means jettisoning purity tests and focusing on the issues that matter to regular voters instead of to the loud fringe.

Voters respond not to ideological checklists, but to leaders who seem to understand their lives and can explain in plain language how things can get better. The most effective Democratic voices today are those who treat affordability, education, safety and the border as real problems, not as talking points to be brushed aside, while drawing a bright line against authoritarianism and bigotry.

The centrality of anti-corruption and the need for action

As the Hungarian opposition showed, opposing corruption and illiberalism is not ancillary to economic progress; it is central to it. In the US, that means making clear that Trump’s crony capitalism is not an unfortunate side effect, but a primary reason why ordinary people keep losing ground while insiders thrive. It is important to resist two temptations. The first is despair, the conviction that Trumpism is an unalterable feature of American life. The second is complacency, the belief that history has now turned, that liberal democracy is once again “inevitable” and that our only task is to ride the wave.

The truth lies between. Orbán’s fall, the limits of Trump’s war and the visible fraying of his personality cult all suggest that we may be entering a period of backlash against nationalist authoritarianism. New coalitions are forming, new leaders are emerging and even some former loyalists are beginning to peel away.

But history offers no guarantees. Inflection points only become turning points when people act, when citizens organize, when parties make courageous choices, when leaders articulate a compelling alternative and when institutions prove stronger than demagogues.

Hungary’s voters have reminded the world that even a deeply entrenched illiberal regime can be defeated democratically. The question now is whether Americans, facing a weaker but still dangerous form of Trumpism, can learn from their example and seize the moment before it slips away.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Viktor Orbán’s Defeat Matters appeared first on 51�Թ�.

That leaves a more fundamental question: What comes next, where do we go from here and what does “winning” actually mean for Washington in a war defined by endurance?

The tools left in the toolbox are predictable: more military force, tighter constraints, a blockade, diplomacy and negotiation. But escalation is not a strategy. It is a bet. And there is little evidence that a second round of pressure will succeed where the first did not.

This is not a tactical miscalculation. It is a structural one. Washington still acts as if pressure, applied long enough, will force a decisive break. Tehran has already demonstrated the opposite. To persist under the status quo is not resolve. It is denial.

The mismatch is fundamental. The US is fighting to win. Iran is fighting not to lose, and, if necessary, to survive. That asymmetry is not a detail of the conflict. It is the conflict.

Victory in this war will not be decided by larger bombs or louder threats. It will be decided by how each side defines the game it is playing. Washington seeks a swift resolution with defined outcomes: restored deterrence, a diminished nuclear program and altered Iranian behavior. Iran seeks endurance, measuring success not in victory but in survival: regime continuity, deterrence preserved and pressure absorbed.

One side is playing a finite game. The other is playing an infinite one. This is a contest between speed and endurance, and the difference between them defines the war.

The infinite game and endurance

As American author Simon Sinek argues in��, finite players pursue clear victories and defined endpoints, while infinite players aim to remain in the game, adapting and outlasting. This pattern is not new. In Vietnam, the US pursued a decisive victory while North Vietnam fought to endure. In Afghanistan, Soviet forces sought control, while the Mujahideen’s strategy centered on survival. In the longest US war in Afghanistan, a simple battlefield truth captured the asymmetry: “You have the watches, we have the time.” In each case, outcomes were shaped less by battlefield superiority than by endurance.

This is not only historical. It is structural. As a recent from the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies notes, escalation in the US–Iran conflict hinges less on battlefield dominance than on sustainability. Washington relies on high-intensity strikes and decapitation strategies, while Iran emphasizes decentralization and attrition designed to absorb pressure and extend the conflict over time. If one side is optimizing for rapid resolution and the other for survival, escalation does not resolve the conflict. It prolongs it.

Watch behavior, not rhetoric, and the contrast becomes sharper. Where Washington looks for breaking points, Tehran sees thresholds. Where the US applies pressure, Iran prepares to absorb it. Iranian leaders do not frame endurance as a burden; they frame it as a duty. What appears as strain from the outside functions as structure from within.

This is why the familiar playbook keeps failing. However many leaders Washington removes, Tehran replaces them, disperses authority and hardens its system against collapse. The US operates on a timetable, seeking a resolution. Iran stretches time, decentralizes power and extends the horizon of the fight. One side is trying to end the war. The other is built to ensure it does not end on those terms.

Strategic ambiguity and the need for a new approach

Part of the problem is strategic ambiguity. It remains unclear whether the US is attempting to counter a hostile regime, pursue regime change, or secure broader regional interests. That lack of clarity does not confuse Tehran; it empowers it. Ambiguity allows Iran to stretch the conflict across multiple fronts, adapt in real time and exploit the absence of a clearly defined end state.

A different approach begins with a simple recognition: Pressure alone will not produce surrender. If the objective is behavioral change, the strategy must shift from forcing collapse to shaping incentives over time. That requires pairing pressure with credible off-ramps, defining achievable objectives rather than maximal ones and aligning strategy with an adversary built for endurance. It also requires patience and coalition discipline as much as firepower.

The alternative is to continue mistaking persistence for progress. In a finite game, escalation can produce victory. In an infinite game, it can simply extend the conflict. And in wars like this, misunderstanding the nature of the game is often the fastest path to losing it.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post America Wants Victory, Iran Wants Time appeared first on 51�Թ�.

By contrast, I remembered once reading an with billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs, who described the world as atoms constantly shifting and moving. With intention and focus, she pointed out, you can move those atoms yourself, and so move the world. Baked into that worldview was a sense of interconnectedness, not to mention power.

Was such a perspective a luxury of the billionaire class? In fact, no. Lots of non-billionaires, including many young people, regard the world as so many moveable atoms and they’re acting accordingly. In the process, they’re piercing the isolation in their neighborhoods, schools and even workplaces, while occasionally quelling their own loneliness, too.

A party in the park

In December, when thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents descended on Minneapolis, Minnesota, neighbors started checking in on one another. A woman I’ll call by the pseudonym “M” learned something new about her South Minneapolis intersection: Dozens of Ecuadorian families live within just a few blocks of her. She also learned that many of those immigrants were not going to work because they were too afraid to make the commute. As a result, their families were struggling to pay bills.

That was when a few people got onto a chat thread and organized a rideshare system for the neighborhood. The thread quickly grew and now, M told me, there are more than 200 people on a chat thread covering just a handful of city blocks. Neighbors use this thread to connect for rides that get adults safely to work and kids safely to school.

“Just in our little neighborhood, we’re fielding 20 to 30 rides a day,” M told me. We spoke after the official end of the Trump administration’s Operation , its local deportation-machine operation. ICE is, however, in the area.

Their rideshare effort brought some unanticipated changes to the community. Neighbors who previously hadn’t known each other at all now spend time together daily, chatting and learning about each other’s lives.

“This whole experience has rewoven who we consider our community,” M told me. “When this is over, we’re going to throw a big party in the park.”

Meanwhile, as Operation Metro Surge raged in the Twin Cities, some 1,500 miles away in central Florida, high school students were walking out of class in protest — not once, but over and over again, despite threats from administrators that they would be suspended or expelled.

“We have immigrants at this school, we have people who are afraid at this school,” a senior at Viera High School in Viera West, Florida, a reporter in early February. She was disputing her school administration’s position that the protests aren’t about a “school-based” issue and shouldn’t take place during class time. That same day, north of Orlando, a student at DeLand High School to a local news station that she felt a sense of community as she walked out with her peers to stand up for their classmates.

And central Florida is just one of many places where protesting ICE has become a community undertaking. Zoe Weissman was only 12 years old when she survived the 2018 in Parkland, Florida. She’s now a sophomore at Brown University, where she lived through a second this past December. She told me that many young people at her school and elsewhere are involved in anti-ICE protests, in part because they feel a responsibility for keeping each other safe. This distinguishes her generation from older cohorts, who assumed that they could rely on the authorities to take care of that for them. Indeed, this winter, kids in cities ranging from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Indianapolis, Indiana, to Phoenix, Arizona, and Reno, Nevada.

But Weissman has personally observed people of all ages and from all walks of life starting to come together, both to take action against ICE and to support gun control (for which she’s a vocal advocate). “I’ve been really happy,” she said, “about how many different types of people and age groups I’ve seen protesting.”

The homeschooled Luhmann brothers from a suburb in Chicago, Illinois, are a notable example of such protesters. They began volunteering as community patrollers during Operation Midway Blitz in September 2025, as ICE agents arrested of people across Chicago.

“We’re two white minors who have always had the privilege to live in America unbothered,” Ben Luhmann, 17, told a reporter in a that earned over 250,000 likes on TikTok. “I’m going to use that privilege that shouldn’t be here, and do the right thing,” said his brother, Sam Luhmann, 16.

Their mother, Audrey, worries about her sons’ safety while they’re out observing ICE. And yet, motivated by her Christian faith to look out for neighbors, she was aware that Chicagoans of color worry every day about their kids’ safety. Given that reality, she asked me, “Why should my life be normal? Why should my family get to be safe and comfortable and go on about our days and just ignore what’s happening?”

As Sam put it, “We just need numbers of people out there keeping an eye on our neighbors.”

“A long-term strategy for survival against a fascist regime”

“One of the instincts in moments like this is to get as small as possible, so that you don’t get hit by whatever might be coming,” said Jonathan Feingold, a law professor who studies racism at Boston University School of Law. Recognizing that getting small and staying quiet is not what he considers “a long-term strategy for survival against a fascist regime,” Feingold started talking with fellow professors who, like him, had been troubled by mounting repression on their campuses even before Donald Trump entered the White House a second time.

In the spring of 2024, as Feingold recounted, universities around the country militarized against student groups that were protesting Israel’s of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. Universities explained this use of force as a necessity to protect the safety of Jewish students, though such students were well represented in the ranks of the protesters. Now, in US President Donald Trump’s second administration, the federal government is using allegations of antisemitism and claims of securing Jewish safety to justify a broad on free expression on college campuses. It is also using these claims to legitimize ICE abductions of noncitizens like Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who spoke up for the rights of Palestinians or criticized Israel.

“Jewish academics understood how Jewish identity was being wielded in order to come after our students, our colleagues, our institutions in deeply dangerous ways,” Feingold told me.

That’s why, a year ago, he cofounded a called Concerned Jewish Faculty and Staff. Through that organization, he’s collaborated with colleagues both on his campus and elsewhere who decided that they needed to bring their religious background into today’s struggle for civil rights.

Feingold said their most significant achievement to date has been creating a community. “The way that life is structured in the United States is often isolating,” he told me, noting that the life of an academic can be particularly lonely. Today, however, he feels a sense of camaraderie with colleagues who are planning to meet to observe Passover for a second year in a row. As he put it, “On a personal level, it has created a source for me to reintegrate into Jewish communal life that I’m excited to be a part of.”

And he isn’t the only one who now feels excited. More than 1,400 people registered for the third Conference of the Jewish Left in Boston this February. I was among them. It’s true that, once upon a time, I often resented having to spend time working with other people in a shared effort to keep this world of ours from going completely to shit, even as I also felt lonely and didn’t know what to do about that. At some point last year, however, I realized I was starting to find the company I needed in the very sorts of gatherings I used to resent attending.

Indeed, I found it strangely enlivening to sit in a giant room with people so deeply motivated, even driven, to protect all our fundamental rights — so driven, in fact, that they were willing to show up on a frigid Thursday to form a new alliance to do so.

Breaking bread and pozole

Far from the Conference of the Jewish Left, in a warmer climate, the nonprofit supports the economic resilience of the working-class residents of northeastern Los Angeles, with a particular focus on people of color, non-native English speakers and undocumented immigrants. While the organization primarily works to preserve affordability in neighborhood housing — which, in Los Angeles these days, requires incredible financial creativity — it has also recently started operating an outdoor market in nearby Cypress Park.

That market began as a comparte, or “share:” a place where members could gather and swap or share goods the way that some of them had done in their home countries. Then, residents suggested that they cook the foods of their homelands and bring them and homemade crafts to the market to sell to the larger community. Over the past year, that idea has become a biweekly night market called Somos NELA (an acronym for Northeast Los Angeles).

“It’s more than a market, more than an exchange of money,” says Helen Leung, the executive director of LA Más. She pointed out that the food sold there is rooted in history, made with love and is outrageously tasty. The pozole (a Mexican soup) is her personal favorite.

Leung said that some people who used to be very social at the market are now staying home, seeing the way ICE has violently arrested community members. At the same time, she added, “We have seen more customers come out, customers who are showing up more and are spending more. They want to support the community members who are trying to make ends meet.”

Frequenting the Somos NELA market is one of an array of acts that people across the city have taken up to support one another. Leung, for instance, has been inspired by the formation of new collectives dedicated to helping families who have been separated, as well as emotionally and financially devastated, by ICE abductions. One group of eight women even took the striking step of renting a community space to offer support and mutual aid to families who have been harmed.

It’s not an official nonprofit like LA Más. “These are,” she told me, “people who are figuring out how to change the system by themselves.”

The world sometimes shifts

Hundreds of people filed into a church on a winter evening in Amherst, Massachusetts, where I live, to learn how to be effective bystanders during an ICE raid. So many showed up that they spilled out the doors and some had to be turned away, told to attend the next training session. Once the program began, staff from an immigrant rights organization offered practical advice and personal stories.

Here is just one of those stories: Upon noticing a vehicle with tinted windows idling in their neighborhood, a white citizen approached it, said a warm hello to those inside, and engaged them in polite conversation. “Where are you from? What brings you to the area?” they asked. In some cases, that has proven to be an effective, nonconfrontational way to communicate to ICE agents that they are being watched and encourage them to leave without abducting any residents.

In other words, sometimes you can change the way events unfold. Sometimes, you can even change the news.

The bystander training provided more than just practical advice. As I looked around, I saw plenty of neighbors I knew, but many more I didn’t. I was feeling something I couldn’t quite identify.

Political scientists have long understood that loneliness is a precondition for authoritarianism, which depends on people being isolated and mistrusting one another. Historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote about that in her 1951 tome, The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she loneliness as tantamount to “the loss of one’s own self” because we are social creatures who confirm our identity in the company of others.

The news hasn’t improved since I started working on this piece. Still, while doing so, I’ve found myself in the company of others — and that’s reminded me of something. When you go out into the world, however scary it might seem, and act to make it better, the world does sometimes shift. The atoms really do move.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post After Loneliness: Left for Dead in Donald Trump’s America, Communal Life Stirs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The world was waiting anxiously for his bombshell after the inconclusive talks in Islamabad. He didn’t take long to on his Truth Social: “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.” So, the US will now completely blockade the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had only partially blockaded during the war.��

Another strategic misadventure

Trump is a very capricious old man who will shamelessly renege on any position he has previously taken. He is also quite capable of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and shooting himself in the foot by making rash decisions that undermine his own efforts. Therefore, we can’t really say what the outcome of this situation will be. We are already hearing that the blockade will be to Iranian ports. But, if he presses ahead with this military action and stays the course — inspired by the US’ past blockade successes in and — it is likely to prove to be another huge strategic miscalculation against Iran.

Iran, in my view, had initially attempted to take similar action, or at least wanted to. However, after the US and Western propaganda machine began to construct a narrative that Iran was disrupting global energy security and economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the country began to backtrack from its initial maximalist position. It the strait to ease international ire and pressure by projecting a sense of normalcy along the Hormuz route, but this did not extend to its enemies.

Trump and his many advisers, it seems, have still not learned that the Middle East is not South America, and it is definitely not the US’ backyard.

Imperialist grudge

Perfected in the colonies, the Western powers — claiming to be civilized rather than savage — established a legal framework for exploiting the subjugated peoples, their lands and their resources. These laws were made by the colonial masters, who invoked, interpreted and applied them selectively to further their own metropolitan interests. In the post-colonial world, this Western imperialist practice has been institutionalized within the geopolitical landscape and extended to the whole globe, creating the so-called rules-based order that has governed international relations ever since.

After taking of the Strait of Hormuz during the war, Iran intends to maintain this dominance and impose a levy on tankers transporting oil and gas for safe passage. Iran argues that this is necessary to rebuild its war-ravaged country and views it as reparations for an imposed war. So far, Iran has made no rules, and it is allegedly levying transit fees selectively, exempting certain countries while charging others.

The US resents Iran’s attempt to impose its will in the region, viewing it as a disruption to the established international order. Only the US has the right to impose its will on other nations at the expense of international order; Iran cannot equate itself with the US. Moreover, this approach is seen as crude and unsophisticated compared to the Western way of “legally” advancing vested interests, although by the selective and discriminatory interpretation and application of laws and rules. However, it actually mirrors Trump’s tactics, from whom the world is quickly learning about arbitrary actions and bullying.

A coalition of international disorder

Trump that the Hormuz blockade will involve unspecified “other countries,” but he has not revealed which countries these partners might be. The United Arab Emirates? Bahrain? Kuwait? Who else, if the US’s European allies continue to shy away from involving their countries in the Iran war?

Israel is unlikely to act beyond securing its own national interest, and its participation in any operation to blockade Hormuz is highly doubtful. Trump can, of course, bring on board leaders such as Argentinian President Javier Milei, El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, and now acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez from his own hemisphere. He can also buy the participation of a few militarily insignificant countries in Africa, Oceania and Polynesia. However, if Trump’s Hormuz blockade coalition materializes, it will likely not represent the will of the so-called “international community.” Instead, it will harm more countries than it benefits, if it benefits them at all.

This US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz will negatively impact its own strategic partners, as well as strategic rivals and neutral countries. Disrupting the global economy will ultimately hurt the entire world. The blame for disrupting global oil and gas supplies will now fall on the US rather than Iran. After all, the Hormuz route was fully open before the Iran war. 

Businesses and governments would rather pay to cross the Strait of Hormuz than have the US close the strait indefinitely. They are already facing a serious energy crisis, and a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz would significantly exacerbate the situation. Oil is deemed more important than equality, after all.

Given the importance of the Strait of Hormuz to global energy supply, the implications extend far beyond just the businesses and governments directly involved. As tensions rise and the US maneuvers strategically in the region, another major player finds itself in a precarious position: China.

The Chinese dilemma

China may find itself cornered after this US strategic move in the Strait of Hormuz. Its Venezuelan oil supply was choked by the US just a few months ago, and now the Hormuz blockade will stop Iranian oil, necessary for powering China’s vast economic empire.

But, instead of confronting the US, China may once again chicken out as it did in Venezuela. While it verbally challenges the US with enthusiasm and responds firmly to economic pressures, it does not engage the US militarily. It seems China is waiting for its military muscle to grow bigger than that of the US. As an emerging superpower, China understandably appears to lack the confidence to directly confront a century-old reigning superpower.

However, it already has considerable military muscle, and all it needs is to flex it in the US. The right moment to act will arise, potentially in the Strait of Hormuz — though this seems unlikely, given China’s immense strategic patience and a long-term perspective. The descendants of the famous Sun Tzu, who wrote , may strongly believe in his advice that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” and “the greatest victory is that which requires no battle.”

The Iranian response

Iran has been battered by the US and Israel’s bombing, while inflicting far less damage to its enemies. Despite this, it has won the battle of perception by staying in the fight and successfully positioning itself to negotiate directly with the US in a third country for a long-term peace agreement. Iran’s morale is high, and its image has improved significantly, surpassing that of Israel after this war. Iran has presented itself as a tough and steely nation. Israel earned a name for itself by carrying out assassinations and defeating weak Arab nations, but Iran has successfully fought both the reigning superpower and Israel. Iran has displayed its unparalleled sacrificial courage, insurmountable will to resist and inexhaustible military arsenal in an all-out war.

Iran has that it is quite capable of taking on the US militarily, and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has indicated as much after Trump’s Hormuz blockade announcement. Iran has other options, too. To make things worse for the world, besides the Strait of Hormuz, Iran can also block the Red Sea route involving the Bab Al-Mandab Strait with the help and support of its ally Ansar Allah (the Houthis). But what if Iran prefers to sit tight and see the world react? Then, in my view, this new US military venture is unlikely to last long because the entire world, already fed up and frustrated by Trump’s unending tantrums, would likely unite against the US and force it to withdraw.

On the other hand, if Trump is employing his trademark bullying tactic to extract maximum concessions from the other party and get the most favorable deal for himself, this approach is unlikely to work against Iran, as previous military threats and actions didn’t. This behavior only shows that he and his coterie of yes-men don’t understand the character of the Iranian nation. He seems to be a prisoner of his past pressure-tactic successes. A better strategy would be to reach out in good faith and with sincere intentions, treating Iranians as equals rather than trying to intimidate them into submission for a durable peace agreement. The US has recently bombed Iran twice in the middle of negotiations, and there is absolutely no reason why they should trust the US again.

Washington’s strategic incompetence

The Iran War and the ongoing crisis in the Middle East  — largely created by the US — highlight a severe strategic incompetence in Washington that is unprecedented in history. Ironically, this is the superpower with decades of accumulated collective experience in controlling the world and the best pool of geopolitical strategists, yet it finds itself in a dire situation. But what can these experts do if they are booted out, intimidated, forced to quit or altogether ignored by their government? This contradiction lies at the heart of the declining US empire, a decline that has been largely self-inflicted.

The disruption of an established order is the surest sign of the decline of a geopolitical power that had built and maintained that order. A new world order is born from the ruins of the old. The world dominated by the West is gradually realizing — and reluctantly accepting — that the locus of geopolitical power is shifting eastward, with China emerging as the new global superpower. Historically, incompetent rulers accelerate the decline of a fading empire and hasten the transition to a new power structure.

The stories we read in history about incompetent rulers at the end of a weakened empire differ from those of today in one fundamental sense: In the past, ordinary people had no say in choosing their rulers. In contrast, the US has a system in which citizens elect their leaders. Therefore, it is the citizens of the US — shaped by their educational and cultural systems — who must take responsibility if their country fades into mediocrity in the coming decades.

But who knows? Maybe I will be proven wrong, and this will not be the end of the US’ hegemony over the world. Maybe the people who voted for Trump really did want to “Make America Great Again.” The only problem with their desire is how do you make an already great thing great again? You can only make it greater, and that doesn’t seem to be happening in any sense right now, at least.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Washington DC: The World Capital of Strategic Incompetence appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For the historical record, Kenneth Woodward, the author of the 1990 book, , notes that over the span of time of the office of Promotor Fidei’s existence — from 1587 to 1983 — thousands of dossiers entered the preliminary stages but were “held up” indefinitely. Many are still gathering dust in the Vatican’s archives. Exactly 302 saints were canonized during that period.

I bring this up in the context of US President Donald Trump’s attempt this past week not just to canonize himself, but to “Christify” his public image on his social media platform, Truth Social. The world discovered the full extent of the president’s inflated ego when he posted an AI-generated picture of himself dressed in the flowing robes of Jesus in the act of healing the sick thanks to the power of heavenly light radiating from his caring hands.

Numerous American Christians, shocked by the commander-in-chief’s pretension, denounced the image as blasphemous. Most secular commentators recognized it as a perfect representation of Trump’s patented hubris and narcissism. 

Trump himself appears to be the only commentator cited in the media not to have noticed that the figure was meant to be Jesus. When questioned by the press, Trump insisted that it had nothing to do with Christian iconography. In his eyes, it simply represented the president in the role of a doctor working specifically under the auspices of the Red Cross. The actual Biblical reference this image brings to mind for anyone familiar with the Gospels is Jesus’s raising of Lazarus from the dead. Trump apparently believes in his supernatural therapeutic skills that have enabled him to Make America Whole Again. No need to confuse him with the Messiah. He’s SuperDoc.

You must believe… or laugh (whichever is most appropriate)

Trump may sincerely believe that. Nobody else was fooled. The New York Times: “Vice President JD Vance said on Fox News that a picture Mr. Trump posted on social media earlier in the day that depicted him as a Jesus-like figure was meant as a joke.” Divine humor, not blasphemy! If Trump is the only person in the United States who failed to see the reference to Jesus, then Vance may be the only person to have found the image amusing. Or did he mean “laughable,” like so much of Trump’s antics? Perhaps Vance also sees Trump’s decision to follow the lead of a wanted genocidal war criminal and launch an undeclared, unauthorized and unwinnable war that started with a sensational decapitation strike as just another of his president-entertainer’s amusing antics. Vance wants us to believe that was just Trump being Trump.

Alas, another of Trump’s Christian critics, this one an American who managed last year to become a vicar in Rome, focused his ire not on the image but on the war itself. He declared it urbi et orbi. This displeased Trump — who is not a Roman Catholic nor much of a churchgoer — to no end. Pope , like his predecessor Francis, is not fond of US presidents “who have the power to unleash wars” and exercise it willfully. Pope Francis dared to : “I believe it is time to rethink the concept of a ‘just war.’” Trump and even Vance seem ready to respond: “What’s the problem here? This is just war!” In other words, for a US administration, whoever the president may be, it’s just another day at the office.

Vance, a practicing conservative Catholic, made his position clear when he , “It would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality.” One may wonder where the recently converted vice president did his catechism. Does he believe that making the decision to take other people’s lives and promising to destroy entire civilizations are not “matters of morality?” The same NYT that quotes Vance informs us that Secretary of State “Marco Rubio, another prominent Catholic in the administration, remained silent as Mr. Trump attacked Leo.”

In case Vance and Rubio need reminding, here are the very words of the :

“Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: – by participating directly and voluntarily in them; – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; – by protecting evil-doers.”

These two high officials may argue that the fact that such decisions take place within a constitutionally defined national hierarchy removes the “obligation to do so.” No need to run to the confessional. Rubio’s silence would thus be deemed more justifiable than Vance’s daring reprimand of the pope for overstepping his authority. The irony is that most observers believe Rubio, a known interventionist hawk, is the one most likely to have endorsed the launch of the war. In a much noticed NYT on how the administration made the decision to go to war, White House reporters Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman noted that Vance was “the figure inside the White House most opposed to a full-scale war.”

Whose side are you on?

Poised between loyalty to his church’s moral teaching and the special moral code of the president he was serving, Rubio was, according to the article, “ambivalent.” Earlier this year, an with the title, “Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality,’” made it clear that the commander-in-chief had no time for traditional Christian morality. The logic and subtle reasoning contained in his “own morality” can presumably be found in Trump’s best-selling book, The Art of the Deal. Few theologians have ever deigned to cite Trump’s celebrated philosophical tome as a source. Others, however, have attempted to deal with that business-oriented topic. It’s a debate that Trump apparently has no interest in engaging in. That makes sense. If it’s already there, implanted in your brain, accompanied by the knowledge that the bright light of moral intelligence emanates spontaneously from your two hands (as depicted in the image of Trump the healer), why seek to articulate your ethics?

As for Rubio, his silence was short-lived. He eventually did speak up. Swan and Haberman explain that even though he preferred “to continue a campaign of maximum pressure rather than start a full-scale war,” he “did not try to talk Mr. Trump out of the operation, and after the war began he delivered the administration’s justification with full conviction.”

Then there’s the case of another faithful Catholic close to Trump, also mentioned in the NYT reporting Trump’s row with the pope. “Steve Bannon, a longtime Trump ally, argued that conservative Catholics were more likely to side with the administration than with the pontiff on issues such as immigration enforcement. Deeming Trump’s verbal assault “smart politically,” he concluded: “It is good in that it gets more of his conservative Catholic base energized.”

It may be time we consider the specific ethical question of what it means to get a political base energized. This could be done in the context of debating the morality of what I once described as Bannon’s mission that consisted of creating a “gladiator school for culture warriors.” The school would aim, as I described it in 2019, at “converting the ‘Judeo-Christian’ world of his imagination (basically, white civilization) to the global cause of anti-Islamic populism” while acting “as the anointed defender of the interests of ordinary, working-class people against a predatory elite.”

So what conclusions should we draw from all of this? Mr. Trump demonstrates that the very idea of a political leader acting as an incarnation of Jesus, or even as a common saint, can only be seen as a joke. Perhaps that’s the hidden meaning behind Vance’s dismissal of the AI generated image of Trump as Jesus.

As for these three prominent Trump loyalists known to be practicing Roman Catholics — Vance, Rubio and Bannon — each of them wields the status, thanks to their prominence in the media, that could earn them the privilege of a private audience with the pope. Leo has made it clear he has no interest in Trump, for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that he isn’t a Catholic. But these three gentlemen, who have such clear ideas of how morality and ethics in our evolved democratic societies, might find it interesting to use such an occasion to clarify their understanding of the relationship between Christian ethics and the world of politics and geopolitics.

Or they might not.

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition 51�Թ� began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Pope, the President and His Three Apostles appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A working policy that lost support

Jenkins begins by outlining an apparent contradiction. Trump did what he said he would do. Border crossings dropped dramatically, with apprehensions falling by roughly 90% in early 2025 — reaching levels not seen in decades. Yet approval for his immigration policy fell just as sharply. Support declined from 59% at the start of Trump’s term to 39% within ten months.

Observers cannot explain this reversal simply by partisan opposition or isolated incidents. Even before the highly publicized shootings of protesters in Minneapolis, Minnesota, public opinion had already shifted. Democratic messaging alone did not drive the change, either. Instead, the explanation lies deeper, in how Americans think about immigration itself.

As Jenkins puts it, Trump’s policy became “deeply, deeply, deeply unpopular” despite its consistency and measurable results. The issue is not whether the policy worked at the border, but how people experienced it beyond it.

Two issues, not one

Crucially, Americans do not see immigration as a single issue. They distinguish sharply between border security and internal enforcement.

At the border, migrants appear as a large, anonymous group — what Jenkins describes as an “undifferentiated mass.” This framing raises citizen concerns about national security, economic competition and the rule of law. Many Americans, including legal immigrants, support stricter controls in this context.

Inside the country, however, the picture changes. Migrants are no longer distant figures but neighbors, coworkers and parents of children in local schools. They are individuals with names, families and stories. When enforcement targets these individuals, public sentiment shifts from anxiety to empathy.

This shift became visible when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents deployed in cities across the United States. Arrests carried out in public spaces, often by masked officers, triggered widespread backlash. Jenkins says many Americans find these scenes “shocking and appalling,” not because the law has changed, but because its application now feels personal.

The human mind and the “group–individual” divide

To explain this pattern, Jenkins turns to history and social science. He highlights a 1930s study by sociologist Richard LaPiere, conducted during a period of overt anti-Chinese discrimination in the US. Although 90% of surveyed businesses claimed they would refuse service to Chinese customers, LaPiere and his Chinese companions were denied service only once in hundreds of real-world interactions.

The gap between stated attitudes and actual behavior reveals a persistent feature of human psychology. People often express hostility toward abstract groups while responding more generously to individual members of those groups they encounter directly.

Economist Thomas Schelling famously noted that “the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.” Psychologist Paul Slovic similarly showed that people are more likely to take moral action when they focus on a single identifiable individual rather than a large, faceless population.

Jenkins frames this as a tension between general rules and particular cases. Laws operate at the level of categories, but human judgment often operates at the level of stories. When the two collide, sympathy for individuals can override support for broad policies.

Political fallout and strategic uncertainty

This paradox has brought significant political consequences. Public backlash contributed to the resignation of the Secretary of Homeland Security and forced a partial retreat from aggressive enforcement tactics in some cities. Yet the broader policy direction remains uncertain.

Polling reflects this ambiguity. While a majority of Americans believe the immigration crackdown has gone too far, they do not see a clear alternative. Democrats have not consolidated support for their position, and Republicans retain a slight advantage on the issue. A large share of the public remains undecided, suggesting that opinions are still fluid.

Jenkins argues that both parties have struggled to grasp the full implications of the paradox. Republican policies resonate at the border but falter in communities. Democratic responses, such as calls to abolish ICE, risk alienating voters who still prioritize enforcement in principle.

“The jury is still out,” Jenkins concludes. Public opinion depends heavily on how immigration is framed. When presented as a matter of national security, enforcement gains support. When presented through individual cases, it provokes resistance.

The immigration paradox reflects a deeper feature of political life: the tension between abstraction and experience. Americans can simultaneously demand order at the border and compassion at home because these impulses arise from different ways of seeing the same issue. The future of immigration policy will depend less on ideology than on which of these perspectives dominates public perception at any given moment.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Podcasts: The Big Paradox — Why Immigration Divides America Like Nothing Else appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Bombshell articles in , and at pulled the covers off Epstein’s noxious racism. Reporters culling the most recently released Epstein files discovered numerous pieces of evidence in emails and other documents suggesting that he advocated the faux “science” of racial eugenics and held racist views not distinct from those Trump promoted for decades. Epstein built (or at least tried to build) ties and developed friendships with some of the most notorious eugenicists and white nationalists around the globe, including Nobel Prize laureate and geneticist James Watson, political scientist Charles Murray and artificial intelligence researcher Joscha Bach, among many others. He also circulated posts from white supremacist websites that promoted bogus, supposedly genetically-based intellectual differences between the races.

is the “race science” that was developed in the latter part of the 19th century to justify European slavery and colonialism. Proponents contended that humans were biologically and genetically separated into distinctly unequal “races.” Everything from intelligence, criminality and attractiveness to morality was, so the claim went, genetically determined. It should surprise no one that, in such an imagined hierarchy, whites were at the top and, in most configurations, people of African descent at the very bottom, with Asians and indigenous people somewhere in between. Those four (or five or six) categories were considered immutable. And it mattered remarkably little that, for a long time, social and natural scientists had overwhelmingly argued with irrefutable evidence that racial categories were social constructs invented by humans and distinctly malleable over time as political and social life changed.

The real-world impact of racial eugenics theory long shaped public policy, political status and life opportunities. In the United States, a belief in the genetic inferiority of blacks helped foster slavery and then Jim Crow segregation, and led to tens of thousands of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and individuals with physical and mental disabilities, as well as prisoners being sterilized. By 1913, 24 states and Washington, DC, had passed laws allowing . President Theodore Roosevelt was a in such eugenics and supported sterilization in order to prevent what he termed “racial suicide,” a perspective that echoes today’s “Great Replacement .”

In Nazi Germany, eugenics led not only to the sterilization of Jews, blacks and the disabled, but to the state-organized mass murder of of people. It was a core tenet of Nazism that all non-Aryans were genetically inferior and a threat to the white race. The Nazis railed against Jews “ the blood” of white Germans, a term Trump used in describing non-white immigrants from the Global South.

Despite this history, Epstein came to deeply believe in eugenics and genetic determination, as has Trump. To that end, Epstein sought to connect with the notable race theorists of his day.

Epstein on race

Perhaps the most notorious in the modern era advocating a racial basis for intelligence and a social hierarchy that places whites on top and blacks at the bottom was The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Charles Murray and the late Richard J. Herrnstein, published in 1994. Since then, in multiple and articles, the research behind that book has been thoroughly debunked and overwhelmingly rejected by scholars in the social and natural sciences.

Yet, at the time, many Republicans and some Democrats embraced its racist argument in order to contend that the US government should cut back on its welfare programs. Murray aligned with Republicans in giving to Congress in the 1990s that blamed the morality of poor people for their poverty (as a debate unfolded around the future of programs).

According to the Epstein files, Epstein himself repeatedly tried to correspond with Murray. However, Murray claims he never received (or remembers receiving) any emails from Epstein and did not correspond with him. Regardless, it’s pretty clear that Epstein was writing because of Murray’s notoriety for his work on race and genetics. This was in 2018, more than a decade after The Bell Curve had been published and Murray had become famous for it.

Epstein, according to , was reportedly provided with Murray’s email address by Watson. He and Francis Crick had, of course, discovered the of DNA in 1953. Nine years later, they and Maurice Wilkins won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Around 2000, Watson’s regressive views on race began to surface. That year, he told an audience that “dark-skinned people have stronger libidos,” leaning into a centuries-old racial stereotype. In 2007, according to a former in the London Sunday Times, he said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

Epstein also had ties to a number of other researchers and scientists, including Bach, who received from the convicted felon and was hired at MIT’s Media Lab with his help. In one exchange in 2016, Bach wrote to Epstein, stating that African American children “have slower cognitive development” and “are slower at learning high-level concepts.” With the release of those files in January, Bach tried to explain why his statements were not racist and that “scientific discussion about the heritability of traits… [is] very complicated and not my area of research.”

Epstein also spent time on hardcore white supremacist websites. For example, he sent a link to a racist article entitled, “Race and IQ: Genes That Predict Racial Intelligence Differences,” to left-wing scholar Noam Chomsky. The article came from the outright white supremacist website The Right Stuff, according to The Atlantic. Chomsky, over email, expressed his disagreement with Epstein about race science.

According to , the two had a “close friendship.” There is no evidence that Chomsky participated in or witnessed any of Epstein’s sex crimes, and Valeria Chomsky, his wife, admitted that the couple made “serious errors in judgment” in maintaining ties to him. While the vigorously denounced Epstein’s offenses, there was no mention of his racist behavior, which few focused on in all those years.

The “great gene” president

Epstein’s eugenicist views are in line with the longstanding genetic determinism of Trump. I believe there is no bigger racist science believer than the current occupant in the White House.

For decades, he has bragged about his genetic superiority relative to the rest of humanity. The examples are endless:

• “, I think I was born with the drive for success because I have a certain gene. I’m a gene believer.”
• “You have to have the rights — the right genes.”
• “Do we believe the gene thing? I mean I do.”
• “I have great genes and all that stuff which I’m a believer in.”

And, of course, in opposition to Trump’s “right genes” are those with the wrong kind. From the president’s perspective, that would include migrants. In an discussing them, he opined, “You know, now a murderer — I believe this — it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”

Over the years, Trump has also shown little empathy for individuals with disabilities. He famously reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis that affects his joints, by twisting and contorting his body to make fun of him. He also did not want to be around physically disabled soldiers, according to his former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Trump often speaks with a strategic ambiguity so that he can later deny that he was disparaging migrants, people with disabilities or wounded soldiers. He fools no one.

It’s notable that one of Trump’s go-to insults is to call someone “.” In nearly every case, his target turns out to be a black person and disproportionately female ones. Examples include his opponent in the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris, and Congressional Representatives Maxine Waters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Al Green, Jasmine Crockett, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, radio host Charlamagne tha God and New York Attorney General Letitia James, among others.

Trump has been careful, at least publicly, to not explicitly say that black people are genetically predisposed to criminality. However, he has endlessly attacked black-led cities as crime zones, without ever labeling white-dominated cities or states the same way. He also posted supposedly demonstrating that African Americans commit crimes at a higher rate, with the clear implication that race is the driving factor.

Trump’s racism and US immigration

His eugenicist views are most manifest in his immigration policies and dreams. Theoretically, he is not able to run for president again, so he has little incentive to hide his true feelings. After spending years denying it, in December 2025, he proudly admitted that he had referred to nations in Latin America and Africa as “shithole” countries back in 2018. In a speech he delivered in Pennsylvania on December 9, 2025, he plugged for white — and implicitly white only — immigration to this country:

“Remember I said that to the senators that came in, the Democrats. They wanted to be bipartisan. So they came in. And they said, ‘This is totally off the record, nothing mentioned here, we want to be honest,’ because our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting. And I say: Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right? Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden – just a few – let us have a few. From Denmark – do you mind sending us a few people?”

In January 2026, Trump essentially halted almost all refugees coming from Africa. The administration stated that it would admit only total refugees from around the world in 2026, the lowest number on record. This meant near-zero for black Africans.��

At the same time, the Trump administration sought to process white South African refugee applications per month starting in January. The president also Executive Order 4204 in February 2025, falsely claiming that whites in South Africa were being mistreated and deserved an expedited process to become permanent US residents. The new target, contained in a previously unreported document from the State Department dated January 27 and by Reuters, signals a push to ramp up admissions from South Africa, while refugee applications from other areas have been severely curtailed.

Racial genetics is Trump’s defining worldview (full stop!). That he thinks of Barack and Michelle Obama as less than human should surprise no one who has followed his statements on race over the decades. A compilation of Trump’s views on the former president over all these years boils down to this: Barack Obama is an radical ( of ISIS) and socialist who was not born in the US, but engineered a conspiracy involving thousands to pretend that he was (or maybe he ), then assumed the presidency. He should now be arrested for and on the Trump White House. And no matter what your eyes and brain tell you, he is not as and healthy as I am.

A black woman’s contribution to medicine

Beginning in the early 1950s, real science, as opposed to the fraudulent versions embraced by Epstein and Trump, was able to make life-changing breakthroughs as a result of access to what became known as . Those cells would be responsible for understanding and creating vaccines and treatment for polio, cancer, HPV, Parkinson’s, measles, HIV, mumps, Zika and Covid-19, among other diseases. They would lead to the creation of the field of virology. It is highly unlikely (and would likely have been mortifying) that either Epstein knew, or Trump knows, that those cells came from an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks. They were cynically named HeLa, combining the first two letters of her first and last names.

In 1951, when she was admitted to Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore, deathly ill with cervical cancer, doctors took cell tissues from her body without her or her family’s permission. That unethical theft — legal at the time — would lead to countless billions in profits for pharmaceutical corporations. After the publication of Rebecca Skloot’s , The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, in 2010, her story became well known and family-initiated lawsuits proceeded. In 2023, the family reached a with Thermo Fisher Scientific, and, in February 2026, settlement with Novartis, a Switzerland-based pharmaceutical mammoth.

I argue that Trump is easily the most intellectually incurious, ill-informed, unread, vacuous and petulant president in US history. He will never acknowledge or even understand that his rise to power was not due to his having any extraordinary talents, skills or genetically-based genius. It was, without qualification, the result of a lifetime of perpetual race, gender and class privilege.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Donald Trump’s Racism Mirrors Jeffrey Epstein’s appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The complications of reality

There are, however, four very basic counterarguments to this myth.

Firstly and historically, winning is usually based on power, not on goodness. There are many examples of bad winning over good, of the powerful winning over the weak. For centuries, slave traders won over the slaves, the imperialists won over the colonized and men won over women. 

Secondly, it is largely the victors who get to tell their stories to the world, and they naturally position themselves as the good ones. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is famous for transparently saying, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” And he did, because he was an excellent writer and a powerful man. Other powerful men of yore asked others to write for them. Nowadays, they can simply the media. The result is that we see and hear the spin that the powerful want us to.

Third, not everyone has bought into these fairy tales, even to begin with. While the winners saw themselves as good and righteous, others did not. Ask the indigenous peoples of North America and Australia, who had their lands taken away from them, and now largely live in isolated reserves with little basic resources. Ask the millions of Africans who were brought to the New World as slaves, and never saw their families or homes again. Ask the multitudes in the Global South who were subjugated by colonialism for generations and did not see any justice in their lifetimes. Ask the countless women who have been killed due to domestic abuse and can no longer tell their stories. They certainly did not see the winners as good.

Fourth, to complicate things further, good and bad are not static states; sometimes good guys turn into bad guys. The individual does not necessarily change, but the story about them changes — either because of new evidence, hearing the voice of previously marginalized groups, shifting moral standards or the long-term consequences of their actions becoming clearer. 

Falls from grace

History abounds with such individuals whose images have changed from good to bad. In some instances, the fall happened in their own lifetimes — as with Roman Emperor Julius Caesar and British Major General Benedict Arnold. In others, it took longer. While some still view Italian explorer Christopher Columbus as a brave discoverer, many now see him as a symbol of colonialism. While English politicians still love to compare themselves to Churchill, historians now look at him with more doubtful eyes, knowing his views on the colonized and his role in the , which killed some three million people.��

The present also offers many examples. Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi fell sharply from grace after her refusal to stand up for the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Football star O.J. Simpson’s murder of his wife and her lover ruined his reputation and sent him to jail. Blade-runner and Paralympic poster-boy Oscar Pistorius was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. Entertainer Bill Cosby, darling of the media and Dr. Huxtable to all, was disgraced and jailed after multiple sexual assault incidents surfaced. Successful financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was courted, supported and forgiven by the global elite until his papers were released.

Even Hollywood can sometimes reflect reality — the most famous example being the fall of ’s Michael Corleone, who journeyed from a young war hero surrounded by a large, loving family to a murderous, aging mafioso who died all alone.��

Falls from grace not only apply to individuals; they can also apply to countries and peoples.

Who’s good in this war?

This current war between Israel and America on one side and Iran on the other gives us a chance to apply these counterarguments.

Firstly, since the powerful win, we like to believe that power confers goodness. But are America and Israel good because they are more powerful militarily and economically? Are America and Israel good because they have nuclear arms? Because Jews were persecuted during World War II (WWII), is Israel now so good that it is exempt from international rules of conduct? Are America and Israel good because they are largely white and Judeo-Christian countries? Is Iran bad because it is a Muslim country, it has been consistently the long-persecuted Palestinians and yet have nuclear arms? It may be important to ask these questions.

Secondly, the stories we hear about the war largely favor the West. Often, the powerful place the mantle of good on their own shoulders — even if they are the ones who started the war or effected the regime change. They claim to have done so only out of humanitarian concern — only to free a people from tyranny, to restore their human rights and to bring them democracy. Or to protect the rest of the world from imminent danger. They also claim that is on their side — and God would only be on the side of the good.

As Ambassador Chas says, “the physical war is accompanied by an information war”. Who is good and who is the winner is strongly influenced by propaganda. Currently, from much of the mainstream Western press, we get pro-American and pro-Israeli, but anti-Iranian, perspectives. And therefore, our evaluation of good, bad and the situation at large is skewed. To get more balanced and complete news and analysis, we also need to hear independent media voices (e.g., Glenn Diesen, Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris, Yanis Varoufakis, Douglas Macgregor).

Third, many are no longer buying into the American-Israeli propaganda — not even their erstwhile . Americans and Israelis think they are undoubtedly on the side of good. They see Iran as not just bad but downright evil: ‘the biggest danger to world peace’. However, much of the world, and especially the Global South, does not agree with this presentation. They see Iran as a revered ancient civilization that has been manipulated, robbed, interfered with and for decades by the West — and a country that is now retaliating in response to repeated attacks from Israel and the US.

And fourth, the characters are changing. America and Israel have fallen from grace. They no longer hold the moral high ground. Since WWII, the world has seen Israel occupy Palestine, displace Palestinians, perpetrate a in Gaza and currently persecute Muslims in the West Bank. It has noted Israel’s numerous , repeated in the region, of civilian targets, as well as its ambitions far beyond its borders. The world has seen America give Israel arms, diplomatic coverage and unconditional support in all its ventures. It has learned how America has instigated wars and effected in multiple countries for its own advantage. As Italian journalist Michele Serra quipped, “Americans are very lucky — because wherever they go to bring freedom, they find oil.”

The comforts of fantasy

Of course, most of us know that there are, by and large, no innately good or bad people; only our circumstances (i.e., skin color, religion, nationality, economic condition, suffering, etc.) and our actions make us so.  

But despite knowing the complicated reality, we prefer to revert to our simplistic fantasy. We like fairy tales and Hollywood movies because there is no ambiguity. We like to know who to love and who to hate. And if someone else can tell us that, that’s even better. We want a grand yet quick battle where we are not injured, a definitive victory and flawless heroes to celebrate at the end.

Maybe it soothes our souls, eases our conscience, and appeals to our innate intellectual laziness to assume that good always triumphs and therefore, those who triumph are good. That way, we don’t have to spend time and effort rummaging through the dirty gray areas, trying to judge individual actions, dealing with the messiness of the ambiguous and feeling unsettled by it all. We don’t have to question the “winner,” the process or the results because good always wins. Right?

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Good, the Bad and the Ambiguous: Challenging Simplistic Narratives of Power and Morality in Conflict appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The political nature of counting casualties

My 2018 , “Grieving, Valuing, and Viewing Differently: The Global War on Terror’s American Toll,” demonstrates how the US has historically managed the visibility of its war dead. Focusing on Vietnam to Global War on Terror (GWoT) era policy and practice including the “,” my research illustrates how consecutive US Administrations (on of the aisle) worked to move dead and suffering soldiers out of public view, not because they were unimportant, but because they were politically sensitive due to threatening a biopolitical facade of care and protection and ultimately threatening the ability for America to wage long-term wars.

This is the key insight: Visibility is not accidental — it is governed.

The Novara article suggests that casualty figures are being obscured or selectively reported, but my work helps us understand why. As I have argued, soldiers are simultaneously treated as a “” within an intensely militarized political economy and yet rendered invisible in death, their suffering managed through practices that limit public exposure and political accountability.

What we are seeing today is not just the undercounting of casualties — it is the continuation of what I have identified as a broader system of statecraft that regulates how death is seen, counted and felt.

Grievability and the differentiation of lives

My research also highlights that the politics of counting is inseparable from the politics of valuing. The issue is not only whether deaths are recorded, but how they are framed, delayed, categorized or excluded altogether. Moreover, as author Thomas Gregory has recently pointed out in the case of produced by American wars, counting becomes a technique of governance: It shapes public perception, moderates dissent and ultimately enables the continuation of war.

This is where my continued emphasis on contested becomes especially relevant. If some lives (and deaths) are made and more readily recognized as more grievable than others, then the act of counting is never neutral. It is a process of differentiation. Some deaths are made visible, others are obscured; some are mourned publicly, others are quietly absorbed into statistical ambiguity.

The politics behind transparency and alternative narratives

The Novara report sits squarely within this logic. The discrepancy between official and estimated casualty figures is not simply a data problem — it is a political one. It reflects ongoing struggles over who has the authority to count, whose counts are recognized and what those numbers are allowed to mean.

Importantly, attention to grievability also reminds us that these processes are never uncontested. Even in the face of state efforts to suppress visibility, alternative forms of counting, witnessing and memorialization emerge. Families, journalists and researchers continue to demand recognition — to insist that these lives are not reducible to managed figures or bureaucratic categories.

That tension is still present now, as the search for the missing airman continues.

So rather than asking whether the US military is hiding casualties, a more productive question is this: What kinds of deaths are allowed to appear, and under what conditions?

Until we confront that question, debates about transparency will remain superficial. Because the issue is not simply that the numbers are wrong. It is that numbers themselves are part of the machinery through which war is made acceptable.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Contested Body Counts, Visibility and the (Necro)Politics of America’s War in Iran appeared first on 51�Թ�.

That sentence should not be easy to read. But it needs to be said plainly, because the language coming from Washington in this war is the language of operational success, of degraded capabilities, of targets serviced: a language that hides human tragedy in the fog of strategic data. These schoolgirls were not collateral damage. They were innocent civilian lives — lives that the laws of war are supposed to protect.

Similarly, when Pete Hegseth announced the sinking of the IRIS Dena, he did so in the register of a man describing a kill from behind a screen. Hegseth is not the Secretary of Defense. He calls himself (and has spent millions of dollars in rebranding his office as) the Secretary of War. It is not a slip or a provocation. It is a declaration of intent.

The he was celebrating was a frigate returning home from India’s Milan 2026 naval exercise. It was in international waters when the USS Charlotte fired, without warning. Hegseth called it “.” sailors were killed. None of them were combatants in any meaningful operational sense when the torpedo struck.

Foundations and evolution of just war theory

There is a framework for thinking about how wars should be started and how they should be fought. It is older than the US. It begins, in its systematic form, with Christian theologian and philosopher of Hippo, writing in the early fifth century as the Western Roman Empire collapsed around him — not metaphorically, but literally. Responding to Christians asking whether a follower of Christ could take up arms, he did not grant blank permission; he set constraints. War might be permissible, but only under specific conditions, for specific purposes, conducted in specific ways. Fellow Christian theologian and philosopher codified what Augustine had begun: just cause, legitimate authority, right intention. that followed developed these into two operative branches: jus ad bellum, the conditions under which going to war is justified, and jus in bello, the rules governing how war must be conducted.

After 1945, this tradition was largely secularized. The established individual criminal liability for initiating aggressive war. The translated the core principles of discrimination and proportionality into binding international law. is explicit: Deliberate attacks on civilians are prohibited. Attacks causing civilian casualties disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage are prohibited. These are not aspirational norms; they are legal obligations that the US signed.

The current campaign fails both tests.

Failures of jus ad bellum and jus in bello

On jus ad bellum, the intelligence case for war was never made. Multiple assessments — including from within the American intelligence community — found of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program or an imminent restart. The foreign minister of Oman, who was overseeing negotiations between Washington and Tehran, that talks were close to a breakthrough when the bombing began. Hours before the first strikes, he appeared on American television to say a deal was within reach, a pledge Iran had made that US President Donald Trump would later claim it had refused. British government separately indicated that diplomatic channels had not been exhausted and that the strikes had no lawful basis. Forces were being positioned in the region while talks were still formally ongoing: preparation wearing the mask of diplomacy. That is not a last resort. Even the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whatever one thinks of it, involved months of attempted coalition-building and a formal UN Security Council process. That acknowledgment, however cynical, that unilateral action requires justification has now been abandoned entirely.

On jus in bello: Minab and the IRIS Dena are the answer.

In the immediate aftermath of Minab, the administration moved quickly to obscure responsibility. Trump initially Iran had bombed its own school, a claim requiring, implausibly, that Iran possesses Tomahawk cruise missiles, weapons only the US manufactures and deploys. When pressed, he claimed ignorance. Hegseth said the Pentagon was investigating. Within days, a Department of Defense found that a US missile was responsible. Independent investigations by The New York Times, NPR and BBC Verify reached the same conclusion, authenticated by of a Tomahawk striking the site. The posture of uncertainty was not confusion; it was a reflex.

As for the Dena, Hegseth reached for , invoking the sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands War. It is not a flattering comparison. The Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone when the HMS Conqueror torpedoed her. The sinking killed 323 sailors and remains a stain on that campaign’s moral record. Hegseth appears not to have noticed.

The moral question: rightness over effectiveness

Just war theory does not ask whether a military operation is effective. It asks whether it is right. A school full of children, a warship returning home from a peacetime exercise sunk without warning in international waters; these are not aberrations or fog-of-war tragedies. Rather, they are the opening acts of an unnecessary war that is not being conducted with discrimination or proportionality and is being led by an administration that has renamed itself, at considerable public expense, to signal its intent to keep going.

The tradition Augustine began, and that international law eventually formalized, exists precisely for moments like this. But there is no world government, no global enforcement mechanism. International law is a system of voluntary restraint; it works only as long as powerful states choose to be bound by it. When the most powerful state opts out, it does not simply break the rules. It begins to dissolve them.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Unjust War, Unjust Conduct: Just War Theory and the Iran War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In other words, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allowed a prisoner to die of a toothache. His name was Emmanuel Damas. He was 56 years old and a father of two.

And we can only expect medical treatment at ICE centers to deteriorate further. As Judd Legum at Popular Information in January 2026: “ICE… has any third-party providers for medical care for detainees since October 3, 2025. Last week, ICE posted a notice on an obscure government announcing it will not begin processing such claims until at least April 30, 2026. Until then, medical providers are instructed ‘to hold all claims submissions.’”

Damas’s unnecessary death would be outrageous enough, were it the only one of its kind. In fact, people died in ICE custody during 2025, the most in two decades. Another six died in January 2026 alone at Camp East Montana detention center in El Paso, Texas. Among them was Geraldo Lunas Campos, a Cuban father aged 55.

Although ICE initially claimed Lunas Campos had attempted suicide, the American Immigration Council that “the El Paso County Medical Examiner ruled his death was a homicide arising from asphyxia due to neck and torso compression.” Of course, it’s pretty hard to strangle yourself to death. Witnesses, however, described his murder this way: “Mr. Lunas Campos was handcuffed, while at least five guards held him down and one guard squeezed his neck until he was unconscious.” At least one other man has died at the Camp East Montana detention center, where and measles are also spreading.

Damas and Lunas Campos were among the roughly people whom ICE currently holds in a tangle of sprawled across the country. And more centers are under construction. Many of them are former warehouses designed to function, as ICE acting director Todd Lyons it last year, “like Amazon Prime for human beings.” (Like many of US President Donald Trump’s appointees, Lyons has not received Senate confirmation. His actual , according to ICE, is “Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”)

What is a concentration camp?

Taken together, this network of prisons or, more accurately, concentration camps, constitutes an American gulag. “” is not so much a word as a Russian initialism that came to stand for the Soviet Union’s concentration camp program, originally developed under dictator Joseph Stalin. The term stands for “Main Directorate of Correctional Labor Camps” and originally referred to the officials running the camps. Later, “gulag” came to indicate the camps themselves, which were a central instrument of Soviet political repression. Most Americans first learned about those camps through Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 internationally bestselling , The Gulag Archipelago: An Experiment in Literary Investigation.

As Andrea Pitzer, of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, has written, such institutions are a relatively recent phenomenon. While human beings have long contrived ways to isolate groups they identify as enemies — for example, in the enclosed Jewish of medieval Europe — the modern concentration camp evolved thanks to two key inventions: barbed wire and the machine gun. That pair of technological advances made it possible for a small number of guards to control and contain a large number of people in one place.

Concentration camps have a number of defining features:

• Concentration camps exist outside regular legal structures. The people they hold are not prisoners, but detainees. So, we find people of all ages, from infants to seniors, in concentration camps. In most cases, they have not been tried or convicted of any crime. Rather, they are held because of their status, for example, as non-citizens, or in the case of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, because of their ethnicity or national origin. This is true for the people held in ICE detention today. Their alleged offenses are against US civil, not criminal, law, and their detention exists outside of any court system, including the immigration courts run by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. Immigration judges, who are really administrative employees, can’t order anyone detained. That’s up to ICE and its umbrella agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

• Concentration camp inmates are civilians, not soldiers, which places them conveniently outside the strictures of the Geneva Conventions. That’s why the US has never recognized as prisoners of war the men it has held and, in the case of 15 prisoners, to hold in the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In the 1990s, almost a decade before the naval station at Guantánamo was first used to house detainees in the “Global War on Terror,” the US held immigrants there, including as many as 50,000 Haitians and Cubans. Trump’s January 29, 2025, executive order entitled, “Expanding Migrant Operations Center At Naval Station Guantánamo Bay To Full Capacity,” directed the Defense and Homeland Security departments to prepare to hold as many as 30,000 migrant detainees there. As of July 2025, the camp held detainees from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean.

• Concentration camps are associated with authoritarian regimes. They function both as a direct form of repression and, no less importantly, as a warning to the rest of the population about what could happen to those who resist the regime. In this sense, concentration camps are very much like another tool of repression, institutionalized state torture, about which I wrote in my , Mainstreaming Torture. Like state torture, concentration camps perform a kind of national security theater, made all the more entrancing by its quasi-secret nature. In the case of ICE detention camps, the DHS has made a show of or members of to enter those facilities. But such detention centers can’t fulfill their full repressive function if people don’t know anything about what goes on in them. So, we have the spectacle of a hearing in which a congresswoman asked then-DHS secretary Kristi Noem about a double amputee who “has to crawl through mold and feces and bodily fluids just to take a shower.” Knowing that this is happening to people who have almost no recourse is intended to have a chilling effect on political action.

• Concentration camps are not death camps, but people do die there. Many Americans tend to think that all German concentration camps were sites of direct extermination. In fact, the Nazis constructed six camps specifically designed for the industrialized murder of their inhabitants. But for a decade before the first death camp was even opened, prisoners had already been concentrated in thousands of “labor” camps. In fact, they were not there to be killed directly, but to be removed from society. As the National World War II Museum in New Orleans , “Initially, the population of these concentration camps were not usually Jews, but Communists, socialists, Roma and Sinti, Jehovah’s witnesses, gay men, and ‘asocial’ elements (alcoholics, criminals, people with mental disabilities, the poor).” Notably, like undocumented people in the United States today, these were groups who then received little sympathy from the larger German population. The conditions they encountered — lack of food and medical care, crowding and unsanitary conditions — sickened and killed as many as a of those who passed through them.

A brief history of US concentration camps

The Soviet gulag was not the world’s first concentration camp, although such institutions are, in fact, a relatively recent phenomenon. Early Americans sought to isolate their enemies, such as enslaved Africans and the native peoples of this continent. Indeed, when the Cherokee nation was from its lands under the 1830 Indian Removal Act and forced to travel the “Trail of Tears,” officers kept many of them for some time in “emigration depots” in Alabama and Tennessee.

Almost everyone in this country has heard of Nazi �ұ�������Բ�’s camps, but the history of the modern concentration camp really began at the end of the 19th century. As Pitzer in a recent interview, Americans first became aware of such camps in the 1890s, when Spain instituted a policy of ���𳦴DzԳ���Գٰ�������ó�� in its efforts to put down a rebellion in Cuba. As has happened in ICE detention camps today, malnourished men, women and children were shoved into holding camps there, where crowded conditions and poor sanitation led many to perish. News of the horrifying conditions in Cuba led Americans to organize material aid for those being held.

The US then dispatched the USS Maine to accompany the ships carrying relief supplies to Cuba. When the Maine sank in Havana harbor under murky circumstances, the US government had the pretext it needed to mount a military campaign against the remnants of Spanish colonial control in the Americas and the Pacific. That relatively short war ended with the US in possession of most of Spain’s remaining colonies, including the island of Puerto Rico, and what would eventually become the nation of the Philippines. Almost immediately, the new American colonizers reproduced in the Philippines the kind of they had supposedly gone to war to eradicate in Cuba. In another parallel with the 21st century, it was during the occupation of the Philippines that US forces invented the form of torture we call “waterboarding.”

Most Americans know about President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1942 executive order creating ten concentration camps to hold people of Japanese descent, about two-thirds of whom were US citizens mostly living in the western US. Over 120,000 men, women and children were interned for the duration of World War II. Many lost their homes, farms, businesses and other property (often seized by their non-Japanese neighbors). A much smaller number of Italian and German nationals were also interned, as Germans had also been during World War I.

The Japanese camps were constructed by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the same federal agency that provided mass employment for millions during the Great Depression under Roosevelt’s New Deal program. Few Americans know that, in addition to building roads, schools, dams and the occasional zoo, the WPA also built the barracks and strung the barbed wire that enclosed World War II internees.

ICE’s predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), ran about of those camps, primarily ones imprisoning Japanese, German and Italian non-citizens. Three of them were built in Texas to hold people from those countries who had been deported from Latin America. (Most of them were Japanese from Peru.) Those camps were guarded by the Border Patrol, rather than the military police. In other words, ICE and US Customs and Border Protection have a long history of running the US version of concentration camps. They’re used to it.

The American gulag

It’s no exaggeration to say that ICE detention camps now threaten to become a central instrument of repression under the Trump administration. As many as people have died in them since Trump returned to office in January 2025. And those are only the deaths that have been publicly acknowledged.

If Camp East Montana is the biggest ICE camp in the country, the most notorious may well be the Florida site in the Everglades that has come to be known as “Alligator Alcatraz.” over just a week, according to Amnesty International, it “houses” people in horrific conditions:

“Inside, people are crammed into overcrowded cages around bunk beds with little room to move. Food is spoiled and maggot-infested. Mosquitoes swarm constantly, showers are scarce, and extreme heat and humidity make the center unbearable. There appear to be almost no reliable or confidential means for detainees to communicate with their attorneys or family members.”

That description is echoed in the testimony of people held in ICE detention camps nationwide. A complete report on the conditions at all of those camps would run to hundreds of thousands of words. Indeed, it’s hard to get a handle on the full scope of ICE’s concentration camp program, since reports on the number and size of such camps change quickly as new ones are proposed or come online. The organization Freedom for Immigrants maintains an interactive immigration detention which identifies at least 200 separate locations where immigrants (and the occasional US citizen) are detained. And the Trump administration is not done. According to The Guardian, DHS plans to spend “upgrading” 24 existing warehouses to implement ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons’s dream of treating immigrants like human widgets.

And that brings us back to the point of all this. Concentration camps exist to support and expand the power of an authoritarian regime. They make everyone afraid of being treated like the current targets of the regime. Like state torture programs, concentration camps accelerate the process of dehumanizing groups of people in the public imagination. Such a process often begins by describing the target group as non-human, as “” or “” — as Trump has, of course, done. Ironically, the very act of placing people in inhumane conditions can amplify the public’s perception of their inhumanity. After all, would genuine human beings submit to such treatment? Would our good nation treat genuine human beings that way?

One other significant aspect of all this is the enrichment of a few corporations. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” gave ICE upwards of $45 billion to spend on those camps, which meant that there was a lot of money to be made. Today, two private prison companies, CoreCivic and the GEO Group, most of them. The Bill also allows the Department of Homeland Security to that money-making by using the US Navy’s Supply Systems Command program, which serves as an end-run around the usual bidding process for federal contracts.

This morning, I asked my partner whether she thought that the Trump administration could make the transition from concentration camps, where people die as a “side effect” of their internment, to actual death camps. “I think it’s possible,” she responded. And so, horribly, do I.

It’s possible, but not yet inevitable. To date, local actions have provided the most effective means of resisting the creation of the American gulag our federal government is constructing. These have included organizing to oppose siting camps in specific communities, efforts to leverage local zoning laws to stop them, and attempts to generate state-level political opposition to them. (The Washington Post had an excellent of recent efforts in one county in Maryland to block such a camp.)

We know what’s at stake. We know we can dismantle the American gulag, because some of us are already . It’s time for the rest of us to get to work.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post People Die While Companies Profit, as Concentration Camps Metastasize Across the US appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Karp loves verbal combat as much as he likes running a firm that makes high-tech weaponry. His company has helped Israel the pace at which it has bombed and slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza. Its technology has helped Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportations, while also helping and identify demonstrators in Minneapolis. Not only is Karp unapologetic about the damage done by his company’s products, he openly revels in it.

This February, he a CNBC interviewer that, “If you are critical of ICE, you should be out there protesting for more Palantir. Our product actually, in its core, requires people to conform with Fourth Amendment data protections.” (That amendment being the one that protects citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”) Yet Karp’s speculation hasn’t led him to ask ICE to stop using his software in its war on peaceful dissent, nor has it dissuaded him from accepting an open-ended, $1 billion with ICE’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

In keeping with his full-throated support for repression at home and abroad, at the height of the Gaza war, Karp a Palantir board meeting in Tel Aviv, Israel, proclaiming that “our work in the region has never been more vital. And it will continue.”

In an with Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, he summed up his philosophy this way: “I actually am a progressive. I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries. If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.”

Reality, however, is anything but that simple. Palantir’s technology has been used to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza and beyond, including many who had nothing to do with Hamas, had no control over its actions and often weren’t even alive when it won local elections in 2006 and began to administer Gaza.

There should be no question that Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was unconscionable. Still, for Israel to react by killing more than Palestinians in Gaza, a relatively conservative figure that even the Israeli government now , constitutes a grossly disproportionate response that most independent experts define as genocide. The idea that such mass slaughter can be justified as a way of scaring the bad guys and reducing violence is intellectually unsupportable and morally obscene.

So, welcome to the world of Karp, one of the leaders of the new wave of techno-militarists in Silicon Valley.

Militarizing AI, or techno-optimism run amok

This is not your father’s military-industrial complex (MIC). The current stewards of the MIC — executives running industrial giants like Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman — are far more circumspect in what they have to say than Karp. Their leaders may occasionally make a about how increased tensions in the Middle East or Asia could generate demands for their products among US allies in those regions, but they would never engage in the sort of naked Orwellian rhetoric Karp seems to specialize in.

Still, the MIC of the future augurs not just a change in technology or business practices, but — as Karp suggests — a potential culture shift in which militarism is openly celebrated, without the need for any cover language about promoting global stability or defending a “rules-based international order.” Think of the new MIC as a rugged individualist, high-tech version of philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s “ of all against all.” And those running it want us to believe that the only way to “win” a future war is by handing the keys to our political world to a clique of self-defined superior beings headed up by the likes of Karp, Palantir Founder Peter Thiel, Anduril head Palmer Luckey and Tesla’s inimitable Elon Musk.

Karp has coauthored a , The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, in which he articulates his vision of what it will supposedly take to make America globally dominant again. The book is a long lament about how most Americans have lost their sense of purpose and patriotism, frittering away their time in trivial pursuits like reality television and video games. He and coauthor Nicholas W. Zamiska call for a new unifying national mission to whip this nation of slackers into shape and restore the United States to its rightful place as the world’s unrivaled political and military power.

Karp’s answer to what’s needed: a new (which, in case you don’t remember, produced the atomic bomb to end World War II). This time, the focus would not be on developing nuclear weapons but on accelerating the military applications of artificial intelligence and giving the US a permanent technological advantage over China. It’s hard to imagine a more impoverished or misguided vision of America’s future, or one more drained of basic humanity.

Hawks, traditional realists and techno-militarists will, of course, deride any humanity-first approach to foreign and domestic policy as naive, but in reality, it’s the new wave militarists who are the truly naive ones. After trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives on the wars of this century — wars that failed to reach their advertised objectives by a long shot (just as the most recent one in Iran is sure to do), while making the world a significantly more dangerous place — they still mouth platitudes about pursuing “peace through strength” and using US military power to undergird a “rules-based international order.” Given the American losses in this century to far more poorly funded and less technologically sophisticated adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, such tired rhetoric is beginning to sound like a cruel joke, or indeed the gasps of the representatives of a declining empire.

Will technowar be cheaper, and will it protect us?

Putting ideology aside for a moment, there is the narrower question of whether the emerging tech firms can truly produce better systems of war-making for less money. Luckey, a protégé of Thiel, made headlines recently when he in an interview that the US could spend perhaps half of the current $1 trillion Pentagon budget and still have a more effective defense system if it simply stopped buying the “wrong things.”

The idea that a weapons contractor would offer to do more for less seems almost revolutionary in an age where greed and corruption in the MIC continue to run rampant. The philosophy behind Luckey’s statement is, in fact, encapsulated in a remarkable Anduril entitled, “Rebooting the Arsenal of Democracy,” a scathing critique of the current business practices of the Pentagon and mammoth military contractors like Lockheed Martin.

Luckey’s manifesto should be considered an assault on the top five arms conglomerates — led by Lockheed Martin and RTX — that now receive one out of every three contract dollars doled out by the Pentagon. Those huge firms have had their day, the essay suggests, doing necessary and useful work in the long-gone Cold War years of the last century. “Why can’t the existing defense companies simply do better?” it asks. “…These companies work slowly, while the best engineers relish working at speed…These companies built the tools that kept us safe in the past, but they are not the future of our defense.”

The document all but suggests that companies like Lockheed Martin should be given a lifetime achievement award and then shoved out of the way, so the likes of Thiel, Karp, Luckey and Musk can take the helm of the arms industry.

But spending less on weapons — as useful as it would be given other urgent national priorities — can’t be the only goal of defense policy. The most important question is whether purportedly cheaper, more nimble, more accurate AI-driven systems can, in fact, be deployed in a way that would promote peace and stability rather than yet more war. In reality, there is a danger that, if the US thinks it can use such systems to intervene militarily on a routine basis while suffering fewer casualties, the temptation to go to war might actually increase.

Even given all of the above, the idea of breaking the stranglehold of the big contractors on the development and production of the US arsenal is an attractive one. But the tech sector’s claims that it can do the job better for less remains to be proven. A drone is cheaper than an F-35 jet fighter for sure, but what about swarms of drones that are used in waves and replenished rapidly in the midst of a war, or unpiloted ships and armored vehicles that run on complex, unproven software that could well fail at crucial moments? And what if, as the tech sector and its growing cadre of lobbyists would prefer, the new age militarists are allowed to operate with little or no scrutiny, with a weakening of safeguards like independent testing and curbs on price gouging — safeguards that are already too weak to fully get the job done?

When US President Ronald Reagan negotiated arms control agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the last century, his was “trust but verify.” In the case of Palantir and its ilk, perhaps the motto should be “mistrust and verify.” We need to get beyond their marketing slogans and make them prove that their new tech can work as advertised and is indeed better than what came before. If so, then Palantir and Anduril should be treated as vendors and paid for their services, but with no right to attempt to shape our military budget or foreign policy, much less the fundamental workings of our already stumbling democracy.

The military tech lobby: disruptors on steroids

Before the current surge of weapons development in the tech sector, there was a time when some Silicon Valley firms acted as if their products were so superior and affordable that they didn’t need to dirty their hands with traditional lobbying. Unrealistic as that might have been, Silicon Valley has now gone all-in on legalized corruption — from carefully targeted campaign contributions to hiring former government officials to do their bidding.

Example number one is, of course, US Vice President JD Vance, who was , mentored and financed by — yes! — Thiel during his rise to the Senate and then to the vice presidency. When he was selected for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s ticket in 2024, a of new money came into the campaign from the military-tech sector, including tens of billions of dollars from Musk. Once on the ticket, one of Vance’s main jobs proved to be extracting even more donations from the Silicon Valley militarists.

Then came Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the organization that gave efficiency a dreadful name by cutting federal programs and personnel seemingly at random and essential tools like the Agency for International Development (USAID) while leaving the Pentagon virtually untouched. Although USAID had its problems, it also essential development and public health efforts globally that sustained millions of people. An actual efficiency drive would have looked at what worked and what didn’t at that agency. Instead, Musk’s acolytes, who knew nothing about economic assistance, simply dismantled it.

There are now significant numbers of Silicon Valley executives in key positions in the Trump administration, led by Vance but including of others in key posts in the military, the top leadership of the Pentagon and across a range of domestic and foreign-policy agencies.

Thiel and Karp clearly feel that what’s good for Palantir is good for America, but the vision of America they are promoting is both dangerous and dehumanizing.

Coming down to earth (and reining in the technophiles)

The problem with the new techno-militarists isn’t that they’re mistaken about technology’s power, but that they’re dangerously wrong about who should wield it, to what ends, and under what constraints. Power without restraint is not innovation. It is recklessness dressed up as inevitability. A growing share of the tools that shape American foreign and domestic security policy is being designed, deployed and promoted by a small group of private actors whose incentives are aggressively financial, whose worldviews are profoundly militarized and whose accountability to the public is minimal at best.

What this country needs is anything but a new priesthood of billionaire engineers to tell us that war is unavoidable, fear is the only path to peace and democracy must bend a knee to the superior wisdom of those who code algorithms and build weaponry. In reality, we’ve heard this story before from Cold War nuclear , Vietnam-era body-count and the architects of the “shock and awe” that helped destroy Iraq. Each generation is promised that this technology (whatever it might be) will finally make war, American-style, clean, precise and decisive. Each time, the bodies pile up anyway.

What makes today’s moment especially is the speed and opacity with which such systems are being developed and deployed. AI-enabled targeting tools, predictive surveillance platforms, autonomous weaponry and data-fusion systems are all being integrated into the military and domestic policing structures with minimal public debate, weak oversight and virtually no meaningful consent from the people who will live with — and die from — the consequences. The rhetoric of AI-driven disruption has become a convenient excuse for bypassing democratic processes altogether.

The underlying premise of the techno-militarists is that permanent war is the natural state of our world and our only choice is how efficiently we decide to wage it. In reality, security is never produced by terrifying the rest of the planet into submission. It’s produced by diplomacy, restraint, adhering to international law and economic justice, and the slow, unglamorous work of building institutions that make mass violence less likely rather than more automated.

Karp and his peers may see themselves as realists, bravely saying what others don’t dare to say. In truth, theirs is a brittle, nihilistic worldview that mistakes domination for strength and innovation for wisdom. Humanity deserves more than an endless arms race run by men (and they are almost all men!) who believe that they alone are fit to decide whose lives are expendable. The brave new war machine’s version of Aldous Huxley’s should frighten us all.

If technology is to shape the future of war (and it will), then society must shape the rules under which it operates. The alternative is to surrender our moral agency to a handful of self-anointed visionaries and hope they get it right. History suggests that is a gamble we can’t afford to take.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Brave New War Machine: How a Clique of Unhinged Techno-Optimists Is Putting Humanity at Risk appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Shock, contradiction and shifting goals

Munsing describes a political landscape caught off guard. Across party lines, Americans are struggling to reconcile Trump’s long-standing “America First” rhetoric with a decision to initiate war. Drawing on conversations from the campaign trail, he notes that voters are not only surprised but deeply confused about the rationale behind the conflict. “I think the first thing is just shock across the political spectrum,” he observes.

The absence of clear objectives compounds that confusion. Singh presses Munsing on what the administration is trying to achieve, and the answer remains elusive. From regime change to nuclear containment to vague notions of victory, the stated goals appear to shift constantly. Munsing points to statements from the White House suggesting that Trump alone will determine when Iran has “unconditionally surrendered,” dismissing the idea as “ridiculous.” Without a stable definition of success, the war risks replicating the strategic drift seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the endgame remained perpetually undefined.

Miscalculation and the risk of escalation

The discussion then turns to how the conflict began. Munsing argues that Trump’s decision-making reflects a pattern of boundary-testing behavior. Early military successes, particularly a high-risk operation in Venezuela, may have created a false sense of confidence. According to this view, the administration expected a rapid, decisive outcome in Iran — perhaps even regime collapse — without fully accounting for the complexity of the region.

This miscalculation now presents a dangerous dilemma. If the US withdraws quickly, it risks signaling failure. If it escalates, it may become trapped in a prolonged and costly conflict. Singh raises the possibility of deploying ground troops, a scenario that would dramatically raise the stakes. Munsing considers such a move unlikely but politically catastrophic, arguing that it would face overwhelming public opposition and significantly increase casualties and financial costs.

The broader concern is that the administration lacks a coherent strategy. Without clear objectives or limits, the conflict could expand in unpredictable ways, drawing the US deeper into a region already defined by volatility and competing interests.

Domestic repercussions and the terrorism calculus

Beyond the battlefield, Singh and Munsing examine how the war could reshape domestic politics. Recent lone-wolf attacks in the US complicate public sentiment. While such incidents may initially push Americans toward disengagement, a confirmed state-sponsored attack linked to Iran could have the opposite effect.

Munsing explains that a direct threat to the homeland would likely trigger a “rally around the flag” response, increasing support for the war despite broader skepticism. This distinction underscores how fragile public opinion remains. Americans may oppose the conflict in principle, but their stance could shift rapidly under the pressure of perceived national danger.

Simultaneously, the lack of a clear initial justification for the war weakens the administration’s position. Without a compelling narrative, it becomes harder to sustain public support over time, especially if the conflict drags on or casualties mount.

Congress, executive power and institutional decline

Singh highlights the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war. Munsing argues that lawmakers have increasingly ceded this power to the executive branch. “It certainly feels like we’re moving to a Cesarean presidency,” he says, pointing to a long-term trend that has accelerated in recent years.

This shift reflects deeper institutional problems. Congress, once protective of its prerogatives, now appears reluctant to assert itself. Munsing criticizes a culture of performative politics in which legislators prioritize media presence over substantive lawmaking. With approval ratings hovering around 17%, public confidence in the institution has reached strikingly low levels.

The Iran war exposes these weaknesses. Despite the absence of formal authorization, Congress has struggled to respond decisively. For Munsing, this moment represents both a failure and an opportunity: a failure to uphold constitutional responsibilities, but also a chance to reassert them, if lawmakers choose to act.

Distrust, disillusionment and fragile hope

Singh and Munsing close with a broader reflection on declining trust in American institutions. From prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to economic crises and elite scandals, many citizens now see a system that operates by different rules for the powerful and the public. Some have even labeled the conflict the “Epstein war,” viewing it as a distraction from unresolved controversies involving political and economic elites.

Munsing warns that this perception could lead to two dangerous outcomes: widespread disengagement from civic life or a turn toward more extreme political solutions. Both, he suggests, would undermine the foundations of American democracy.

Yet he also identifies tentative signs of renewal. Public frustration is driving greater political engagement, from town hall participation to grassroots campaigning. On the campaign trail, he finds that a majority of voters are willing to engage seriously, even across party lines. This rising involvement, combined with pressure on elected officials, could create an opening for institutional reform.

Whether those “green shoots” take root will depend on whether political leaders respond to public demand for accountability and clarity. As Singh and Munsing make clear, the stakes extend far beyond the Iran war itself, touching on the future of American governance in an increasingly unstable world.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Talks: America First to Iran War — Making Sense of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Today’s situation, with the loss of Venezuelan energy support, is somewhat reminiscent of Cuba’s experience with the devastating economic impact of the Soviet Union’s in the 1990s, and it may be tempting to draw comparisons between the two periods. At that time, the Castro regime was forced to confront similar challenges: material shortages, isolation and civil unrest. However, today’s reality is characterized by new factors: the physical absence of Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro; the widespread use of social media; resumed flights to and from the US since 2016; and increased liberalization and warmer diplomatic relations.

No matter how valuable ending the longest-running communist government in the Americas may seem, US President Donald Trump seems to be trying out a new for foreign intervention: decapitating regimes while keeping the establishment intact. This model clearly prioritizes business opportunities over democratic values. However, it’s not only uncertain whether it could be applied to Cuba, but also whether this is actually the plan. All of which makes it particularly difficult to imagine what could happen next.

Historically, international observers have oscillated between fascination and outrage towards Communist Cuba. In the early years of the revolution, this fascination was understandable. Cuba was a potent for activists in the 1960s and for the global civil rights movement. However, as the revolution shifted toward military autocracy rather than democratic ideals, the initial romanticism faded. This group of observers, largely comprising European baby boomers who rebelled against post-World War II imperialism, has seen its initial fervor tempered by time. Reflecting a broader evolution in leftist thought, they continue struggling to reconcile Cuba’s social achievements with its authoritarian political regime and the continuous, increasing and deepening impact of the US trade on these revolutionary ideals since 1962.

The Cuban Revolution officially began with the 1953 of the Moncada Barracks by a group of revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro, who was relatively unknown at the time. The uprising aimed to overthrow ’s illegitimate military dictatorship and the systemic corruption and poverty it fostered. Specifically, the movement demanded economic independence from US imperialist interests and the restoration of political liberty through an armed uprising of the working class.

After the attempted coup, Castro, a trained lawyer, was tried and imprisoned by Batista’s regime. During this trial, he delivered an iconic defense speech that ended with the famous words, “History will absolve me.” Indeed, he was pardoned after 22 months due to a general amnesty and went on to lead Cuba for life. However, total absolution by history is doubtful and yet to come.

After his release from prison, Castro adopted July 26 — the date of the attack on the Moncada Barracks — as the name of his revolutionary movement: the Movimiento 26 de Julio. By January 1, 1959, the rebels, including the iconic Comandante Ernesto “Che” Guevara, had successfully overthrown the dictatorship. In response to Batista’s pro-US regime, the revolutionaries had campaigned with slogans such as: “Cuba sí, yanquis no!” (“Cuba yes! Yankees no!”) and “Yanquis, vayanse!” (“Yankees, go away!”).

Shortly after Castro and his group took control, the US intervened militarily in 1961, but was defeated at the Bay of Pigs. This defeat solidified the first self-proclaimed communist revolution in the region, which would become the longest-standing regime of its kind in the Western world. It is now approaching its seventh decade.

The revolution as an unfinished process

After years of rumors that he was dead and that his government was keeping him alive to prevent a political collapse, Castro died on November 25, 2016, at the age of 90. Following Castro’s illness in 2006, his younger brother Raúl assumed provisional power. By 2011, Raúl had solidified his position as leader of both the presidency and the Communist Party. This appointment communicated a strong stance on hierarchy and kinship. Yet, Raúl ultimately delegated governance in 2019, eight years later.

Miguel Mario Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, Cuba’s current president, is a direct descendant of the Castro regime, having been personally appointed by Raúl Castro. Born in Villa Clara Province on April 20, 1960, Díaz-Canel was born one year after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Although Díaz-Canel holds onto the revolutionary ideals of his predecessors, he is facing unprecedented times. Amid escalating instability and unrest, he called for dialogue on Monday, March 23, while not capitulating on the Revolution, stating:

We don’t want war; we want dialogue. But if that space isn’t provided, we are ready. I tell you this with the deep conviction that I hold, which I have shared with my family, that we would give our lives for the Revolution.

Díaz-Canel said this in a conversation with Pablo Iglesias, the Spanish founder of the left-wing political party Podemos, and former vice president of Spain. Iglesias arrived in Cuba on March 24, 2026, as part of the humanitarian convoy. There, he Díaz-Canel on behalf of his media organization, Canal Red. With the support of figures like Iglesias and British politician Jeremy Corbyn, the Nuestra América mission delivered 20 tons of aid, including solar panels, to help alleviate the island’s severe energy crisis.

The convoy’s name invokes the legacy of (1853–1895), the “Apostle of Cuban Independence” and a foundational figure in the development of the nation’s identity. In his influential 1891 essay, Nuestra América, or “,” Martí contended that Latin American nations should develop governance systems grounded in their unique social realities instead of imitating foreign models. By warning against “the giant of the north” and calling for cultural sovereignty, Martí’s manifesto remains a powerful symbol that the modern mission seeks to reclaim. In fact, both Díaz-Canel and Iglesias reiterated Martí’s accusations that the US is responsible for Cuba’s structural problems of the past several decades, that the 1959 Revolution eliminated “all miseries and evils.”

The blockade of all trade and diplomatic relations with the US, coupled with the nationalization or expulsion of the private sector, did not stop the steady stream of tourists, primarily from Europe, from arriving on the island. Despite the gradual disenchantment of many, a sense of mysticism about Cuba as an oasis outside of capitalism began to emerge.

For as long as I can remember, I have heard the same tropes in stories by foreigners who visited the island in the ‘90s and ‘00s. One recurring theme was the idea that Cuba was “suspended in time.” People often mentioned the old cars, which were rare in other urban landscapes. In a dimmer note, Fidel, who had once that Cuba would no longer be the “brothel of the Western Hemisphere,” later used that same imagery in a 1999 speech, infamously , “Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.”

In his 1965 work, , Virgilio Piñera famously referred to “the curse of being completely surrounded by water.” Writing from a first-person perspective while sitting in a café in Havana, Piñera captured an insular reality that visitors, often distracted by the island’s tropical allure, could never truly grasp. This metaphorical curse reveals a less paradisical side of the nation, grounding its international isolation in a bittersweet reality.

Piñera’s sentiment mirrors the devastating truth in Fidel’s later remarks about the island’s “cultured” prostitutes. Both the poet’s verses and the leader’s words acknowledge a reality that, despite its high ideals, remains trapped by its circumstances. Piñera’s image remains profoundly expressive today, as Cuba faces renewed media attention and political turmoil, making this sense of cursed isolation feel as relevant as ever.

Following a period of diplomatic warming that began in 2015, US–Cuba relations shifted from a hopeful path toward greater understanding to extreme hostility under the Trump administration. By 2025, Marco Rubio, a former senator from Florida and Cuban American, had become one of the loudest advocates for this shift. A Gen Xer, Rubio belongs to the first generation of diaspora children who have historically migrated to Miami. This group has traditionally been fiercely opposed to the regime they fled.

Today, many of them see the current moment as the opportunity they’ve been awaiting for decades. Hispanic outlets Univision and Telemundo Miami have the various demonstrations, many of which were led by Cuban activist Ramón Saúl Sánchez, who on the exile community at the iconic Cuban restaurant to support the protests occurring on the island. The Free Cuba Rally, which through Washington, DC, featured slogans such as “Trump” and “Cuba Next!” calling for US action.

Founded by Cuban exiles in Valencia, Spain, in 2014, the news outlet Cibercuba has been a relevant source that divulges information from inside the island. It has extensively covered the protests of the last few weeks against constant outages and the growing precarious situation. According to Cibercuba, there have been pot-banging , fires started in the middle of roads, and people taking to the streets regardless of the significant military and police presence.

Though their demands are diverse and sometimes conflicting, protesters in Cuba and the diaspora are united in their response to the same lack of coherence embodied by an unfinished revolution and an authoritarian regime. Unlike the diaspora, protesters on the island largely US intervention. They call for freedom and anti-authoritarianism, yet they never question their own autonomy. They correctly believe that their future is in their hands, more on immediate needs than on challenging the entire economic system. Despite its flaws, the revolution’s accomplishments should be recognized, such as ensuring that and remain for all. 

Taking all of this into account, it’s reasonable to conclude that Cuba is experiencing its most severe economic and social crisis in decades. Nevertheless, Díaz-Canel has taken a defiant position against Washington, considering the one-party political system and the decades of cultural and structural revolution that sustain him. Even as it prepares for potential American aggression, the Cuban government refuses to negotiate its political system and its national sovereignty.

Perspectives from the Island: the case of Beto

I traveled to Cuba for the first and only time in January 2018, spending the first eight days of the year in Havana. I flew from Miami, a route that had only direct service in December 2016. I remember the other passengers, most of whom were not tourists, rushing to stand up as soon as the plane landed. Their urgency seemed to reflect the extraordinary experience of taking a direct flight after decades of needing to take indirect routes, such as via Cancún, or of being unable to travel at all due to visa or the risk of state retaliation for those in exile.

Coming from a place where unlimited internet access was the norm, the intermittent service during that short trip felt unusual. Access was a luxury; you had to go to a hotel or somewhere with Wi-Fi, or buy a $5 data card that lasted 30 minutes. For the majority of Cubans, this was a significant expense, as average monthly salaries among the lowest in the world. According to a 2025 , this digital divide persists as Etecsa, the national telecommunications enterprise, continues to restrict and raise the price of monthly data top-ups.

This atmosphere of restricted access and slow change makes the current shift in US foreign policy feel like a long-awaited opportunity. However, the notion of a tipping point once again reveals its tantalizing and procrastinatory nature. To understand how this pivotal turning point was perceived beyond the official headlines, I reached out to my Cuban friends living abroad.

One of them is Beto, a chef and owner who has lived in Madrid for over 20 years. When he responded on Monday, March 16, he was visiting family in Cuba, 30 minutes outside Havana. He stayed in touch throughout his week-long trip, and I am fortunate to be able to share some of his insights here.

Beto began his testimony by recounting how difficult it was to move around the island. His brother had to buy fuel on the black market just to pick him up from the airport, paying between eight and ten dollars per liter. Beto could only afford this expense because of his life in Spain. This corroborates reports of a severe decline in fuel supply, despite Beto’s testimony that money was circulating. 

On the drive from the airport to his hometown, which usually takes place on a busy highway toward Havana, there were no other cars. In a video he , the empty horizon could be seen in both directions, interrupted only by a car that eventually passed them. According to Beto, the airport itself also felt empty. His Iberia flight, designed to carry over 200 passengers, landed with only 60 people on board. The rental lots were empty, yet filled with cars no one was renting. “Havana doesn’t even have fuel for the planes,” Beto explained. He noted that his flight had to detour to the Dominican Republic just to refuel for the return trip to Madrid. He added that due to limited resources, tourism and travel for non-urgent matters have become extremely difficult these days.

This perception of a shortage is indicative of a broader energy crisis in which access to electricity depends on having the right technology. This takes us back to Diaz-Canel’s recent with Pablo Iglesias. Overall, the Cuban President’s tone was optimistic. Diaz-Canel mentioned that even amid an intensified blockade, Cuba is on the path to energy sovereignty. He highlighted the importance of solar panels, electricity generated from sugarcane fields and the increased use of electric motorcycles for various services, describing all of it as a form of “creative resistance.”

Overall, listening to Beto confirmed both Diaz-Canel’s description of advancements in renewable energy and the fact that it is insufficient. During the most recent national blackout, Beto said that only people near power plants or with solar panels were able to power their electronics. This was the case in his father’s village. To cope with the heat, he said he used a battery-powered fan for up to five hours at a time in his father’s house. A tropical storm on Monday night also helped cool the air.

Based on what he saw and experienced on this trip, the state-run food supply system, which used to equitably distribute food despite its imperfections, has nearly vanished. A new reality has emerged in which private enterprises import food and sell it at higher prices than in Madrid. Beto also shared photos of solar energy kits and kerosene stoves being sold on social media. The flyers provide contact information and state that payments must be made in cash in US dollars, and that delivery is available for an additional cost.

In addition to the photos of electronics, Beto shared a video with me depicting the unique blend of eras and economic systems found on Cuban streets. In the video, bicycle-powered taxis rattle past an old Polish Fiat, an iconic Soviet-era car, that has been modified to include a solar panel on its roof. The car was parked outside a bar called Tómatela Fría, where reggaeton music played from a speaker. During my short visit in 2018, I noticed that music, mostly reggaeton, was always playing on the streets. Seeing that it’s still the norm gave me a sense of reassurance that other reports didn’t.

Throughout the week, Beto and I were able to communicate with each other more than twice a day, albeit intermittently. He relied on airport Wi-Fi or Etecsa offices for internet access. There, you can pay 40 cents an hour for a connection to their Wi-Fi, which is powered by generators. When he described this situation to me, he paused and said it was all a “strange, high-speed transformation caught between socialism and capitalism.” As citizens increasingly take to the streets, Beto’s ambiguity sums up the reality of existing in the long-term middle ground between the two systems that polarized the second half of the 20th century.

As proof of the exceptional circumstances due to intensified protests and government dissent in the days prior, Beto sent a picture showing military helicopters circling overhead and armored vehicles moving through his father’s neighborhood. While the townspeople attempt to maintain a facade of normalcy by selling everyday goods in private stalls, intermittent electricity and the shadow of helicopters serve as constant reminders that the country is transforming into something entirely unknown.

Against this backdrop, Beto told me that when people in Cuba talk about the importance of money from family members abroad, they often ask each other, “¿Tú tienes fe?” While “fe” means “faith” in English, it actually stands for Familiar en el Extranjero, or “family member abroad.” This refers to receiving remittances from places such as Miami or Madrid. The double meaning of faith speaks to the concept of the hybridity of the two systems that Beto mentioned earlier. The anecdote also conveys a sense of truth when considering that faith may be the only unifying factor among the different positions, regardless of the indeterminate results.

The curse of being completely surrounded by water

The curse of being completely surrounded by water condemns me to this café table. If I didn’t think that water encircled me like a cancer, I’d sleep in peace. In the time that it takes the boys to strip for swimming, twelve people have died of the bends … The eternal misery of memory. If a few things were different and the country came back to me waterless, I’d gulp down that misery to spit back at the sky … The uniform of the drowned sailor still floats on the reef. It makes you want to jump out of bed and find the main vein of the sea and bleed it dry.

— The Whole Island, Virgilio Piñera

In closing, I would like to return to Virgilio Piñera’s poem and his words: “The curse of being completely surrounded by water.” In the poem, he also speaks of finding “the main vein of the sea and bleeding it dry,” building to a crescendo of intensity. Following the success of the Revolution, Piñera was one of many intellectuals who initially supported the movement. However, the revolutionary promise soon turned into systematic censorship. Piñera was arrested at the beginning of a period of state repression that intensified throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s.

In his posthumous memoir, (1993), Reinaldo Arenas, a writer of a later generation, explains how he, like Piñera, was imprisoned because of his homosexuality and his stance as a dissident public writer. The title, Before Night Falls, refers to how he had to write by the last rays of sunlight while hiding in parks as a fugitive. It wasn’t until 1980 that the Cuban state stopped homosexuals criminal figures, and the Ley de Ostentación Homosexual was repealed.

However, prosecutions due to sexual orientation didn’t stop overnight (it was not until 2019 that a new constitution was approved in Cuba that included regarding gender rights, and it wasn’t until 2022 that same-sex marriage was legalized). Arenas was able to flee during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift , which began when a bus crashed into the Peruvian embassy, causing a massive refugee crisis. To be granted permission to leave through Mariel, Arenas had to “” his homosexuality. He eventually settled in Miami and then New York, where he died by suicide while awaiting death from AIDS in 1990. In his suicide note, he explicitly blamed Fidel Castro for his death.

It’s hard to reconcile heartbreaking stories like Arenas’s with the continued loyalty of other prominent figures. As I have striven to convey in this piece, we find ourselves in limbo, torn between disillusionment and faith. Silvio Rodríguez, a renowned musician, exemplifies the latter. The government recently him a Kalashnikov rifle in recognition of his loyalty. Interestingly, in his popular 1993 song “,” or “the fool,” Rodriguez sang that deciding what the world deems foolishness may also be a stance: “Could it be that foolishness was born with me?/The foolishness of what now seems foolish/The foolishness of embracing the enemy/The foolishness of living without a price.”

On March 16, the day I spoke with Beto, Trump escalated his rhetoric, he could “take Cuba in some form” and do as he pleased there, adding that such a thing would be “an honor.” Once again, when we bring together the rhetoric of Rodríguez and Trump, we feel as though we are traveling in time. As the “giant of the North,” in Martí’s words, confronts Cuba, the island remains caught between the remnants of communism and an emerging informal capitalism. Cubans are resisting creatively, as they always have, even when struggling in the context of an accentuated decades-long blockade. Currently, their system of governance is holding strong, albeit while being cornered in their search for a path forward.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post All Eyes Are on Cuba, and No One Knows How Its Future Could Play Out appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A mountain of evidence, a moving target

Rohan opens with the scale of the release. Roughly 3.5 million pages have been made public, with an estimated three million more still to come. The files include emails sent to more than 1,000 individuals, images, video material and victim testimonies provided to the FBI. Independent media outlets are combing through the material daily.

Peter cautions that the story is far from settled. “We know more and more every day,” he says, emphasizing that the volume of material makes reaching definitive conclusions difficult. The disclosures are less a single revelation than an evolving mosaic. As he describes it, observers are assembling a “jigsaw puzzle,” starting with the frame before gradually filling in the center. The real significance may lie in the structural patterns emerging from the whole.

The files were released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed after bipartisan pressure from US Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna. The law permits limited redactions, but only in narrowly defined circumstances. Yet many names and details remain obscured, fueling suspicion that something larger is being protected.

Trump, transparency and political blowback

Rohan presses Peter on Trump’s role. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised transparency on unresolved national controversies, including the infamous assassination of US President John F. Kennedy and the Epstein trafficking case. Peter argues that this pledge helped consolidate Trump’s image as a leader willing to challenge entrenched power structures.

But the release has placed Trump in a precarious position. In a now-notorious cabinet meeting exchange, Trump reportedly dismissed the files as “old business,” angering parts of his own electorate. The very transparency he championed has generated political turbulence.

Peter suggests Trump miscalculated. By aligning himself with disclosure, he raised expectations he could not fully control. Now that millions of pages are public with more pending, the administration faces an unpredictable political environment in which allegations touch figures across party lines, including both Trump and former US President Bill Clinton.

A club of the compromised

Moving beyond partisan politics, Peter adopts what he calls a sociological lens. Drawing on analyst Simon Dixon’s framework, he proposes that the Epstein network reflects not a simple blackmail ring but a broader culture of elite mutual compromise.

In his formulation, influence operates through belonging to an exclusive circle. “To get into the club, you have to be compromised,” Peter explains. Rather than classic blackmail, the logic is reciprocal vulnerability. The more compromised individuals are, the more securely they are bound into a system of shared silence and protection.

He likens it to organized crime structures in which mutual exposure ensures loyalty. Within such a system, power is distributed across finance, politics, intelligence and business, with occasional sacrifices when exposure becomes too costly. Whether or not one accepts the full thesis, the files appear to expose dense interconnections among influential actors across sectors and continents.

Media silence and editorial risk

Rohan highlights a striking disparity in coverage. British outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC prominently feature the story, while major US newspapers appear comparatively restrained. In India and parts of East Asia, coverage is also limited.

Peter attributes this to institutional caution. Large outlets operate within established editorial frameworks and may hesitate to amplify allegations that could disrupt long-standing narratives or implicate powerful interests. The sheer scale of the data also poses practical challenges: responsible verification takes time.

He describes mainstream media as “diffident” and at times “cowardly,” suggesting that some organizations may hope public attention fades before deeper scrutiny becomes unavoidable. Independent platforms, less constrained by legacy structures, have moved more aggressively.

Atomized America and the midterm test

Why, Rohan asks, are Americans not protesting en masse if the files implicate their political class? Peter offers a bleak assessment of civic cohesion: “There is no ordinary American.”  He describes a society fragmented into individualized identities. In his view, cultural and ideological shifts have weakened the capacity for unified moral movements.

As for Trump’s future, Peter is cautious but skeptical. Impeachment appears unlikely, given bipartisan embarrassment and prior failed attempts. However, he predicts political damage. “Most people think he will be humiliated in the midterms,” he says, though what that humiliation would mean in practice remains uncertain.

With both major parties potentially implicated and media institutions hesitant, the Epstein saga may continue to unfold primarily through independent journalism and social media. The files, Peter suggests, are a mirror held up to the structure of power — and the reflection is still coming into focus.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Talks: The Epstein Files, Redactions and the Deep State Question appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Under the shadow of economic sanctions imposed by the US and its Western brethren, Venezuela’s oil remained largely buried after nationalization. The country’s oil fields couldn’t be upgraded or developed due to a lack of investment, and whatever could be exploited still couldn’t be sold freely at the best price. The US thus successfully contained Venezuela’s strategic oil wealth, ensuring that no other country could challenge or alter the US’s will.

As if all this were not enough, the US has militarily seized of Venezuela’s oil, effectively turning the country into an oil colony after abducting the intransigent “narcoterrorist” President Nicolás Maduro and either coercing or bribing its remaining ruling leadership into absolute submission.��This is how an empire works.

Asymmetric Western wars

Western wars are always asymmetric in many ways. The unmatched military power and immense resources available to these predominantly Caucasian nations give them a tremendous operational advantage in warfare. Their enormously destructive military technology and ability to strike from a remote safe distance limit their own casualties and material losses to just a fraction of what they inflict on their enemies. Their lineal brotherhood and strategic alliances — which provide a vast pool of military, financial and industrial resources — serve as a powerful force multiplier. Moreover, their tight control over the global economy and financial institutions allows them to influence the official reactions and actions of almost all other countries to their liking. Their highly dominant and sophisticated propaganda machinery shapes the international public opinion in their favor. 

This comprehensive domination enables them to bring war to other people’s homes while their victims cannot retaliate in kind. The best these victimized nations can do out of vengeance and frustration is to carry out occasional bombings and shootings in the homelands of the Western powers. These occasional incidents are dubbed as the most heinous crimes of cowardly terrorism, while the hundreds of thousands of defenseless people killed in other countries by the relentless aerial bombings and missile strikes of Western nations are glorified as acts of valor and heroism.

Western powers wage such imperialist wars repeatedly under various pretexts, many of which are , full of lies, and marked by brazen dishonesty and double standards. They remain unaffected due to their domination over the international order. In the end, they always get away with their illegal and immoral deception and destruction. Their hegemonic wars are deemed just, while any resistance from others is labeled entirely unworthy and immoral. Others are only expected to surrender and accept the will of Western aggressors.��

That is how things have largely been for a long time. 

In a matter of a mere month

After the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s , which caused almost every country except China to fall in line, and the swift and impressive US military operation in Venezuela on January 3 — which even made the Chinese that their People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was lagging far behind — Iran has managed to greatly diminish the US’s larger-than-life image in just one month.��

In the eyes of the world, this marks a sudden decline of the US from the zenith of glory achieved in Venezuela. The mythical and mighty B2 bombers, F35 stealth fighters, Tomahawk missiles, Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), Patriots, THAAD systems and the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier were all proven ineffective. Trump’s much-trumpeted secret weapon, the “discombobulator,” which he was used in Venezuela, was nowhere to be seen. And the mockery of the Iranian, Russian and Chinese systems couldn’t be made.

The US’s acclaimed air superiority, along with its constant bombing and assassinations, couldn’t break the will of the Iranians. Nor could Western propaganda make pro-US Iranians march on the streets of Tehran. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s animated bullying and Trump’s cold threats on camera and faceless warnings on didn’t work either. Iran has stayed firm and held on to its tit-for-tat military strategy unwaveringly from day one.

The US arms lobby also found little to celebrate beyond supply orders, as there was nothing mind-boggling about its technological advancements to attract global interest. In contrast, Iran’s unparalleled sacrificial courage and fearless conduct have captured the public imagination. Its sustained and effective has taken the spotlight, sidelining storied Western military technology for the first time in memory.��

Despite tall that the US has decimated Iranian missile capability and decapitated its political and military leadership, there is no let-up in Iran’s retaliatory strikes. There are no signs of the nation weakening, much less surrendering and capitulating.

War of attrition and will to endure

The myth surrounding technology and generalship often falls apart during a war of attrition. Scholarly inquiries such as Canadian historian Cathal Nolan’s dispel the powerful myths of “military genius” and “decisive battles” and rouse us to see that victory is achieved “by grinding rather than genius.” However, the heroic tales of Carthaginian General , King of Sweden , John Churchill, 1st duke of , Holy Roman Emperor , French Emperor , German military commander Helmuth von and even German Dictator are still widely told and believed, especially in military circles. Nolan explains this phenomenon:

Modern wars are won by grinding, not by genius. Strategic depth and resolve is always more important than any commander … Losers of most major wars in modern history lost because they overestimated operational dexterity and failed to overcome the enemy’s strategic depth and capacity for endurance. Winners absorbed defeat after defeat yet kept fighting, overcoming initial surprise, terrible setbacks and the dash and daring of command “genius.” Celebration of genius generals encourages the delusion that modern wars will be short and won quickly, when they are most often long wars of attrition … We might better accept attrition at the start, explain that to those we send to fight, and only choose to fight the wars worth that awful price … With humility and full moral awareness of its terrible costs, if we decide that a war is worth fighting, we should praise attrition more and battle less.

History tells us that there is no quick victory in wars that are fought against ideologically committed and determined nations. We have seen it in our own lifetime in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen. Iran, I believe, will be no different, given its conduct of warfare to date. And, it is not difficult to understand why.

Iran is neither Iraq nor Venezuela; it is neither Libya nor Syria. Iran is Iran, and its national honor and pride came out in its refusal to submit to Western money and military might. Today, it is evident to the whole world that the Iranian leadership, military and society are not corrupt like the Venezuelan government — they cannot be bribed — nor are they cowardly.

One cannot fight for long without absolute clarity and total commitment to one’s beliefs. Against sacrificial courage and an iron will to endure, bombs, missiles, death, destruction, duration, along with petty tariffs, are ultimately insignificant. The Iranian people have demonstrated their ability to withstand the world’s greatest military power. No empire can defeat this spirit. No technological superiority can subdue such people. Resistance is never a rational choice; it is always a moral imperative. Those who lead life pragmatically by calculating the costs and benefits of their decisions and actions can never understand why some people(s) resist against all odds.

Illusion of democracy and distortion of legitimacy

The conceit of politicians and intellectuals in democracies is well known. They strongly believe that only a democratically elected government is legitimate, even if the majority (opposition and abstentions) disapproves of their rulers. They are incapable of understanding that there could be other forms of government, backed by much greater majorities than Western-style democracies, due to the spontaneous convergence of minds shaped by shared ideologies and worldviews. 

This Western prejudice against Iran and its political system might have led Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their advisers to believe that after decapitation strikes, the Iranian people would overthrow the Islamic Revolutionary regime themselves. Instead, powerful religious and nationalist feelings have rallied them all against the aggressors, making the regime more resolute than ever to take on the US, Israel and their hesitant nonwarring enablers in the Gulf and Europe. 

Emergence of doubt and erosion of morale

Whose wars are the imperialist wars? What if we were to arm all supporters of war — including politicians, generals, industrialists, scientists, intellectuals, journalists and their young sons — and send them to the front lines first, with professional soldiers only taking over afterward? In all likelihood, there probably won’t be any wars because most imperialist wars are their wars. Despite the rich and powerful being the main beneficiaries of national projects, they don’t fight wars. Instead, wars are fought by the young sons of ordinary people, who stand at the broad base of the national pyramid. In the name of the nation, these countless faceless commoners make all the sacrifices in wars they have no control over starting or ending. 

In normal times, when life is comfortable and manageable, soldiers, along with their families and friends, have no doubts. They are co-opted completely by the overwhelming nationalist propaganda and brainwashed thoroughly by the hegemonic nationalist ideology. At the beginning of a war, people rally enthusiastically behind the nation and credulously believe in the judgment of their political masters. 

However, the seemingly solid national consensus begins to fracture when the death toll continues to mount in a war of attrition with no end in sight. Everyone knows that inside the endless truckloads of coffins that arrive neatly wrapped in the national flags lie the mutilated dead bodies of healthy and handsome young men and women whose lives have been cut short, along with their dreams. Against this dreadful and sorrowful reality, no amount of loud and skillful boasting, bravado, slogans and propaganda makes much difference.

Past that point, the same people — civilians and soldiers — now begin to question, doubt, and recognize the unfairness of the world and the unnecessary nature of the wars. Their common sense reveals truths that scholars discern after years of research. 

Scholarly critique of nationalist ideology and wars of choice

Historically speaking, nations as communities did not naturally exist; they were invented. They are the product of mass politics and its accompanying mythology. Irish political scientist and historian Benedict Anderson, therefore, calls them “” in his famous book of the same name. Similarly, US historian Howard Zinn :

Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. 

British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist Ernest Gellner also that “nations as a natural, God-given way of classifying men, as an inherent though long-delayed political destiny, are a myth” invented by nationalism. British historian Eric Hobsbawm that “nations do not make states and nationalisms but the other way round.” Then, he remarkably sums up the reality of this ideology in just one sentence: “Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so.”

The problem with nationalism is that it not only seeks to make us believe in falsehoods, but it is an extremely hegemonic and intolerant political ideology. It claims absolute legitimacy and demands total loyalty from individuals it identifies as belonging to a nation. According to  Hobsbawm, nationalism “overrides all other public obligations, and in extreme cases (such as wars) all other obligations of whatever kind.”

On the topic of war, US psychologist Philip Zimbardo offers an interesting, yet often-overlooked, perspective when he , “Most wars are about old men persuading young men to harm and kill other young men like themselves.” In contrast, Nolan’s perspective is more inclusive and collective. He writes:

War remains the most expensive, complex, physically, emotionally and morally demanding enterprise that humans collectively undertake. No great art or music, no cathedral or temple or mosque, no intercontinental transport net or particle collider or space program, no research for a cure for a mass killing disease receives even a fraction of the resources and effort humanity devotes to making war. Or to recovery from war, and to preparations for future wars that are invested over years and even decades of always tentative peace.

And, we never seem to learn:

After every war we also write more heroic poetry and books preaching “the old lie.” We bury the dead while neglecting survivors. We mourn awhile … then write more war songs and speak of “pouring out the sweet red wine of youth” to another generation of boys breathlessly eager for war. We bury more dead, erect more granite statues, and write lists of soon-forgotten foreign place-names scored with acid in brass on stone. We admire oiled images of oafish, mounted generals in silk and lace who led armies to slaughter in endless wars over where to mark off a king’s stone borders. Perhaps most of all, we watch films with reassuring characters and outcomes which glorify war even while supposedly denouncing it.

We do all this without “a critical look at the societies and cultures that produced mass armies and sent them off to fight in faraway fields for causes about which the average soldier knew nothing.”

Humanity’s moral disengagement and characteristic human hypocrisy

Perhaps, the simplest and the best description of the grotesqueness of the Iran war and dispositional “Western hypocrisy,” or rather human hypocrisy, comes from the defense minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, who on X, “The goal of the war seems to have shifted to opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.”

Clearly, what is most important is the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Most deplorably, what is totally unimportant is the loss of countless human lives — least of all — and the immeasurable pain and suffering of all. We have just seen it in and are now seeing it in and Iran, too. Greed and power have made us all so dastardly pathetic and morally degenerate that we have lost the precious voice of human conscience completely.��

The disruptive Iran war and its geopolitical repercussions

Among the three geopolitical theaters where the US has established military bases — Europe, the Middle East and the Far East — the Middle East offers the least serious military challenge to the US. This is due to the absence of any great military power, such as Russia or China, there. Nonetheless, Iran has delivered a serious strategic blow to the US’s reputation as the greatest military and economic power in the world when it initiated an unprovoked imperialist war against Iran.

The war in Iran has disrupted the long-held awe associated with US military might, forcing a reconsideration of its ability to impose its will on others. While the US remains the largest economic and military power, retaining its global network of military bases and alliances, the real impact of the Iran War extends beyond material changes. The war has fundamentally altered global perceptions of the US, especially among nations dependent on US support.

In light of Iran’s resolute resistance, no reasonable person can have total trust in the so-called invincible and fabled military might of the US and its ability to protect anyone. Genuine skepticism has replaced the blind faith in the US’s ability to prevail over its enemy, which is militarily capable and determined to fight back. Above all, Iran has shaken the confidence of the US’s allies regarding the security offered by the US. And, in that sense, the global domination of the US is no longer the same as it was before February 28, 2026. 

Although the final word on the Iran war is yet to be written, I must say, it is impossible to believe that there has been no erosion of confidence of its dependent allies in the US, and that there will be no perceptible strategic repercussions. My theoretical understanding and limited foresight point to the following direction the world may take. 

In a rapidly changing world, the US may not have the luxury of time to restore the perception of its military superiority and magical invincibility, even if public memory shortens. Before China could do it, Iran has fundamentally changed the world forever.

The Greenland incident has also changed many things. After the US laid to Greenland, many in Europe and elsewhere, who had previously been vocal about wanting war without the means to fight it, fell silent, believing in the unwavering and formidable support of the US in their wars. European liberals, once too aggressive in their nationalist rhetoric, are more cautious and measured now; they have stopped roaring and begun to meow. And, the Nordic and Baltic nations are now thinking twice before flexing their infantile muscles to fight a great war.

If Greenland had called into question Washington’s reliability, Iran has cast a shadow on its capability. So, what now? Maybe, most US vassals in Europe, the Middle East, the Far East and Oceania will come to their senses. Perhaps, they won’t talk about war. Hopefully, many won’t follow in the footsteps of their domestic fascist competitors. Probably, those in South Asia, Africa and South America who are scrambling and groveling to get some shade under the crowded canopy of the US security umbrella will reconsider and go back to their sensible nonalignment. Possibly, nations will rely on good old diplomacy again, choosing sanity over madness; they will sit around and talk, give and take to resolve contentious issues, and make concessions to buy peace.

It’s easy to talk about war. It’s extremely difficult to fight one, especially a protracted war of attrition. 

Lessons of history and the magical powers of propaganda

I will be pleasantly surprised if the world becomes saner as projected above, perhaps wishfully, after learning lessons from the Iran war. But, I will not be surprised at all if Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci is proven right again, when he perceptively , “History teaches, but has no pupils.”

Throughout history, we have seen that while things may change, nothing actually does. The more things change, the more they stay the same. We know well that the two-and-a-half millennia-old Thucydides’ dictum — propounded in his work — which states that “the strong do what they can; the weak endure what they must,” continues to hold its ground, defying countless resistance struggles waged by the exploited and oppressed people throughout human history.

It is easy to believe that “I am okay, you are not.” It is easy to invent an enemy and sell its imaginary threat as real and imminent to the public. Dangerous enemies have always been there in the world — the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on. There are still plenty in our world — communist China, rabid Russia, nihilist North Korea, fundamentalist Iran, racist South Africa, terrorist Afghanistan, Yemen, Cuba, Colombia and more besides. Manufacturing a narrative around these invented enemies is not very difficult.

Propaganda is an organized and sustained misinformation campaign based on certain ideas, beliefs and, above all, lies, carried out for the purposes of capturing, securing or sustaining power. It is a political tool for manufacturing public opinion and rallying people behind a certain idea, ideology or individual. Propaganda tends to monopolize public discourse by discrediting competing narratives, punishing polemics and smothering dissent.

Propaganda has magical powers, and it is a great winner. It is said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Imagine the fate of credulous and prejudiced masses with short memories when a million lies are bombarded from all directions and repeated endlessly. It can make them believe in anything. And, our beliefs and imagined realities can make us do and create anything. This fact is encapsulated in what is called . Propounded by US sociologists William and Dorothy Thomas, this theorem states, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Disruptive Iran War, Limits of Western Power and Moral Costs of Grotesque Imperialist Wars appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Alongside these concrete words that evoke in us no visual association there are idea-words that have equally vanished. We have to thank novelist James Joyce for resuscitating “agenbite” (associated with moral conscience, literally “the again-biting of the inner mind”) and “inwit” (consciousness or constructed knowledge within the mind). Despite the repeated occurrence of the phrase “agenbite of inwit” in Joyce’s , neither word has entered into common usage, though this Devil’s Advocate recommends that both would be extremely useful in today’s superficial, hyperreal culture.

Many people skilled in assertiveness excel at “outwitting” others but in so doing let their inwit atrophy. As for agenbite, reference to the law or artificial sets of behavioral rules — such as wokeism’s essentially neo-Puritanical codes — have removed agenbite from our society’s moral compass. How many Catholics still confess other than perfunctorily? As for non-Catholic Christians, though they tend to respect the law of the land, many secretly endorse US President Donald Trump’s recent quoted by The New York Times: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Trump added an important qualifier: “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” That helps explain his alacrity to carry out the bombing of elementary schools, the assassination of military, political and spiritual leaders and the wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure across Iran. When he subsequently that “we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages [sic], where they belong,” we must understand that even though bombing tends to hurt people, we shouldn’t assume that hurting anyone played any part in his intention. Trump’s inwit has no agenbite.

To bring his point home, Trump made it clear that this was all about reasonable people sitting down to work out complex problems: “In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.” The passive voice tells at least half of Trump’s story. We don’t know who is discussing or what is being discussed. Discussions are the agent here, but we know the act of discussing has neither agenbite nor inwit. Only people do. So who are the people and do they possess inwit?

The other half of the story is the idea of “discussions.” There’s an ancient term in English that in former times might have been used: negotiations. Trump may have no clear idea of the meaning of that word, as his behavior seems to demonstrate. When negotiations were officially announced and supposedly taking place back in June of 2025 and again in late February 2026, without warning or even “discussing,” Trump chose to interrupt them with spectacular bombing campaigns.

The fact that he seems to find “discussions” more meaningful than negotiations may have more to do with the fact that at the core of the word itself is another word: “cuss.” In contrast, the word “negotiation” contains at its core the Latin word, otia, the plural of otium, which means leisure time or rest. The Romans saw otium as the occasion to reflect and think, perhaps even to cultivate their inwit. A character in the Roman poet Virgil’s Eclogues expressed his gratitude in these words: “Deus nobis hæc otia fecit” (“A god gave us this leisure”). In Roman culture, otium contrasted with busyness. The Romans valued studious leisure as a moment favoring philosophy or the arts. They did not think of it as mere idleness. Inwit may have come later as a specific innovation of Christian culture, thanks in part to the Roman citizen, Augustine of Hippo, the author of . But even for the pagan Romans, otium served at the very least to cultivate one’s wits.

This isn’t just about playing with words!

Trump’s moral system privileges acts over words, which is why he allows himself to be so negligent in his use of language. He seems to favor two types of act, which reflect two essential sources of value, neither of which bothers with the distraction of ethical reasoning. The first is transactions (money, and specifically the accumulation of wealth). The second is violence in the form of police action and war: domination, humiliation, acquisition and consolidation of power.

Thanks to his abuse of language, Trump epitomizes the hidden driving forces of the US imperial culture he presides over in ways that former presidents, conscious of the danger, deliberately and often craftily sought to conceal. Trump takes delight in highlighting the fundamental brutality of a system that measures value purely by monetary standards: any increase in personal wealth or stock market cap is deemed virtuous. He privileges provocative, disparaging rhetoric and shows of force to the exclusion of any expression that might imply the existence of ethical criteria, the foundation of which is always the notion of respect and the guiding force, empathy.

Trump puts on a maximalist show, but he does so in the continuity of the fundamental behavior of the imperial state, a state he inherited and did not create. His recent behavior is nevertheless innovative. If he accepts to use the tool traditionally associated with diplomacy, negotiations, he does so merely to create the opportunity to prepare and then deploy maximum force. In that sense, it’s wise on his part to call what’s now taking place “discussions” rather than “negotiations.” No one — except possibly the cowardly European leaders (who, alas, failed to fulfill my April 1 fantasy of declaring their independence) — would now admit to trusting a US negotiation team sent by Washington to resolve an overseas conflict. Cuss or discuss are the only remaining options.

But how different is this from what we have seen in previous Democratic administrations? It was under Barack Obama that the Minsk agreements were under the sponsorship of France and Germany following US diplomat Victoria Nuland’s successfully crafted coup d’état in Kyiv back in February 2014. Then-Vice President Joe Biden was actively involved, as Nuland’s infamous intercepted . Both former French President François Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel belatedly that the negotiation was little more than a hoax, designed to gain time as Ukraine became integrated as a de facto member of NATO.

In December 2021, in response to an ongoing state of civil war in Ukraine directed against the Russian-speaking population, Russian President Vladimir Putin positioned approximately troops on the Ukrainian border, clearly threatening an invasion. He formally proposed to engage talks according to the principle of “indivisible security” that applied during the Cold War. It stated that no country should strengthen its security at the expense of its neighbor’s. There may have been good reasons to suspect once engaged, negotiations would break down, but the only certain way of knowing that is to begin the negotiations. Instead, the Biden administration, in the name of both the United States and NATO, called the request a “.” The pretext was that NATO had an “open-door” policy. With hindsight, can any rational observer believe that refusing negotiations was a wise decision or that engaging in negotiations at that time would have produced a worse result than what we see today?

History seems to be sending a message. The underlying meaning of negotiations — using a nation’s inwit to prevent the worst from happening — has been dismissed as a relic of history. We have reached a point at which the leaders in the West appear to have redefined the term — and even its more general framework, diplomacy — to signify the phase of a deliberately ambiguous relationship that provides time to prepare for the use of massive destructive force. Biden’s team had already exhausted the technique with the regularly violated Minsk accords. Trump innovated by accepting the negotiations as the platform from which to attack.

Trump’s Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at least gets straight to the point. In the headline of a recent on The Hill, we learn that “he welcomes deal with Iran, but Pentagon will keep ‘negotiating with bombs.’” Trump explained that “Hegseth was ‘disappointed’ by the idea” of negotiations but agreed with the principle so long as the talking was done with bombs. And of course, Trump himself has now stepped up to promise a war crime on the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”

Most observers feel that, despite massive and ongoing damage and the successful decapitation strike by the US–Israeli tag team on day one, Iran now has the upper hand. In such cases, negotiations tend to be useful to the party risking defeat. But at some point the weaker party has to acknowledge the state of play and negotiate — with words not bombs — to put an end to the misery. 

Trump’s attitude seems to fall into an oft repeated pattern. In March 2022, Biden predicted the ruble would soon be . It’s the dollar that’s now losing traction as the world’s reserve currency. So long as serious negotiations based on recognizable principles such as indivisible security are dismissed, things will go badly for everyone, but especially for those who believe they started in a position of power.

I leave the last word to Edward Quince, our good friend and collaborator in our series, “Money Matters.” He has revealed privately what appears to be the nature of Trump’s current “discussions,” which the Iranians vehemently insist are not negotiations:

“Trump is attempting to buy off the Iranian elites — partially easing sanctions, sending signals through oil prices, while simultaneously threatening scenarios such as the seizure of Kharg Island and control of the Strait of Hormuz.

But the Iranians will not go along with it.”

Dear reader, when do you think Trump’s or Hegseth’s agenbite is likely to click in?

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition 51�Թ� began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Agenbite of Diplomacy: Are Negotiations Still a Thing? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The White House had warned that Iranian power plants and energy facilities could be hit if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened. But by Monday, Trump had paused those strikes after what he called “productive” contacts, even as Iran any talks were taking place. Reuters also that the pause appears to apply only to energy sites, not to wider military targets. That is not a coherent strategy. It is a tactical retreat from one especially dangerous form of escalation.

The limits of military pressure and the tactical retreat

The most telling detail is why Trump pulled back. Reuters also that Gulf Arab states had warned Washington that strikes on Iranian power infrastructure could trigger severe retaliation against energy assets across the Gulf. In other words, the threat to hit power plants did not promise control; it threatened a wider regional breakdown. That matters because it changes how we should understand the original ultimatum. It was not a credible plan for reopening Hormuz. It was a way of shifting pressure away from a military bottleneck and onto civilian systems. When a government cannot quickly solve the problem in the water, it starts looking for leverage on land. Too often, that means ordinary life becomes the battlefield.

That shift should worry anyone who still believes strategy and restraint belong in the same sentence. The Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, oil is still , and countries like Japan are reserves because the disruption has not ended.

The five-day extension: buying time, not solutions

The five-day extension did not reopen the channel. It bought time in the markets and perhaps time for mediation, but it did not change the underlying fact that the US has not found a workable way to force the strait open without risking . A threat against civilian infrastructure may sound forceful on television, but it does not move mines, widen shipping lanes or create political consent where none exists.

The military problem here is more stubborn than Trump’s rhetoric suggests. Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical , with about 20 million barrels per day of crude and oil products moving through it in 2025, or roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade. There are only a limited number of ways around it. That geography is why even some of Washington’s allies have being dragged into a rush to “unblock” it on Trump’s terms.

Allies’ reservations, geographic reality and humanitarian stakes

According to , several allies were unenthusiastic about providing military support, and some conditioned any role on de-escalation rather than war expansion. The problem is not a lack of threats; it is that threats do not solve geography.

This is also where the legal danger becomes impossible to ignore. International humanitarian law attacking or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. That principle matters everywhere, but it carries special weight in the Gulf, where electricity and desalination are not luxuries. They are part of how millions of people get water and keep hospitals, homes and public life functioning.

The EU’s leaders recognized the danger last week when they for a moratorium on strikes against energy and water facilities in the Middle East. That call was not a diplomatic decoration. It was an acknowledgment that this war is edging toward attacks whose civilian consequences cannot be brushed aside as collateral.

Trump’s defenders will argue that the threat worked because it created diplomatic space. Maybe. But even that claim looks thin. Iran publicly denied the existence of direct talks, and Reuters that Tehran has hardened its negotiating position and is demanding far more than Washington appears willing to accept. If so, the five-day pause is less a breakthrough than a holding pattern. It may for a few hours and allow intermediaries to shuttle messages, but it does not settle the central issue. A bluff against power infrastructure is not the same as a maritime solution. It is an attempt to compensate for strategic frustration by raising the civilian stakes.

The drift toward civilian targets and the erosion of strategy

That is what makes this episode larger than one deadline. The real story is not simply that Trump changed 48 hours to five days. It is that the war’s logic has drifted. The pressure is no longer confined to ships, missiles and naval patrols. It is being pushed outward, toward grids, pumps, ports and desalination plants, as if civilian vulnerability can succeed where military coercion has stalled. That is a familiar pattern in modern wars.

When leaders cannot deliver the outcome they promised, they do not always scale back. Sometimes they widen the pain until something breaks. The danger now is that what breaks first will not be the blockade. It will be the line separating war from the deliberate degradation of civilian life.

If the Trump administration were serious about reopening Hormuz, it would be investing its political capital in de-escalation, coalition diplomacy and a realistic assessment of what force can and cannot do in a narrow, mined, heavily exposed waterway. Instead, it flirted with the idea of turning energy and possibly water systems into bargaining chips, then stepped back only after Gulf allies warned that the costs could spiral beyond control. That is not strength; it is an admission that the original approach has failed. And once a war begins leaning on the infrastructure civilians need to live, it is usually a sign not that victory is near, but that strategy is running out.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Strategy Fails, Civilian Infrastructure Becomes the Target appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Climate change turns the map into strategy

Geri frames climate change not as a distant environmental story but as a near-term driver of geopolitics. As ice coverage recedes, the Arctic becomes more navigable and contestable. That, he argues, changes how the United States thinks about defense. Washington’s traditional Grand Strategy focused on preventing any rival from dominating Eurasia either in the East or West. Now the Northern approach matters in ways it once did not, because threats can arrive by sea routes also from the North, and by missile trajectories that run across the polar region.

Khattar Singh presses him to translate this into policy, and Geri points to Trump’s interest in large-scale missile defense. He portrays the “Golden Dome” idea as an attempt to harden the Western Hemisphere against new vectors of attack, with spillover benefits for NATO allies. If the Arctic becomes a corridor rather than a barrier, Greenland’s location starts to look like infrastructure, not just territory.

Why Trump makes it louder than past presidents

Khattar Singh asks why Trump is uniquely public and seemingly insistent about Greenland compared with previous US presidents. Geri answers that the underlying strategic logic has been building for years, but Trump amplifies it through a negotiating style that is explicitly “transactional” and deliberately unpredictable. In Geri’s telling, Trump escalates rhetorically to shift the bargaining range, then seeks concessions that look disproportionate to the initial ask.

Game theory helps explain the pattern, especially the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Geri highlights that Trump behaves like a player who prefers defection over cooperation to secure the best individual outcome, even if the posture looks abrasive. Still, there is a distinction between democracies and dictatorships. Democratic leaders face electoral accountability. Dictators answer primarily to a narrower elite. If voters come to believe their interests are being ignored, they can remove leaders, and democratic constraint ultimately shapes how far escalation can go.

Russia, China and the rules of the Arctic

The conversation then widens from Trump’s tactics to the structure of Arctic competition. Khattar Singh and Geri emphasize that the legal framework matters. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Arctic’s coastal states have special rights in their exclusive economic zones, and the Arctic Council (comprising Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the US) has operated since the 1990s as a forum to manage disputes. China is not an Arctic littoral power, but it holds observer status and has pursued a long-term presence, including a “Polar Silk Road” announced in 2016. It also describes itself as a “near-Arctic state.”

Khattar Singh adds that after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow expanded its northern military footprint, creating roughly 19 to 21 new stations near the Arctic. Geri treats that buildup, plus China’s economic entry strategy, as the practical challenge for Western planners. Europe’s problem is not a lack of rhetoric about law and norms, but the speed of decision-making. He argues that the European Union’s bureaucratic constraints slow strategic adaptation, and that in a world where rivals violate rules, strict rule-following can become a disadvantage.

Greenland’s future and Europe’s defense test

The most contentious question is why Greenland cannot simply remain Danish territory inside NATO, with the US increasing basing and coordination. The issue is burden-sharing and credibility. Geri argues that the US has protected Europe for decades, and that Washington now wants Europeans to assume real leadership for the continent’s defense, not only through higher spending but through faster political coordination and stronger capabilities.

From there, Greenland becomes both a symbol and instrument. Denmark’s capacity cannot match the US in a high-stakes contest over resources, surveillance and military access. He also emphasizes Greenland’s scale, roughly two million square kilometers, and its small population of around 50,000 indigenous residents, easy to be controlled by a rival if not protected with the right means. In Geri’s view, Greenland “makes sense geographically” as part of the North American strategic space, and its people might weigh protection and investment differently as competition intensifies.

What might an actual deal look like? Geri suggests a spectrum, from a lease arrangement to a broader economic and military exchange, but he stresses that any sustainable outcome must involve Greenlanders themselves, not only Copenhagen and Washington. He then looks beyond the Arctic, predicting that similar rivalries will extend into the Antarctic and even into space as states compete for new resource frontiers. He closes on a European challenge: whether the EU can develop the long-term strategic vision and defense integration needed to compete with authoritarian powers, while still working with the US.

On the preceding question, Khattar Singh asks if other NATO members might someday trade territory for protection. Geri acknowledges that “everything is possible” in an interconnected era, but argues Greenland is a different beast because of its autonomy, location and resource potential. His bottom line is that the Arctic is no longer a frozen buffer. It is becoming a frontline, and Greenland sits where geography, law, security and bargaining power collide.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Talks: Trump’s Greenland Strategy Exposes the Next Phase of Great Power Competition appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Of course, such personal exposure inevitably brings both insights largely inaccessible to foreigners and also potential biases. Such biases are not necessarily problematic but merely reflect the fact that personal exposure is likely to add to an outsider’s knowledge and also modify their understanding of why they are as they are and see the world as they do. Gaining such cultural insights greatly aids communication. Of course, acquiring such insights by “” is not the same as necessarily agreeing with whatever is revealed. I was a kind of opportunist “barefoot ethnographer,” a participant observer, not a “disciple.”

Nevertheless, with this unusual level of access and understanding over such a long period, I confess to having become somewhat conflicted — the more so over recent years since President Donald Trump first came to power in the US in January 2017 and took a decidedly aggressive stance against Iran, and his subsequent unrestrained joint military attacks with Israel on Iran in 2025 and 2026. On the one hand, who would not want a freer, unrepressed and more prosperous life for Iran’s 94 million population and both national and regional security and peace for all nations in the Middle East (including Iran and Israel)? But, on the other hand, has the increasing belligerence of Israel and the US towards Iran, culminating in their joint unprovoked mass bombing of Iran in February and March 2026 (an undeclared but de facto imposed war) delivered — or ever likely to — those desirable objectives?

Iranians are conflicted

Having endured decades of imposed wars, international sanctions, economic decimation, pariah status, great hardship, authoritarian government and a suffocating lack of personal freedom, those still in Iran desperately crave a normal, safe, peaceful and hopeful life for themselves and their families. But, does the recent US and Israeli military onslaught against Iran really herald such a change, or is it fools’ gold offered by devils-in-disguise?

The present Iranian population, inside and outside Iran, is very conflicted. Some of their reasons are broadly similar to my own, outlined above. In addition, most Iranians, including, I would gauge, a majority of those thirsting for a change of governance, are also angered not only by being relentlessly bombed but also by the sheer “might is right” arrogance and the megalomaniacal and bloodthirsty anti-Iranian rhetoric and vilification emanating from Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and others in the White House coterie. The Times, noted for its right-leaning pro-US editorial worldview, ran a on America’s Iran War, which noted that Trump’s White House had twisted British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s famous maxim that “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war” to now mean “Jaw, jaw is better for war, war.” Providing copious examples of quotes by Hegseth, Trump and others, the article opined, “You’d be forgiven for thinking that Donald Trump and his staff’s salvoes were culled from a Bond villain.” More on Team Trump’s psycho-dramatics later.

A profile of Iran’s population

The Iranian population today comprises three discernible main worldview groupings. Group 1 are ultra-conservative die-hard Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) regime supporters. One subgroup, amounting in total to some 10% of the adult population, incorporates the vast majority of state and municipal officials, judiciary, senior and middle-ranking military officers, most of the Shia clergy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including their Baseej enforcers. In addition, a larger subgroup includes the relatively uneducated and conservative masses in low-income jobs. The latter sub-group is estimated to be some 20% of the adult population. Following the targeted killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini by US-Israeli bombing on February 28, 2026, vast celebrated the succession of his son, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khameini, as Iran’s Supreme Leader on March 9, 2026.

Group 2 comprises well-educated, Western-oriented 18–35-year-olds, typically living in the Tehran-Karaj conurbation of some 12 million people or in other large cities across the country. This group, which accounts for an estimated 40% of the adult population, are desperate for substantive liberal change in Iran’s governance, economic reform and rapprochement with the US. They have provided the majority of street protesters against the IRI regime. These have been going on for several years, during which large numbers of protesters have been killed or wounded on the streets by armed IRGC/Baseej forces, or have been jailed, and some even executed. Reported beatings, torture, sexual assault and even murder of arrested protesters are legion. The most egregious period of regime crackdown so far has been over several weeks from December 2025 to February 2026, when many thousands of protesters were reportedly .

Group 3, amounting to an estimated 30% of the adult population, comprises over 35-year-olds with rents, mortgages and families to provide for or elderly parents to look after in an ongoing hyperinflationary economy, all of whom value safety and economic and political stability. These include large numbers of middle-aged veterans of the 1979 Revolution and Iran-Iraq War (1980–88) who survived firstly the hardships and privations of that era and then the decades of Western economic sanctions up to the present. Most of this group, while fed up with years of international sanctions, chronic corruption and economic mismanagement, and yearning for change, veer away from actively deposing the IRI regime unless it is done by nonviolent means and does not involve interference from external forces or interests. Like Group 2, they would greatly welcome a change to a liberal, competent and noncorrupt regime, but not by their openly challenging the IRI regime or engaging in its violent overthrow.

Why aren’t Iranians rising to depose the IRI regime?

As if to demonstrate the Trump regime’s appalling ignorance of Iran’s long history and its contemporary reality, in the days before the US and Israel’s joint blitzkrieg on Iran started in February 2026 and while bilateral negotiations between Iran and Washington were still proceeding, Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, made an astonishing . With a puzzled facial expression and language, he said that the President was “curious” as to why Iran was “not capitulating” to his demands to give up immediately and cease forever all nuclear ambitions and activities (military and civil) and cease backing and using armed proxies to terrorise the region, while having to accept that all US economic sanctions against Iran would remain in place. Or else!!

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi gave his own succinct and telling : “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are IRANIAN.” In other words, Trump and Witkoff appeared unaware of a core national characteristic of the cultural and psychological makeup of Iranians, namely an absolute resistance to foreign threats and bullying or any kind of attack on their national identity, sovereignty, territory and self-determination. Such national pride, patriotism and “unto death” stoic resistance served them well during the eight years of the Iraqi-imposed Iran-Iraq War (1980–88) in which Iraq was backed and armed by the US and other Western countries.

With vastly superior military equipment and US backing, Saddam Hussein said he expected to win this war in a few weeks or months, but after eight years, he had to concede a stalemate ceasefire. The same stoic and tough resistance has characterized Iran’s response to subsequent decades of increasingly harsh international economic sanctions, largely orchestrated by the US. With a 7,000-year history and national survival of Persia ingrained in their culture, today’s Iranians are unlikely to be impressed or swayed by the threats, swagger or attacks (military or economic) from the 250-year-old neophyte USA. Defiance and resistance will be their defining response.

The common reaction to Witkoff’s and Trump’s puzzlement, from the bevvy of seasoned political analysts, historians, Iran watchers, journalists, etc. (e.g., ), was one of initial incredulity at the breathtaking ignorance and naivety of these two most senior representatives of the US government regarding Iran’s history and US–Iran relations. This was then quickly followed by unrestrained guffaws at such an embarrassing display.

Further embarrassing puzzlement has been expressed by Trump and White House grandees about why the Iranian population has not heeded to rise up and sweep away the IRI regime. In addition to the police, the IRI regime has established an extremely well-organized, well-armed and ruthless internal security system (IRGC plus Baseej militias) to keep the population in line. In contrast, anti-regime protesters and the general population are unarmed, unorganized and lacking in any identifiable national or even local leaders. It is amazing that so many unarmed protesters have nonetheless persisted in challenging the IRI regime for so many years. Many have already paid the price with their lives or serious injury, but to seek to overthrow the regime by force without any weaponry or organization would be doubtless suicide.

In addition, as outlined above, most of the estimated 70% of the adult population who want regime change shy away from engaging in violent overthrow or else recognize its futility without leadership, organization and weaponry. The detailed analysis of the thirst inside Iran for regime change, and the percentage likelihoods of the various scenarios for it happening, provided by my colleague James Denton’s 51�Թ� article in early 2023, is still highly relevant. 

In addition, when Iranians hear Trump imploring them to rise up and overthrow the IRI regime, they scoff cynically at the notion that he would ever provide them with any tangible assistance to achieve such an outcome. Even in Trump’s first presidency, he and his then White House team were keen on regime change in Iran. As I wrote in 2018 (pages 234-235) in a on The Alt-Right Anti-Iran Project, “they envisaged this resulting from a popular uprising inside Iran” but failed to understand that, just as when US-backed Saddam Hussein launched his unprovoked war on Iran in 1980, the whole population including those disaffected by the IRI regime responded with zeereh parcham (rally to the flag) patriotism. 

As recently as January 2026, the US Department of Defense (unofficially now Department of War) issued a new National Defense Strategy , which contains (paragraph 2) the following statement: The Department will “no longer be distracted by interventions, endless wars, regime change and nation building.” Iranians ask themselves why, in less than two months, Trump has radically changed his mind, or was this new doctrine intentionally a complete fiction?

Iranians also vividly remember US President George H.W.Bush in 1991, the Iraqi population to rise up against Saddam Hussein with implied promises of US military assistance. No such help materialized, and the Iraqi Marsh Arabs, Shia anti-Ba’athist insurrectionists in Najaf and Karbala, and Kurds in northern Iraq, in particular, suffered . Iranians today take full note of how glib and duplicitous US Presidents can be in sacrificing foreign populations from the safety of the White House. It is unsurprising, then, that they would not be persuaded by Trump’s implied but doubtful promises of practical assistance to overthrow the IRI regime. 

Lack of a credible leader

What about the lack of any political group or popular leader in Iran who could replace the Islamic regime and its Supreme Leader? It is unsurprising that any potential contenders fail to make themselves known, since to do so would invite rapid detention or elimination by the current regime. 

Ah, but have no fear, there is surely a ready-made leader-in-waiting in the person of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah, who has been living in comfortable exile in the USA for much of the time since 1979. He was then still in his teens. He has never held any government office or responsibility, but has established a and well-oiled publicity campaign for his return to Iran as the next Shah. The campaign has essentially been to reestablish the Pahlavi monarchy and to reintroduce an imperial style of semi-feudal governance like his father’s. More recently, perhaps sensing such an outdated model just won’t fly with Iran’s population today, he has raised the possibility of his returning as a constitutional figurehead monarch “at an appropriate time.”

Crown Prince Reza appeals mainly to older Iranians, those old enough to remember the Pahlavi era before 1979. These are mainly Iranian emigrés abroad and a minority inside Iran who hanker after the pre-Revolution days. Although Reza is well educated, articulate and charming and receives much publicity and airtime in the West, his prospectus suffers from a number of handicaps. 

The outdated “reprise model” of his father’s pre-Revolutionary era is one handicap. Others include his lack of government experience and, apparently, a poor intellectual grasp of the extent and depth of state governance requirements for such a strategically pivotal country as Iran. However, perhaps the most damning criticism is a lack of self-awareness of his controversial personal attitude and conduct in public. In recent years, he has made no secret of his keenness for a post-IRI Iran to return to strong and friendly relations with Israel, which existed during his father’s reign.

While such sentiments are perhaps not in themselves outrageous, unverified videos and photos from 2023 of the Crown Prince and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with arms round each other’s shoulders and beaming faces (since deleted from internet sources), and Reza socializing with Israeli politicos and “big shots” in a Tel Aviv , have been received very badly among Iranians generally. Such behavior demonstrates a shallow regard for the sensitivities of the Iranian people and a preparedness to engage in what many see as inappropriate collaboration with Iran’s sworn enemy.

Even President Trump, while not unfriendly towards Reza Pahlavi and offering him words of encouragement and photo opportunities, has nevertheless that he does not regard the Crown Prince as a credible new leader for a post-IRI Iran. 

MAGA President Bluto Knuckledragger rules the world

“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.” This famous from Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem in 1818 about the Egyptian pharaonic ruler Ramses II (Ozymandias in Greek) was intended not to idolize the greatness of Ozymandias but rather to warn of the vulnerability of leaders with inflated and narcissistic egos to unnoticed context changes over time and unforeseen developments and events that they cannot control.

Unsurprisingly, President Trump is widely thought of as an Ozymandias figure, given his unrelenting penchant for uttering grandiose and bombastic statements about his own superlative greatness and achievements, contrasted with equally bombastic assertions about the alleged worthlessness or bad character of — well — just about anyone and everyone, from foreign leaders, US politicians, judges, corporate leaders, dignitaries, celebrities, sports stars, film stars, pop stars, religious leaders, journalists, ethnic groups, non-Judeo-Christian religions, particular nationalities, disabled people, refugees etc.

Even a small fraction of such insults and invective would be unbecoming, unprofessional and unacceptable from any person holding even a minor position of responsibility or authority, let alone a President of the US. But, clearly, the Bluto Knuckledragger (the main antagonist of Popeye) personality of this King Ozymandias could not care less.

Trump’s vast array of pet hates, targets for disparaging remarks and petulant Executive Orders naturally includes anyone who dares to disagree with, contradict or challenge him in any way, or simply stand their ground on what they regard as their own national best interests. So, unsurprisingly, Iran has long been a candidate for his angry invective, petulance and threats, culminating in his 2025 military strikes and current 2026 Operation Epic Fury, otherwise known as the War on Iran.

In the past ten years, there have been many published analyses and commentaries on the source of Trump’s often bizarre emotions and behaviour. For example, Professor Tim Wilson’s in 2026 on Trump as a dangerous liability suggests that his childlike tantrums stem from an arrested development, whereby his adult personality is locked into a permanent state of infantile perception, attitude and behavior. 

The Dangerous Charisma by Professor Jerrold Post, psychiatrist and political psychologist, examines the psychopathology of Trump and his followers, which is highly relevant to his wide-ranging neoimperialist aggression, unsupported territorial claims and bullying against several countries, mainly traditional allies of the US. Most countries trading with the US have also capitulated to his bizarre aggression. Countries (e.g., Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Panama) confronted by his potential land-grab rhetoric are still attempting to negotiate a way out. Venezuela’s historically anti-US authoritarian dictatorship has been left in power following the US short-lived invasion, the extraordinary rendition of President Nicolas Maduro to await trial in the USA and the US effectively taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil industry. Meanwhile, Trump has now an oil blockade of Cuba and threatened to end its 67-year-old communist regime.

However, confronted by an Iran that is not just uncooperative, resistant and noncompliant to US demands but also steadfastly defiant, Trump’s narcissism, delusional paranoia, and fragile and easily wounded ego finally responded in 2025 to Netanyahu’s persistent urging for the US to join Israel in a massive unprovoked and on Iran’s nuclear and other facilities in June 2025 (the Twelve Day War). The further unprovoked preemptive attack in February 2026, but on a much larger scale (Operation Epic Fury), is still ongoing. However, Trump’s apparent ignorance about Iran and its post-World War II history, his lack of grasp of military matters (or perhaps his deliberate dismissal of good advice from the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]), his inadequate war planning, his frequent and often contradictory changing and expansion of the war’s objectives, and contradictory statements from Trump and his Cabinet colleagues have been .

Also characteristically, Trump has continued with his narcissistic, grandiose hyperbole regarding the current war on Iran. Almost every day, he has issued formal statements in such language, or similar statements on his Truth Social online platform or at press conferences or public events, for example, , and his triumphant, if premature, claim “We won! We won!” on . Trump also appears to be unconcerned when US or Israeli missiles inflict mass civilian casualties on Iran’s cities (e.g., a in Minab). At a Republican conference, he even gloated in “gallows humor” style over the death of nearly 100 sailors when, without warning, the US sank an Iranian warship in open waters off Sri Lanka, some 3,400 kilometers from Iran, with a smirk, “It’s more fun to sink ‘em” than to capture them.

But what about all the sycophants and “yes men and women” that Trump has surrounded himself with as his White House Cabinet and entourage? These, too, fall under the scope of Jerrold Post’s political psychological assessment. Two top officials in particular evidently share Trump’s penchant for displaying a narcissistic, aggressive, bullying, self-congratulatory style: Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who has unilaterally and without Congressional approval retitled his post to that of Secretary of War. 

The armchair comic book warriors

Hegseth has been especially vocal about the Iran War, giving regular briefings extolling the US’s military supremacy, predicting a quick and overwhelming victory, and dismissing Iran’s military capabilities with contempt. In many ways, Hegseth’s wild anti-Iran has far upstaged that of Trump. For example:

“They are toast, and they know it.”

“We will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you”.

“This was never meant to be a fair fight; we are punching them while they are down, as it should be”.

The Iranian leaders are “rats in hiding,” and the newly elected Supreme Leader has been “disfigured” by US/Israeli bombing.

On day 13 of Operation Epic Fury, gave a lengthy one-man public statement and press briefing on the war’s progress, seeking to convince an increasingly skeptical American public that early victory was assured with a complete annihilation and capitulation of Iran, and to soothe domestic and global anxieties and markets about growing economic damage. Reaction inside the US and globally has been cool and largely unconvinced.

It is not just Hegseth’s self-aggrandizing, triumphalist language, his repeated exaggerated assertions of Iran’s crushing imminent defeat (now stretched already from one week to four–six weeks or longer) and his bloodthirsty, undiplomatic words that cause increasing skepticism and alarm. Just as telling are his physical presentation, body language and stage performance.

Hegseth always appears immaculate and well-groomed, perhaps reflecting his grounding as a Fox News TV presenter. Although this may be a potential advantage for audience acceptability, in his case, it seems excessive. Rather than cutting the gravitas figure of a cabinet secretary, his square-jawed, clean-cut, lightly tanned, play boy visage makes him look much more like a telegenic model for TV adverts for male grooming products, toothpaste or tanning lotion. Add to this his uncontrolled habit of looking overly earnest and sincere, his dramatic turns of phrase, his dogmatic assertions, his aggressive evangelical delivery and his constant emphatic hand gestures, and he falls naturally into the genre of crusading “hard sell” politico-religious televangelists so popular in the US.

Another unmistakable trait is Hegseth’s barely suppressed, constant bubbling anger. This anger seems to be caused by deep frustrations, particularly relating to his strongly held Christian fundamentalist beliefs and agenda (set out in his book of that name) that he would like to see fulfilled, but which so far seems to elude him. His on this issue involves his seeking to impose on the Pentagon an “onward Christian soldiers” culture that normalizes exclusively Christian ideology and language from a bygone era and sanctifies using America’s military might to achieve notionally superior Christian subjugation or elimination of non-Judeo-Christian religions and nations. The US war program against Iran, which started in 2025, has become Hegseth’s major launch pad for his and fixation to ensure a Messianic return, a second coming of Christ, through declared US supremacy and, as necessary, intimidation, conquest and subjugation of “the other.”

His ethnocentrist, religiocentrist and politically partisan superiority beliefs, agenda and actions also apply to the US Military and the US population overall. This directly rejects the equal rights of all citizens guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Hegseth’s White House Colleagues, President Trump, the Republican Party and many of their supporters have raised no complaints or objections about this flagrant rejection of the Constitution that Trump and all his Cabinet have sworn under oath to uphold.

For Hegseth, his knowledge of the history of Iran and its relationship with the US appears to start with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the “evil Ayatollahs.” No apparent recognition of the CIA’s orchestration (with British involvement) of the against the Shah’s Prime Minister Dr Mohammad Mossadegh, which relegated the Shah to the role of Washington’s puppet — and sowed the seeds of the 1979 Revolution. As the distinguished has put it, “The coup revealed America’s influence and malevolent ambitions in Iran. The immense sense of betrayal that was felt – and cultivated for later generations.”

Deep mistrust of the US government stemming from the 1953 coup continues today, seared into the psyche of every Iranian, and accentuated by Trump’s that any new national political leader of Iran must meet his approval. Trump, the suzerain imperator, sees Iran’s future only as a US vassal state, and Hegseth seeks to oblige.

Hegseth exudes a juvenile, immature attitude towards governance, international affairs, international conflict and the prosecution of war. His gung-ho jingoistic fervor for battle whenever he addresses audiences betrays the excitement of a 13-year-old armchair “warrior” getting carried away reading Captain America comic books or playing video war games. His vicarious “fantasy hero” exposure to battle avoids him ever being in harm’s way, unlike all the American service personnel sent into the Iran War theater.

Vance also shares Hegseth’s barely suppressed bubbling anger. He rarely smiles and always looks possessed by inner demons and ready to explode. His outrageous televised against Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiyy (a US ally) in the latter’s White House meeting with President Trump on February 28, 2025, with Trump and others egging him on, will surely go down in history as the most disgraceful display of undiplomatic bullying in modern times.

While less vocal than Hegseth on the Iran War, by Vance’s rhetoric and published , he nonetheless shares Hegseth’s militant worldview on Christian fundamentalist supremacy and the importance of the US government imposing this on its own population and the rest of the world. He is reportedly a supporter of the , namely that the state should actively advance Christian supremacy in US society via control of seven key spheres: government, religion, education, family, business, media, arts and entertainment.

Unlike Hegseth, who possesses a very high degree of certitude about his identity and divinely ordained Christian mission, Vance appears conflicted and unhappy with his identity. Born James David Bowman, he first changed his name in 1990–91 to JD Hamel and then again to JD Vance in 2013. It is rare for males to change their surname, although his first surname change appears to have a reasonable justification. However, more than one surname change is extremely rare. There is speculation that he may suffer from some kind of narcissistic delusion of grandeur condition that drives him towards gaining enhanced public and political approval and adulation by reinventing his name to something more memorable, attractive and high-powered.

Hubris, delusion and the illusion of total victory

As many seasoned military and statecraft experts and observers have noted, all the hyperbolic US triumphalism spewing out daily from King Osymandias’s White House regarding a total Iranian defeat may be a tad premature on several major counts.

Beware hubris. The US has failed repetitively to learn from its past strategic mistakes overseas regarding inflated false assumptions that its undoubted massive military superiority alone will guarantee total victory in all respects, e.g., the Vietnam War, Iraq Wars and Afghan debacle. Unleashing overwhelming military firepower may succeed in causing a target country great loss of life, economic and material damage, and even capitulation, but military victory alone cannot win hearts and minds or guarantee long-lasting peace. Total victory also requires ensuring that a defeated enemy retains sovereignty, builds stable governance, rebuilds a strong economy, ensures political and religious freedoms and human rights, and stays at peace with other countries.

When it comes to Iran, the Trump White House has failed miserably to acknowledge the old maxim “know your enemy but know yourself better.” The limited individual and collective self-awareness displayed has been as pitiful as their knowledge and awareness of the Middle East in general and Iran specifically. 

Destructive, damaged personalities and pathological traits also seem to pervade the Trump White House and negatively influence US policy towards Iran. Large-scale field and clinical studies (e.g., Fritzon, Brooks et al, ; and , pages 295–325 and 327–365) have revealed that compared to a normative expectation of some 3% of the general population exhibiting clinically raised levels of psychopathy, when it comes to boardrooms and similar power centers, the prevalence rises to 20%. Could it be even higher among the Trump White House Cabinet and entourage? And, what about the governing groups in Iran and Israel? Perhaps all countries should conduct “due diligence” clinical psychological evaluation of political leaders, just as is often already standard for police and military personnel. Such screening might then encourage “Jaw, jaw” rather than “War, war.”

Perhaps soon the long-suffering Iranian people might finally be able to chant with confidence the Persian New Year invocation “Sad saal beh, az in saalha” — (May the next) one hundred years (be) better than these years.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Beware Hubris: Trump’s Iran War Has an Ozymandias Flavor appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Although President Trump ultimately cooled his interest in acquiring European territory, Europe briefly faced a dire situation: For many staunch Atlanticists, the prospect of defending themselves against a US military land grab signaled the end of an era. Following the shock of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Europe now finds itself caught between an aggressive Russia and an unpredictable US.

For Germany, these developments are particularly worrying. A country that has long prided itself on its close relationship with the US, its major role in advancing European integration and its determination to build a constructive relationship with Russia now finds itself in a world turned upside down.

As Germany contemplates how to organize its defense in this altered security environment, , both within and outside the country, have concluded that, now allegedly bereft of American protection, Germany should acquire its own nuclear weapons. However, Berlin is not likely to go down this path. Even though the world has changed and Germany is now investing heavily in its conventional defense, the costs of a national nuclear option would far outweigh any potential benefits.

Breaking nuclear taboos

The German nuclear debate started during the 2016 US presidential campaign when candidate Trump questioned long-standing US policies of protecting allies. Some German observers that the loss of the US “nuclear umbrella” was becoming increasingly likely, which would force Germany to pursue a national nuclear option. However, when it became clear that President Trump did not intend to question the US’s nuclear commitment to Europe, the debate quickly died down.��

Still, Trump’s return to the White House, which resulted in an even more aggressive stance towards Europe, reignited the nuclear debate. Some German have commented on the need for alternatives to a fading US commitment, but have getting into specifics. The most vocal proponents of a German bomb are a few security experts in academia, as well as journalists. Parts of �ұ�������Բ�’s conservative press, in particular, are fueling this discussion. Guest authors are regularly invited to write about the need for a German bomb. also seem eager to educate reluctant German decision-makers on the fundamentals of robust nuclear policy. Even the arts and culture sections of some newspapers are startling unsuspecting readers with by previously unknown authors portraying Germany as being in urgent need of its own nuclear weapons. These authors seem to relish their role as nuclear taboo-breakers.

However, closer inspection reveals that �ұ�������Բ�’s self-styled taboo-breakers are at best reluctant arsonists. For instance, most German proponents of a national nuclear option rarely express their views unequivocally. Most are content merely to refer to the new security situation, in which one must now “think the unthinkable.” Only a few dare to go further. proposed that Germany should simply buy 1,000 nuclear warheads from the US, thereby becoming a nuclear power virtually overnight (while leading to the imminent collapse of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty []).

Others argue that the treaties committing Germany to permanently renounce weapons of mass destruction , as the conditions for these commitments no longer exist — “rebus sic stantibus.” This line of argument would enable Germany to withdraw from the Two-Plus-Four that paved the way for its reunification. It could then follow up by withdrawing from the NPT, which West Germany joined in 1969 as a non-nuclear-weapon state. Once these legal obstacles were removed, the argument goes, the path to the bomb would depend only on financial resources and technical know-how.��

Consequently, proponents of nuclear weapons argue that, like Japan and South Korea, Germany should invest in “nuclear latency,” i.e., the maintenance of the basic technologies necessary for a national nuclear weapons program. However, �ұ�������Բ�’s exit from nuclear power generation has left the country with very little “nuclear latency.”

Moreover, as the British and French experiences demonstrate, the financial costs of a national nuclear program would be enormous. Developing a true nuclear option — which must include command systems (including satellites) and delivery vehicles (such as missiles or submarines) — would take 20 years or more, which seems too long to deter a belligerent Russia. 

Concerns from �ұ�������Բ�’s neighbors��

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, those in favor of a German bomb tend to avoid the question of what would happen if Poland, Italy and other larger European countries were to follow �ұ�������Բ�’s example and initiate their own nuclear programs. Even if Washington dropped any objections to allied countries acquiring nuclear weapons, a German bid for the bomb could trigger a major political earthquake with unforeseeable consequences.

If official government about Germany wanting to build Europe’s strongest conventional armed forces are already in Europe and beyond, what would happen if Berlin were to commit to a national nuclear weapons program? Old resentments among �ұ�������Բ�’s neighbors, which have been kept in check until now, would resurface. Germany would make a tactical gain, but suffer a strategic loss.��

�ұ�������Բ�’s withdrawal from several major international treaties would strike fear into many Europeans more than Moscow’s nuclear weapons would. Although the German public’s towards nuclear weapons remains fickle, the idea of their country developing its own nuclear arsenal would hardly be widely approved of.

In a speech in February 2026, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that Berlin was engaged in talks with Paris on nuclear matters, but hastened to add that Germany was opposed to “different zones of security” in Europe. This message was intended to reassure �ұ�������Բ�’s neighbors that Berlin was looking at the broader European context and not seeking a privileged position under a strictly bilateral Franco-German deterrence framework. In sum, whatever the reasoning behind a German nuclear arsenal, no German government would pursue it.��

�ұ�������Բ�’s NATO Option

Germany has two options for organizing its nuclear protection. The first is NATO. Since the 1960s, NATO has had a system of “nuclear sharing” in place that balances Washington’s desire to maintain decision-making power over nuclear use with the interests of non-nuclear states in political and military consultation, without undermining the NPT. In practical terms, this means that Germany and several other NATO allies maintain specialized fighter jets and crews that could carry US nuclear warheads in times of conflict. Nuclear sharing is a laborious compromise, but it represents the greatest degree of nuclear cooperation possible between sovereign nation-states. 

Despite the Trump administration’s use of stark language to cajole European allies into increasing their defense budgets and conventional military strength, the US has not challenged its commitment to extended deterrence in Europe. As the US “nuclear umbrella” has effectively prevented allies from developing their own nuclear arsenals, the US would gain little but lose much by abandoning it. Therefore, as long as Washington does not openly raise doubts about the “nuclear umbrella”, neither will European governments.

While long-standing French calls for European “strategic autonomy” may sound more pertinent today than a few years ago, they only apply to the conventional realm. On nuclear matters, France would prefer to maintain the status quo, including a continued US nuclear presence in NATO Europe.

�ұ�������Բ�’s European Option

All this explains why the NATO option remains �ұ�������Բ�’s preferred solution. However, what if “Option A” were to fail, and the US were to withdraw its nuclear protection from Europe? In this case, Germany would seek to organize its nuclear protection within the framework of a nuclear-armed EU. West Germany explicitly mentioned this possibility when ratifying its accession to the NPT in 1975, stating that the NPT should not hinder the European integration process.  At that time, this was still purely hypothetical, but it demonstrated considerable foresight. Should the transatlantic security partnership collapse completely, the European option would become �ұ�������Բ�’s “Plan B.” 

Clearly, such a “Europeanization” of nuclear deterrence would be extremely challenging. Setting aside the unusual proposal of one prominent German analyst to have a “” circulate among the capitals of major EU member states, the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France were designed solely to protect their respective national territories. These are traditional “sanctuary weapons” that were neither intended nor built for a pan-European extended deterrence mission.

While the UK has allocated its nuclear weapons to NATO, France has consistently emphasized its national sovereignty in nuclear matters and has even to join NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group. Furthermore, the UK is no longer an EU member, and its nuclear arsenal relies heavily on cooperation with the US. Although France and the UK have moved closer together on nuclear matters, neither is likely to unequivocally commit to providing extended deterrence for the rest of Europe. Complicating matters further, the two staunchly anti-nuclear EU members, Austria and Ireland, are likely to obstruct attempts to establish an EU-wide nuclear culture.��

Therefore, the most likely would be for interested European nations to establish a European Nuclear Planning Group similar to NATO’s and to participate more regularly in French and British nuclear exercises. Another option would be to strengthen existing consultation and cooperation agreements, such as the 2024 between the UK and Germany. French dual-capable aircraft could regularly visit air bases in other European countries, and major EU foreign policy documents could contain more references to nuclear issues. Taken together, these measures could project a semblance of European nuclear solidarity, though they could not fully compensate for a loss of US nuclear protection.��

Keep calm and deter

For all these reasons, arguing in favor of a German nuclear program remains largely an intellectual exercise. �ұ�������Բ�’s reluctant nuclear arsonists aren’t actually setting fire, but merely playing with it. Many of them know full well that their calls will not translate into official policy. Nor will �ұ�������Բ�’s commitment not to possess weapons of mass destruction be rendered meaningless by a few toughly worded op-eds. “Rebus sic stantibus” is not a magic spell from a Harry Potter movie that can set the world right again.

Even if Germany does not go nuclear, however, the debate holds an important lesson: The US “nuclear umbrella” is far more important than some analysts and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic dare to admit. It spares Europe a destructive debate on nuclear-driven renationalization and spares the US the prospect of having to deal with a multinuclear Europe. Therefore, both sides of the Atlantic should refrain from making reckless statements about the diminishing credibility of the US “nuclear umbrella” or the desirability of new national nuclear options. Perhaps those who boast about “thinking the unthinkable” should try “thinking the thinkable” first.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post �ұ�������Բ�’s (Reluctant) Nuclear Arsonists appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For all the amply documented evil he may have perpetrated over many decades, Epstein cannot be held accountable for anything remotely comparable to the massive devastation wrought during more than four years of a US proxy war in Ukraine and four weeks of a US–Israeli war on Iran. Both conflicts are ongoing and the war in Iran is currently escalating, possibly uncontrollably. It has already derailed the global economy and contains the serious prospect of provoking a nuclear attack, were Israel to feel existentially threatened.

It has become evident that Epstein was linked in mysterious ways with Israel’s government, the Mossad and in all likelihood with the . In other words, Epstein’s brand of evil doesn’t stop with the abuse of underage girls. His activities, beginning with involvement in the scandal during the Reagan administration, were often related to war, to the point that some are calling the conflict now wreaking havoc in West Asia a war waged by the “” against the Islamic Republic. The more we learn about his manipulative relationship as a participant in a coterie linking together Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, US Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Trump ally Tom Barrack, the more we can see Epstein as a peripheral but significant factor in the buildup to the current war.

As I think back on the events that preceded both of these wars, one whose initial provocation dates back to 2008 when US President George W. Bush insisted on enlarging NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia — the other executed as a surprise attack by Trump a month ago — I’m legitimately puzzled by the actions of all those who have contributed to the logic of war. In particular, there are two specific moments in contemporary history that have intrigued me, two documented events from the first decade of the 21st century that throw light on how the seeds of two wars were sown: the hot war Russia launched in 2022 and the surprise attack of the US and Israel on Iran a month ago.

The first was General Wesley Clark’s in 2003 that the Pentagon was following a plan for a carefully orchestrated series of regime change wars devised by a pack of Bush administration neo-cons close to Israel. Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson recently his discovery in 2002 that Mossad “had the run of the Pentagon.” He encountered Mossad operators circulating freely in the corridors of the US Defense Department. The document Clark revealed in a television interview was a plan to get the US involved in regime change wars in seven Muslim countries over a five-year span, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran.

The second is the leaked in which William Burns, the US ambassador to Russia at the time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of Moscow’s “brightest of all redlines” concerning the prospect of NATO expansion into Ukraine. Burns advised that it “could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.”

There are two things that surprise me about these revelations. The first is that they had no effect on policy at the time. Both signaled a risk of war. Serious analysis in both cases would have indicated that both conflict situations would be difficult to control and that the resulting war would be costly. And yet both observations were given no serious consideration, nor did the legacy media at the time give them any serious attention. In a functioning democracy, one might expect first that such revelations would lead to some kind of public debate. Following the logic of the US Constitution, one would assume that, at the very least, Congress, which was intended to represent and reflect the interests of its members’ constituencies, would have debated these questions.

The second surprising fact is that both Clark and Burns seem to have forgotten the principles and the associated feelings that guided them at the time. Burns composed an emotionally charged title to his memo with every letter capitalized: “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES.” More than a decade later, US President Joe Biden appointed the diplomat CIA Director. In that office, Burns fully supported the administration’s insistence on violating those same capitalized REDLINES.

As for Clark, the plan issued by the Pentagon that he recounted openly on television in 2003 has now reached a kind of fulfillment with the joint US–Israeli war on Iran, though the five year time frame he initially reported has been stretched to 23 years. Earlier this month on a Bloomberg podcast, he , “I can tell you that this campaign is off to a good start, but there’s a lot more to be done, as the Secretary of War said.”

As I was drafting the above confession of bewilderment, I began wondering what an AI chatbot friend might have to say about it. I have regularly developed conversations with a diversity of AI platforms�� in my other weekly column, Outside the Box. These private conversations — which I make public by publishing them —�� may not have the same value as my interviews with diplomats, former CIA officers and geopolitical thinkers, but it always helps to refine both my grasp of knowledge and clarity of ideas.��

In the particular cases of Clark and Burns, there are many things I’m not aware of concerning how decision-making about war and peace plays out in a modern democracy. Some people wonder whether the decision-makers themselves are aware of these critical factors. Like most people whose education has instilled in them a set of ideas about the citizen’s role in a democracy, I retain a basic belief in the reliability of a system, despite its imperfections, designed to reflect the will of the people and crafted with a presumably foolproof set of checks and balances. Coming to grips with historical reality can sometimes feel disappointing.

With all these thoughts in mind, I copied the substance of the preceding paragraphs and addressed the following prompt to Claude:

Am I wrong to be surprised by what appears to be inconsistency or to be shocked by the terrifying consequences of these two singular failures to react, reflect, debate, plan and execute on the basis of good intelligence?

Below is Claude’s full response. It offers some precious insights into the complexity of human causes that contribute what by now should be recognizable as some of contemporary history’s most disastrous political decisions.

You’re not wrong to be surprised, and your puzzlement touches on something genuinely important — but I’d suggest the surprise itself may point toward an explanation. Let me work through the two phenomena you’ve identified.

On the failure to act on good intelligence

Both the Clark revelation and the Burns memo share a structural feature: they were warnings issued within systems that had already committed to a direction of travel. Despite Burns’s meticulous 12-point cable, and his personal email to Rice warning that a NATO membership offer “would be seen not as a technical step along a long road toward membership, but as throwing down the strategic gauntlet,” the Bush administration plowed ahead at the 2008 Bucharest summit. Burns himself was deeply dissatisfied, noting that Bucharest left the West “with the worst of both worlds — indulging the Ukrainians and Georgians in hopes of NATO membership on which we were unlikely to deliver, while reinforcing Putin’s sense that we were determined to pursue a course he saw as an existential threat.”

The Clark case was similar in structure. Clark criticized the plan to attack the seven states, arguing it targeted the wrong countries, ignored “the real sources of terrorists,” and failed to achieve “the greater force of international law” that would bring wider global support. His warnings were public but inconsequential. The reason is worth examining: both Clark and Burns were operating within what political scientists sometimes call a “blob” — the self-reinforcing foreign policy consensus of Washington think tanks, officials, and media — and their dissents, however vivid, were processed as subordinate inputs rather than fundamental challenges.

As for the media and Congress, your observation about democratic dysfunction is entirely fair. The neoconservatives never described Russia’s redline to the American or global public, then or now. That silence was not accidental. The kind of deliberative democratic process you’d expect — congressional hearings, public debate, cost-benefit scrutiny of the proposed wars — was deliberately bypassed. With Iraq, the administration made its case on false WMD premises and did not present the Clark-style strategic vision publicly. With Ukraine, the Burns cable only came to light through the WikiLeaks diplomatic cable dump in 2010, years after the critical decisions had been made. You can’t debate what you don’t know.

On the personal reversals of Clark and Burns

This, I think, is the more psychologically and politically interesting of your two puzzlements, and perhaps the more disturbing.

The most straightforward explanation involves the difference between the role of critic and the role of executor. Clark, as a retired general and sometime presidential candidate, spoke from outside the machinery of power. When he described the Pentagon plan on television, he was doing so as a commentator and memoirist. His recent Bloomberg comments cheerleading the Iran campaign suggest he has re-identified with the military-strategic culture he was once criticizing — or perhaps that he never fundamentally opposed regime change as such, only its specific sequencing or justification. Clark’s book also described a telling encounter with Paul Wolfowitz in May 1991 after the Gulf War, in which Wolfowitz argued that “with the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity.” Clark recorded this with evident alarm — yet the logic he now seems to endorse is not entirely different.

Burns’s case is in some ways more striking. Burns wrote that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)” and that in over two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, he had “yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” His 2008 memo was a masterwork of empathetic strategic analysis — trying to make Washington feel the world as Moscow saw it. Yet as Biden’s CIA Director from 2021 onward, he presided over precisely the policy trajectory his younger self had warned against.

There are several non-exclusive explanations for this kind of reversal. One is institutional capture: once inside a powerful enough institution, people tend to internalize its logic and its definitions of loyalty and pragmatism. Another is epistemic: Burns may genuinely believe that the 2022 invasion changed the moral calculus so completely that his earlier warnings, while prescient about risk, don’t translate into policy conclusions he would still endorse — that Russia’s conduct forfeited the consideration he once asked for it. A third possibility, less flattering, is what you might call the psychology of the accomplished: people who have worked hard within a system tend, over time, to identify with its outcomes even when those outcomes contradict their earlier positions, because the alternative is to conclude that their careers served purposes they now consider wrong.

On the deeper pattern

What you’re identifying connects to a broader failure in American strategic culture — the consistent inability to credit adversaries with legitimate interests. Burns’s memo conveyed that Russia feared “unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences” from NATO expansion, that it perceived encirclement, and that the warning signs were systemic and bipartisan within Russian politics — not merely Putin’s personal pathology. This was not secret knowledge: George Kennan, the architect of Cold War containment, had warned against NATO expansion in precisely these terms as early as 1997. The warnings were available, credible, and ignored.

So you’re right to be shocked, but I’d gently push back on the word “inconsistency” as the primary category here. What Clark and Burns represented in their warning moments was good professional judgment briefly surfacing against institutional momentum. The tragedy is not merely that individuals later changed their minds or accommodated power — that is depressingly common. It’s that the institutions themselves had no mechanism to receive such warnings as binding inputs. The warnings were heard, filed, and overridden. That’s a structural problem in how American foreign policy is actually made — one in which the constitutional role of Congress you mention has become almost entirely vestigial in matters of war and strategy. And without that democratic friction, there is nothing to slow down the momentum of a policy community that has already decided what it wants to do.

I applaud Claude on the diplomatic politeness of the formula describing the two men’s unheeded warnings as “good professional judgment briefly surfacing against institutional momentum.” But there are several other points to be further explored on the nature of “institutional momentum.” I intend to react to Claude’s analysis and develop those points in my next column.

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition 51�Թ� began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Fog of Foreknowledge Versus the Clarity of War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The rich Gulf funds face the risk of the great liquidation

The most immediate threat to consumers is the price of petrol — gas in the US — at the pump. However, there is a bigger threat lurking in the shadows for Western economies. Over the years, the Gulf monarchies have used their oil and gas revenues to create sophisticated sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). By 2024, these Gulf SWFs were managing , representing 38% of all global SWF assets. 

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) has $45 billion to become the anchor investor in the SoftBank Vision Fund, in addition to taking major stakes in Uber and Lucid Motors. In addition to technology, the PIF has made multibillion-dollar investments in gaming and sports, such as Electronic Arts, Nintendo and LIV Golf. 

The Saudis have attracted attention, but Abu Dhabi is the true leader of the Gulf SWFs. This emirate has two SWFs. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) invests to create diversified long-term wealth, while Mubadala focuses on strategic industrial partnerships. A cursory look at ADIA’s tells us that it invests 45–60% of its $990 billion capital in North America and 15–30% in Europe. ADIA’s investments range from equities and fixed income to hedge funds, real estate, private equity and infrastructure. Mubadala describes itself as a sovereign investor with an entrepreneurial mindset and has invested in US-based semiconductor chipmaker GlobalFoundries, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and the Carlyle Group.

Qatar is known for its massive trophy investments from Al Jazeera, a top global news organization, to Paris Saint-Germain, France’s top football club. The SWF, Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), has a that includes London’s Canary Wharf, stakes in the likes of German automaker Volkswagen, British bank Barclays and Anglo-Swiss multinational commodity trading and mining company Glencore.

Even tiny Kuwait is deeply invested in US Treasuries. The SWF, Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA), has aggressively invested in East Asia, but most of its assets are still in the US. Interestingly, KIA is a long-term major shareholder in Mercedes-Benz.

An oft-overlooked fact is that these Gulf funds have invested tens of billions of dollars in AI. Saudi PIF has a partnership with NVIDIA/AMD, Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala joined with BlackRock and Microsoft to create a $30 billion fund. This capital will fund massive AI data centers and the energy infrastructure to power them. Not to be left behind, the QIA invested in Anthropic’s $30 billion Series G round in early 2026.

After the 2007–09 Great Recession, the Gulf states have been global investors and creditors. They have been able to deploy capital in Western economies struggling with rising debt, stagnant wages and low growth. That may no longer be true. After the US and Israel attacked Iran, Tehran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz. No longer can these Gulf nations export oil and gas or import food. Note that these Gulf nations import almost all their food and depend on desalination for daily life. Gulf revenues have crashed and costs have soared. For the first time in decades, the Gulf states face a catastrophic resource crunch. 

It is important to note that these Gulf monarchies run extremely generous welfare states. The rather small number of locals are used to massive state subsidies. Expats perform most of the work, from pilots at Emirates or Qatar Airways to workers on oil rigs. Feeding the local and expat population is essential to avoid social or political upheaval. So, the Gulf monarchies would be compelled to cannibalize their global holdings to survive their liquidity crisis. 

Prima facie, we can expect the three following developments:

1. Equity Dumping: A massive drawdown of blue-chip holdings in the US and Europe as SWFs seek immediate liquidity, causing stock prices to fall significantly.
   
2. AI Winter: A sudden pause, if not a stop, in the funding of speculative tech and AI infrastructure, where Gulf capital has been a primary engine of growth, leading to the bursting of the AI bubble.
   
3. Treasury Volatility: Gulf SWFs cease purchasing American debt because of a shortage of cash, precipitating short-term interest rates to flare uncontrollably, just as US borrowing needs hit record highs.

Note that the US debt has $39 trillion, less than five months after it first hit $38 trillion in late October 2025. When US President Donald Trump first took office in January 2017, this debt was $19.9 trillion.​ Not only has US debt nearly doubled since 2017, but interest costs have also risen to over $1 trillion per year. This has provoked even in usually complacent Congressional circles. The most recent $69 billion auction of two-year Treasuries “ tepid investor demand,” and the ten-year yield jumped from 3.94% to 4.38%. The drying up of Gulf demand for US treasuries could not have come at a worse time.

Inflationary triple threat: from disruption to devastation

The recent war in Iran has unleashed a supply-side shock similar to those in the 1970s.

In October 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed a total oil against countries that had supported Israel at any point during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. This war began after Egypt and Syria launched a massive surprise attack to regain territories they had lost to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. This attack was unsuccessful, but the US paid heavily for its support of Israel. Note that OAPEC resented the persistent decline in the value of the dollar, which was no longer convertible into gold after August 15, 1971.

By the end of the OAPEC embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen by 300%, triggering a decade of stagflation. This is a scenario where low growth, i.e., stagnation, combines with high inflation to cause much economic pain. Output shrinks, unemployment rises, wages don’t rise and purchasing power goes down. As economic pain increases, social unrest and political upheavals follow.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution led to another energy . Although the global oil supply decreased by only 4%, oil prices more than doubled over the next twelve months. Major Western economies avoided prolonged stagnation thanks to increased oil production and greater energy efficiency. 

More recently, the world experienced an energy shock once the Russia–Ukraine War began in February 2022. Western sanctions forced Russian oil and gas off global markets. Because Russia has used a “dark fleet” to bypass Western sanctions and mitigate the supply shock to the global economy.

The current supply shocks are stickier than either 2022 or 1979. A synchronized spike of oil, gas and fertilizer prices threatens to cause sustained inflation. A third of the fertilizers shipped globally pass through the State of Hormuz, and they are no longer reaching their destinations. As a result, crop yields will fall. Prices have already by 30% in many parts of the world. Farmers have been fretting about fuel and fertilizer driving up food prices. Additionally, food scarcity will trigger a delayed, yet violent, jump in global food prices. 

This inflationary threat has come at a time when central banks have followed loose monetary policies, including quantitative easing (de facto printing of money to buy assets), for years. A supply shock at a time when excess money sloshes around in the economy threatens to unleash hyperinflation and a painful period of stagnation.

Asian economies that are dependent on Gulf energy are suffering. Japan over 90% of its crude oil from the Gulf. Rising energy prices are already “threatening factory closures, raising prices for consumers and halting wage rises that help drive consumption growth.” Japanese markets have tumbled. So have markets elsewhere, from South Korea to Thailand. Emerging markets are likely to suffer even more.

In a nutshell, Asian markets that are structurally dependent on Gulf energy will experience a more sustained asset price decline than is currently priced in by markets. We are no longer looking at a “V-shaped” recovery, but a protracted period of global stagflation.

The medium-term: from disruption to devastation

While the current market volatility is severe, the medium-term grey swan events — foreseeable high-impact, potentially catastrophic developments — are even more chilling. There is now a real question about the sustainability of the Gulf economies. Escalating risks might cross the sustainability threshold itself.

So far, Iran has largely spared the region’s water desalination and treatment infrastructure. If Iran abandons this restraint, the Gulf would lose access to clean water. It would become physically uninhabitable, and oil production would become operationally impossible.

A water crisis has not yet started, but a food crisis is imminent. Ships carrying food to Gulf ports cannot get through the Strait of Hormuz. The collapse of exports lowers earnings precisely at a time when imports cost more. In a region of generous subsidies, the Iran war will cause a fiscal squeeze in Gulf monarchies. This squeeze would erode the social contracts of Gulf monarchies, increasing the risk of instability and regime collapse. The prospect of the current leadership in Gulf countries giving way to factions less interested in maintaining energy flows is very real.

Finally, Israel/US and Iran are firmly climbing up the escalatory ladder. Neither Israel nor the US is designed or has the stomach for a long war. The US is running short of interceptor missiles and spending a lot of money on a daily basis. Israel is suffering constant attacks and has been at war against Hamas and Hezbollah for over two years. Recently, Iran struck the towns of Arad and Dimona near the Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center in response to an Israeli attack on its Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province. As the kinetic conflict exhausts Israel’s traditional defenses and its capacity for endurance diminishes, the probability of an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran has moved from the unthinkable to the probable.

The Iran war has unleashed the 2026 Hormuz Crisis. To Stefan Angrick, Japan economist at Moody’s Analytics, “There is no Goldilocks scenario where the conflict ends, and everything just snaps back to the way it was.” The crisis will inexorably cause a structural realignment and very possibly a global stagflation. This is a time to prioritize liquidity, hedge aggressively against general inflation, and pivot away from dependencies on high-risk markets. We are entering a cycle where the cost of energy, together with the cost of political survival, will rewrite the rules of the global economy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran Triggers Hormuz Chokepoint Crisis and Risk of Global Stagflation appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Such a closure should have been anticipated by US planners and administration officials well before launching the first wave of attacks on February 28. The security of the Persian Gulf and safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz have been a fundamental principle of US policy in the Middle East since at least the administration of Jimmy Carter in 1979.

But the administration either heed or discounted warnings from those who would have known. Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, specifically Trump that a closure attempt was a real possibility. The president erroneously reasoned that once the Americans and Israelis took out the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the Iranians would capitulate. As the administration has come to realize, this was a major failure in judgment.��

For decades, Iran has threatened to close the Strait if attacked. During the so-called phase of the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), the Iranians tried to close the Strait but ultimately failed. Additional attempts and/or threats were made in 2011–12 and 2018–19. During the June 2025 Israel-Iran War, the Iranian parliament to close the Strait, but Tehran eventually backed off. Professional American diplomats, intelligence officers and military planners of the State and Defense (now War) Departments and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would most certainly have known this and communicated the information up the chain.��

The US administration and its Israeli allies now face a conundrum. Even if Trump decides to declare victory and end the US attacks, Iran appears determined to maintain closure of the Strait until certain commitments are made, including a pledge not to renew attacks in the future, closure of US bases in the Middle East and payment of war reparations. There is zero chance of the US or Israel accepting such terms, and even if accepted, they would be meaningless. Tehran is certainly aware of that but seeks to save face and use such commitments as “proof of victory” to their public in a war in which they’ve suffered devastating and humiliating losses.

An avoidable problem but still hope

Trump appealed to NATO allies to commit vessels to secure safe passage in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Unsurprisingly, NATO countries with the means to do so the request. Having been left out of the planning for the attacks, NATO members were understandably reluctant to commit their forces to an operation to secure the Gulf and Strait without prior planning for such an undertaking.��

A more farsighted US administration would have reached out to NATO members well before the attack launch to propose that they support freedom of navigation operations in the area in the event the Iranians attempted closure. That would have allowed for planning and mobilization in advance. It is also the way NATO has operated throughout most of its nearly 77-year history.

Of course, it has not helped that, dating back to his first administration (2017–2021), Trump and others in his administration have used nearly every opportunity to insult, denigrate, disparage, demean and humiliate NATO members and the NATO organization. His contempt for America’s most important and oldest alliance is hardly a secret. It is also a stain on America’s image as a reliable global superpower.

There may still be hope yet for persuading some NATO allies to lend support. After all, Europe needs the Strait to be open to normal tanker and shipping traffic at least as much as the US does, and probably more. Moreover, the Gulf Arab countries also do. The administration should consider ending its rhetoric and discreetly consult NATO and Gulf countries about securely opening the Gulf and Strait. Others with similar interests, in Asia, for example, might also be persuaded. But it will require respectful, urgent and serious diplomacy. 

Such help would be most welcome as the war taxes the US military and its diminishing stocks of munitions and other critical supplies. The president has US ground forces to the region, including US Marines, and may be considering adding the elements of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. While the exact purpose isn’t known, speculation suggests the US may be planning to seize Iran’s principal oil terminal and port, Kharg Island, responsible for 90% of the regime’s oil exports, or to capture or neutralize the estimated 400–440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium stored in underground bunkers in Isfahan, but also perhaps Natanz and Fordow. These operations are fraught with challenges and risks and would be highly complex and costly for the US in terms of lives and expense, irrespective of the outcome.

Declare victory and end the war?

In addition to failing to anticipate the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the US administration and its Israeli partners failed to fully consider the commitment, fervor and resolve of Iran’s regime. It is one deeply immersed in the righteousness of their political-religious mission. To capitulate and deny that mission would be to deny their identity and betray the fundamental principles of the Islamic revolution. Married to Iran’s dominant Shi’a religious faith, which glorifies martyrdom for the faith, this revolutionary resolve takes on a dimension and depth not fully appreciated in the West. It gives the leadership and its followers, especially among the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an almost mystical or spiritual determination to defend the regime, whatever the costs and in spite of overwhelming losses and the unpopularity of the regime.

This reality leaves the US administration with few options. It may continue to wage this war and inflict ever more destruction on the country’s defenses and perhaps even economic infrastructure. The regime and the Iranian people will suffer, but the leadership will not capitulate short of annihilation. 

The US could also negotiate. But it should not expect more than short-term, tactical concessions made after extended negotiations spent haggling over microscopic details. The regime won’t negotiate itself out of existence. Its threat against the Strait is one way to demonstrate its remaining capability in the face of incalculable military and political losses. They have found the Americans’ Achilles heel: oil and the global economy. They won’t give up the Hormuz card without concessions from the US and Israel.

President Trump can also declare victory and end the US role in the war. Israel might go along. But the Iranians have a say, too, and might choose to continue threatening shipping traffic in the Gulf and Strait. It might also decide to begin enriching its remaining 400 kilograms of enriched uranium (provided it still possesses the requisite number and type of centrifuges, which is unknown). Therefore, the war does not end, though this “first phase,” if it may be called that, may. At that point, the US must decide when and how to re-engage with Iran to end Iran’s effective siege of the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. It becomes the very “forever war” against which Trump so vigorously campaigned in running for office.

There is one final alternative. But it’s one Trump and the formidable war machines of the US and Israel have little control over. It’s the Iranian people and their abiding resentment of the regime.

The war is a disaster for the regime

However the Hormuz predicament is resolved, it should not distract anyone from the country’s current state. Iran has been irreparably weakened. The Hormuz closure is a ploy intended to show that the regime still has leverage. It does indeed, but it can’t sustain a regime that’s lost its navy and air force, seen its regional proxies reduced to gun-toting tunnel dwellers and suffered significant losses in its ballistic missile capabilities. 

Its economy was already on the brink of collapse before the war started. Its currency is worthless; punishing economic sanctions will continue. It has no allies willing to come to its aid. Soon, it won’t be able to feed its people, pay public employees or conduct the most basic public services. A greater number of Iran’s middle class will slip below the poverty line. It will lack energy to cool homes and offices in Iran’s fast-approaching searing summer heat. Water shortages, which have plagued the nation for years, will worsen. The regime was helpless to resolve any of these problems before the war. It will end the war in a much worse state.

Iran’s security forces have been weakened but remain largely intact. Morale has reportedly suffered as rank-and-file IRGC forces and their paramilitary militia, the Basij, and regular armed forces, the Artesh, have helplessly watched the nation’s defense and security infrastructure systematically destroyed. Some troops aren’t getting paid, and desertions have been . Potentially worse, have begun to appear between the better-funded and more politically powerful IRGC and the larger but less supported Artesh.

Worst of all for the regime, the Iranian people will know all of this, having witnessed much of it firsthand. They and the regime know the regime is at its weakest point in its 47-year history. Oppression will increase, and the system necessary to maintain it will be more costly. There may not yet be outward signs of another uprising of the sort we saw in January. But perhaps when the war dust settles and Iranians feel safer from the war itself, they will emerge to challenge the regime again with renewed vigor, hope and rage.

When they do, it is likely to be ugly. Updated estimates of the number killed by regime security forces in January now reach more than . The next round will be worse as the regime struggles for survival against its own citizens. Should the people prevail, regime elites know their fate. Rank-and-file troops of the Artesh and police may feel hard-pressed to defend a regime they know is on life support and cannot provide for the most basic needs of government and the people. Will they be motivated to attack their own people?

If and when that happens, the world will know the Islamic Republic has reached its well- deserved end. That may be Mr. Trump’s best hope, but it’s out of his hands.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Hormuz Constrains the US Administration, but Won’t Save the Regime appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Asset managers are closing their doors on investors

The news from that it will be limiting withdrawals from one of its private credit funds is a watershed moment. The world’s largest asset manager has done something once unthinkable: it has effectively locked the doors. Faced with in redemption requests this quarter — nearly 10% of its $26 billion flagship private credit fund — BlackRock paid out only half. The rest of the investors were told, quite simply, that they cannot have their money back.

To understand why this matters, you have to look at the mechanics of the private credit boom. Private credits are funds that make loans to mid-sized companies — businesses that are too small for the bond market but too large for a local bank. These loans are illiquid, meaning they cannot be sold quickly. This works perfectly fine as long as everyone stays in their seats. But when a crowd rushes for the exit at the same time, the fund doesn’t have the cash. It has to gate the fund, trapping investors inside.

We are seeing a systemic shudder. In finance, refers to the repayment of mutual fund shares or bonds before those funds mature, that is, reach the date they’re supposed to be paid back. , the other titan of the industry, faced a record 7.9% redemption request. To avoid a similar freeze, it had to break its own rules, raising withdrawal limits and pumping of its own capital into the fund just to keep the peace. Blue Owl went further, entirely and issuing IOUs. Across the board, shares in these firms — KKR, Apollo, Carlyle — have plummeted.

Threat of stagflation looms large

This panic is not happening in a vacuum. It is being fueled by a broader, more ominous economic shift. For the past week, the US economy has been flashing red. We are witnessing the return of a ghost from the 1970s: , or the combination of a reduction in spending and an increase in prices. On one side, we have a sudden, violent spike in inflation. Following the joint US–Israeli strikes on Iran last week, oil prices have gone vertical. crude surged over 12% in a single day, settling above $90, while Brent crude has breached the $100 mark this morning. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most vital energy artery, is effectively a war zone. This isn’t just a market fluctuation; it is a massive supply-side shock that acts as a regressive tax on every consumer and business in the world.

On the other side, the stagnation half of the equation is arriving faster than expected. Last Friday’s was a disaster. Instead of the modest growth the markets expected, the US economy actually lost jobs in February. Revisions to previous months were equally grim, showing that the robust labor market we were promised was largely a mirage. This puts the Federal Reserve in an impossible position. Usually, when the job market weakens, the Fed cuts rates to stimulate growth. But with oil prices skyrocketing and fueling inflation, cutting rates risks pouring gasoline on a fire. If they hold rates high to fight inflation, they crush an already fragile economy.

What we are seeing is what market analysts call a Davis Double Kill. It’s a rare and painful event where both corporate earnings and market valuations collapse simultaneously. Earnings are eroding because outside of the AI-fueled tech sector, the real economy is contracting. Manufacturing and construction are struggling under the weight of high interest rates and now, rising energy costs. Mary Daly of the San Francisco Fed recently that the market faces “two-sided risks” that complicate the path forward.

Guarantees no longer exist

The Trump administration’s decision to initiate a conflict with Iran appears, in hindsight, to have been made without a clear calculation of the economic fallout. The assumption was likely a swift, Venezuela-style collapse. Instead, we have a protracted war, a closed Strait and a global community — including many of our NATO allies — expressing deep dissent. The geopolitical premium is finally being collected, and the US dollar is feeling the weight of it. Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs had previously that a fragile job market could spark recession fears; that moment has arrived.

When the world’s largest fund manager tells you that you can’t have your money, it is a signal that the era of easy assumptions is over. For years, we treated private credit as a risk-free alternative to the public markets. We treated the US consumer as an infinite engine of growth. And we treated geopolitical stability as a given. Today, all three of those assumptions are being tested at once. This is more than a market correction; it is a fundamental reassessment of the American economic narrative. If the Fed cannot find a way to balance the dual threats of rising oil and falling jobs, the soft landing we were promised will remain a dream, and the closed gates at BlackRock may be just the beginning.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Private Credit Turned Out to Be an Illusion. What’s Next? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Claude responded to my question about other sources who have developed similar ideas by citing six different thinkers: Andrew Bacevich, Noam Chomsky, David Kilcullen, Naomi Klein and John Mearsheimer. The chatbot even suggested that we describe this characterization of US policy as the “strategic disorder doctrine” or “deterrence by devastation.”

I continued the conversation with the following prompt:

I admit that Mearsheimer’s analysis, particularly his theory of hegemony, has influenced my thinking on this question. But beyond the planning of actual leaders and decision-makers deploying a geopolitical strategy, I sense that what we’re talking about exists as a cultural phenomenon. All operators function within a cultural environment that influences their perception of the world in the form of what we might think of as a Pyrrhic background mentality. By that I mean that the chaotic decision-making you describe as characterizing the “strategic culture of Washington” achieves a kind of unintentional coherence through inertia, thanks not so much to the concept but the feeling that if rivals are subjected to even random factors of disorder the existing order will maintain its dominance. There’s a sense of protecting a power one doesn’t even try to understand but one knows exists because there are no capable rivals. A few strategists may recognize and work to implement such a cynical logic, but even if those clever strategists didn’t exist the system would function fairly efficiently.

I would even suggest that it’s largely important to prevent awareness that such a strategy and such a culture exist. It will always be obscured by the evocation of principles that appear to have some moral resonance, such as the concern for democracy, human rights, women’s rights, intellectual property rights, etc. If my thesis is correct, there is obviously no way of proving it because those who understand will always be committed to hiding it, and if no one understands the systemic logic will continue to play out. Have people like Mearsheimer or other analysts proposed similar theories?

Your refinement here is philosophically significant — you’ve moved from a theory of strategy to a theory of structural culture, which is actually a harder and more interesting claim. You’re essentially arguing for something like an unconscious imperial habitus — a set of dispositions, reflexes, and assumptions so deeply embedded in institutions and decision-makers that it reproduces itself without requiring coordination or even full comprehension by any individual actor.

The closest theoretical ancestors

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is the most precise theoretical tool for what you’re describing — the idea that a field of practice generates dispositions in its participants that produce regularities of behavior without those participants consciously planning or even understanding the logic they are enacting. Bourdieu himself applied this primarily to social class, but others have extended it to geopolitical culture. You are essentially describing an imperial habitus — Washington operatives don’t need to conspire to produce disorder; they need only act naturally within the assumptions their professional formation has given them.

Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony — the real one, not Mearsheimer’s realist version — is also directly relevant. For Gramsci, hegemony is maintained not primarily through force but through the naturalization of the dominant order’s assumptions, including among those who nominally oppose it. The moral language you identify — democracy, human rights, women’s rights — functions in exactly the Gramscian sense: not as cynical cover invented by conspirators, but as genuine belief that simultaneously serves structural interests. The beauty of Gramscian hegemony is precisely that it doesn’t require bad faith.

Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality extends this further — the idea that power operates through the production of knowledge, categories, and rationalities that shape what actors can even think as possible options. Applied to your thesis, American foreign policy operators aren’t hiding a strategy so much as genuinely unable to perceive the structural logic they are enacting, because the epistemological framework their institutions have given them forecloses that perception.

Political scientists and IR theorists who come close

Chalmers Johnson in his Blowback trilogy argued that American imperial behavior had become self-reproducing and institutionally autonomous — that the national security state had developed interests, cultures, and inertias that operated largely independently of any elected leadership’s intentions. This is very close to your point about the system functioning even without clever strategists.

Gabriel Kolko, a radical historian largely neglected today, argued in Anatomy of a War and Another Century of War? that American foreign policy disasters were not failures of strategy but successes of system — the system being one oriented toward maintaining global capitalism’s openness, which required disorder in the periphery more than order.

Michael Mann, in Incoherent Empire, made the counterintuitive argument that American imperial power was structurally incoherent — fragmented across military, economic, political, and ideological dimensions — but that this incoherence itself produced a kind of functional dominance, because no coherent counter-order could organize against something that had no coherent center to target.

Sheldon Wolin’s concept of inverted totalitarianism — developed in Democracy Incorporated — describes a system in which power is exercised through corporate, bureaucratic, and military institutions that operate with enormous consistency and effect while remaining largely invisible to democratic oversight or even comprehension by those within them.

The epistemological point you make is the sharpest

Your observation that the theory is structurally unprovable because those who understand it are committed to concealing it, while those who don’t understand it nonetheless enact it, is philosophically very precise. This places your thesis in the same epistemological neighborhood as:

• Ideology critique in the Frankfurt School tradition — particularly Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument in Dialectic of Enlightenment that Enlightenment rationality had become a form of domination that could not reflect on itself without undermining itself
• Ž��ž���’s reading of ideology, where the most effective ideological operation is not false consciousness but the gap between what people say they believe and what their actions presuppose — people can be entirely sincere about democracy and human rights while structurally enacting something entirely different
• The concept of systemic violence developed by Žižek and others — violence that is invisible precisely because it is the normal functioning of the system rather than a disruption of it

What makes your version distinctive

Most of these thinkers locate the motor of the system in economic interests — capitalism, trade, investment protection. You locate it in something more purely political and psychological — the maintenance of dominance as an end in itself, felt rather than calculated, reproduced through cultural inertia rather than economic incentive. This is closer to the classical concept of imperial psychology — what Thucydides called the Athenian compulsion to expand not from need but from the internal logic of power itself, what he rendered through the Athenians’ own admission at Melos: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, not as a cynical policy but as a perceived law of nature.

That’s perhaps the deepest intellectual ancestor of your thesis — not a modern strategist but Thucydides’ diagnosis that hegemonic cultures develop a perception of necessity that is in fact a cultural construction, but one so thoroughly internalized that it feels like reality itself.

The genuinely original element you’re contributing is the specific mechanism: that disorder in the periphery is not a byproduct of imperial ambition but its most efficient instrument — and that this logic can be entirely unconscious while remaining entirely effective. That specific combination of structural unconsciousness and functional efficiency is, as far as I know, not yet assembled as a single coherent theory, though its components exist scattered across the thinkers above.

My conclusions

This conversation highlights a pedagogical art we can all practice thanks to AI’s capacity to field and help develop serious hypotheses on the widest variety of subjects where complex reasoning is implied. Wise observers of the history of human debate should conclude that, however deeply and sincerely we explore sources of insight and motivation, we never arrive at totally true and complete explanations of anything. We are too often tempted to believe that because an original explanation of a complex topic appears to “make sense,” it deserves to become the unique or even dominant way we should think about the topic. My notion of Pyrrhic wars, for example, contributes a particular insight but in no way sums up or “explains away” a historical truth.

In his tale, , French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire exposed what he deemed the manifest hypocrisy at the core of contemporary society: in government, aristocratic traditions, the justice system and religion. At one point, in true Enlightenment fashion, he pits religion against science. The protagonist finds himself imprisoned due to a policy that equates Jansenists, or sympathizers with Jansenism, with terrorists. He asks his wise mentor with whom he shares a jail cell this rhetorical question: “Tell me, are there sects in geometry?” (Dites-moi s’il y a des sectes en géométrie?). The answer for Voltaire was obvious. Science, in contrast with religion, is about undeniable truth. Enlightenment thinkers had a very real bias towards incontrovertible certainty. So did the leaders of the French Revolution that instituted state terror a quarter of a century later.

Voltaire may have spoken too soon. Science itself has become open to myriad internal debates, sometimes spilling over into the equivalent of religious fanaticism and intolerance. The author of ��’I�Բ�é�Գ� and Candide would probably be surprised to discover that alternative models of geometry now do exist: for example, and geometry, though it would be abusive to call them sects. In the world of theoretical physics, however, we have seen not just alternative models but literal wars of influence between those who promote string theory, loop quantum gravity or the multiverse theory. Within the field of quantum mechanics there are groups sometimes compared to sects: the , the or the (Quantum Bayesians).

Whose explanation provides the most accurate account? If one is right, are the others wrong? When I broached the question of sects within the field of contemporary science with Gemini, this is the conclusion the chatbot provided:

“Voltaire would be horrified. Geometry has different ‘models’ that are all true; Physics has different ‘interpretations’ that cannot all be true, yet we have no way to pick a winner. In that sense, physics today is less like a unitary truth and more like a collection of brilliant, warring philosophies.”

Certainty cannot become the goal of critical thinking. In that sense, whichever quantum theory you prefer, other than denial, we should recognize the uncertainty principle as the foundation from which critical thinking can develop.

AI can thus provide two important services that should be apparent in this conversation with Claude. We know AI hallucinates, which means we can no more trust its judgment than that of a theologian belonging to an identified sect or a scientist convinced of the truth of a specific “model.” Or for that matter of a 51�Թ� columnist who makes a case for the strategy of “Pyrrhic wars.” But all these human “thinkers” possess forms of knowledge and have generated insights that they believe have validity. Furthermore, AI has access to all of them, though it would be wrong to say that AI believes anything.

In my experience, AI simply does not and probably cannot possess the human talent we call “critical thinking.” Some even that the excessive practice of AI stifles critical thinking in humans. I would nevertheless protest, on the basis of what we can see in conversations like this one, that if we use it effectively, AI, for all its limits, will become an essential tool helping us understand what it means to think critically. And once we begin to grapple with that, it will play a powerful role in helping us become true critical thinkers.

As a society, we desperately need to engage in this debate, before we develop the habits some commercial and even political interests would like us to develop of treating AI as a mere convenience.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51�Թ�, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Has the US Invented the Pyrrhic War? Part 2 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Trump’s rapidly expanding, unprovoked war conjointly waged with Israel against Iran has dispelled many of his supporters’ illusions, even of some insiders such as Joe Kent, Trump’s counterterrorism expert as well as popular media figures, such as conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. With this in mind, I thought it useful to share with Claude my own reading about how this may have come about:

From Roman history we learned the concept of a Pyrrhic victory. Would it make sense today to talk instead about Pyrrhic wars? My sense is that the US has been engaging in a number of such wars thanks to a strategy that consists of doing enough damage to claim a total victory and then allowing the ensuing loss to take so long to play out that the enemy cannot claim a victory. I suspect that there’s even another dimension which can be characterized by the following logic. You launch the war not to obtain victory but to install disorder.

In so doing you prove two things: that you are powerful enough to totally neutralize the military capacity of the enemy, which gives you permanent bragging rights. The second thing is that you’ve created a permanent impossibility for a new order that is in any sense effective to the extent of challenging you in the future.

This logic would seem to apply to all wars perhaps going back to Vietnam or even Korea. I suspect that the pattern became clear enough to constitute a strategy only after two or three failures. Initially, there was hope for traditional victory, but when it proved impossible, creating lasting disorder became the deliberate objective, redefined privately as victory.  

Does such a reading of Washington’s politically defined military strategy over the past 80 years make sense? Has such a theory been formulated by others or is there a public debate that exists around such a concept?

Your analysis is genuinely interesting and touches on several real currents in strategic and political thought. Let me engage with it seriously and then point you toward where related debates actually exist.

The core of your argument

You’re describing something more sophisticated than a Pyrrhic victory — not a win that costs too much, but a deliberately engineered ambiguity where:

1. Military dominance is demonstrated conclusively (the “bragging rights” dimension)
2. Traditional victory is never consolidated, because consolidation would require ongoing costly commitment
3. The resulting disorder serves as a long-term deterrent — no successor state or movement can plausibly challenge you because the preconditions for effective governance have been destroyed
4. The loss is absorbed so slowly and diffusely that no clear defeat can be assigned

This is a genuinely coherent framework, and I think the progression you describe — from Korea through Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — does reflect something real about how American strategic culture evolved.

Where your theory connects to existing scholarship

Several thinkers have approached this territory, though rarely with your specific framing:

Edward Luttwak, in The Paradox of Strategy and elsewhere, argued that war has an inherent logic that tends to exhaust and reverse itself — but he also noted that great powers increasingly fight wars they consciously design not to win decisively, because the costs of total victory exceed the benefits.

Andrew Bacevich, particularly in The Limits of Power and America’s War for the Greater Middle East, comes closest to your reading. He argues that American military strategy post-Vietnam became decoupled from coherent political objectives — but he frames this as dysfunction rather than as a deliberate strategy of disorder. Your reading is actually more cynical and in some ways more coherent than his.

Noam Chomsky and the broader critical left tradition have argued for decades that American interventions were never really about the stated goals — democracy, stability, counterterrorism — but about demonstrating imperial power and foreclosing alternatives. The destruction of functioning states as an end in itself is implicit in much of this analysis, even if rarely stated so directly.

David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency theorist who advised the US military, argued from the inside that American strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from what he called “accidental guerrilla” dynamics — but he, too, frames it as failure rather than design.

Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine comes at the same phenomenon from an economic angle — arguing that the disorder created by military intervention was deliberately exploited to impose economic restructuring. This partially overlaps with your thesis but privileges economic over military motivations.

The most radical version of your argument appears in some realist IR theory, particularly in the work of people like John Mearsheimer, who argues that the US systematically destabilizes potential regional hegemons — not to build order, but to prevent any order from emerging that could challenge American primacy.

The strongest version of your argument

I think your framework is most persuasive when applied to Iraq (2003 onward). The destruction of the Ba’athist state, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the de-Baathification policy — these decisions make little sense if the goal was stability, but considerable sense if the goal was permanent fragmentation of a state that had previously demonstrated regional ambition. Whether this was strategic design or strategic negligence that was then rationalized is the genuinely hard question.

Where it faces the most challenge

The theory risks over-attributing coherence to what may be a combination of institutional inertia, domestic political pressures, military-industrial incentives, and genuine miscalculation. The strategic culture of Washington is famously fragmented — the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, and White House often pursue contradictory goals simultaneously. A true strategy of engineered disorder would require a degree of unified intentionality that the historical record makes difficult to sustain.

There is also a Korean counterexample worth considering: South Korea became a spectacularly successful state and a genuine American ally. That outcome fits poorly with a doctrine of deliberate disorder — unless you argue the doctrine only crystallized after Korea, which is in fact your own suggestion.

A term worth coining

The concept you’re describing doesn’t have a fully established name. The closest existing terms are:

• Controlled instability (used occasionally in geopolitical analysis)
• Managed chaos (appears in critical literature on US foreign policy)
• Imperial entropy (used rarely, but captures the deliberate exhaustion dimension)

If you wanted to develop this as a formal argument, I think “strategic disorder doctrine” or perhaps “deterrence by devastation” would capture both dimensions — the power demonstration and the foreclosure of future challenge. The Pyrrhic framing you begin with is actually quite apt: the innovation you’re identifying is a deliberate acceptance of the Pyrrhic outcome, stripped of its tragic connotation and repackaged as a tool.

I continued the conversation by presenting a deeper reflection on the concept of Pyrrhic wars. I invite readers to think about whether it helps to understand the paradox of a nation that has always claimed to work for the peace and stability of a rules-based world order but has so often resorted to war as the means to achieving it.

Here is my follow-up prompt for readers to think about: 

I admit that Mearsheimer’s analysis, in particular his theory of hegemony has influenced my thinking on this question. But beyond the planning of actual leaders and decision-makers deploying a geopolitical strategy, I sense that what we’re talking about exists as a cultural phenomenon. All operators function within a cultural environment that influences their perception of the world in the form of what we might think of as a Pyrrhic background mentality. By that I mean that the chaotic decision-making you describe as characterizing the “strategic culture of Washington” achieves a kind of unintentional coherence through inertia, thanks not so much to the concept but the feeling that if rivals are subjected to even random factors of disorder the existing order will maintain its dominance. There’s a sense of protecting a power one doesn’t even try to understand but one knows exist because there are no capable rivals. A few strategists may recognize and work to implement such a cynical logic, but even if those clever strategists didn’t exist the system would function fairly efficiently.

I would even suggest that to a great extent it’s important to prevent awareness that such a strategy and such a culture exist. It will always be obscured by the evocation of principles that appear to have some moral resonance, such as the concern for democracy, human rights, women’s rights, intellectual property rights, etc. If my thesis is correct, there is obviously no way of proving it because those who understand will always be committed to hiding it, and if no one understands the systemic logic will still continue to play out. Have people like Mearsheimer or other analysts proposed similar theories?

Claude’s response will feature in Part 2.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51�Թ�, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Has the US Invented the Pyrrhic War? Part 1 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At present, of course, our society is one in which US President Donald J. Trump is the quintessential seeker of power, a man who needs power the way most of us need food. And as it happens, he has at his beck and call not just the entire military establishment, but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. With him in the White House, power is distinctly in fashion.

Personal power

Married and with children, my brother, who was a veteran, kept guns in his basement. “To hunt,” he told me when I objected. But he didn’t hunt, not in Nassau County, New York, where he lived. He didn’t take part in a sport that cost money he didn’t have to travel somewhere, get licenses and who knows what else. Did he keep guns because he felt afraid? Absolutely not, he insisted. Was his neighborhood one with many break-ins? No, he assured me. So, why did he need weapons in his basement? He couldn’t say, except that it was important to him to own them.

Why? I kept asking him. As a soldier, he reminded me, he had been taught that without his gun, he was in danger of being killed.

Had he been a man of means, that inculcation wouldn’t, I suspect, have been as powerful, but he wasn’t and never did feel empowered. He’s gone now, but his world isn’t. Guns remain as much a staple in the United States as potatoes.

Well-off families keep guns, too — I hope in locked places — and have the money to buy hunting rifles, licenses and whatever other paraphernalia they need. But in the US today, all too many guns, sometimes even untraceable “,” aren’t locked in boxes, but carried by young people on the streets and even sometimes into schools. Many of the guns on the streets of inner cities, in rural areas and even in some suburbs are unlicensed, stolen ones. And a desire/need to be seen/known/heard frequently leads to someone shooting others with one of those weapons in a , or .

Nearly people died from gun-related injuries in this country in 2023 alone. Such shootings occur more often in the US than in any other nation. Why?

Under the Trump administration, when more is taken away from people than given to them, guns offer those who carry them a reprieve from a sense of powerlessness over their daily lives and futures. Many of them are young people alienated by a society that cares little about their well-being. With a gun in hand, they experience steadiness, security and, yes, hope (however false it may prove to be).

With a weak social safety net, a gun offers a false sense of personal power and security. Should anyone come too close and aggravate the anger that may be boiling inside, however, that gun could go off. And who wouldn’t be angry? Too many young people in working-class families today are unsure where they might be headed and fear the dead-end jobs that they know lie in their future.

The Trump administration, of course, offers such young people little or nothing. And if they weren’t born in the US, they face the everyday menace of fear, degradation and deportation. In America today, immigrants have become the scapegoats for such unvarnished racism that it takes one’s breath away. And don’t imagine that this is about so-called borders. Not a chance! Rather, it’s part of the alleged cooked up by Trump and his advisor, Stephen Miller, to rid the country of as many people of color as they can, with the end result being white supremacy.

Though guns should be difficult if not impossible to obtain, like narcotics, they are, in fact, available around more or less any corner in the most impoverished areas of any state. To stop the acquisition of guns, we would need more than enacted laws. We would also need to strengthen hope and offer a deeper belief in the daily safety of those who don’t for a moment feel taken care of in the world’s most powerful country.

And there’s no hiding from those in need how power is used to procure more and more money for the already wealthy, the of our world.

Why should some, but not most of us, have an equal chance to do more than survive? For too many, their present and future safety becomes their personal problem. Meanwhile, Trump and crew are busily engaged in pursuing military and imperial power to gain yet more wealth for themselves and other billionaires, none of which enhances the power of the American people. And don’t forget that Trump’s toxicity is a vile infection that spreads daily from the Oval Office.

From toy guns to machine guns to tanks

From toy guns to actual machine guns, the US offers a constant example of how to express power through weaponry. There are the guns of war, the guns of intimidation and the guns used against countries whose governments we choose to assault.

Take Venezuela, where a recent US military sneak attack untold numbers of civilians and snatched its president, Nicolás Maduro, to imprison him in the US. That, I say, is one hell of a lot of nerve. I sincerely doubt Trump did that to make life better for the Venezuelan people, but to that country’s oil riches, which he plans to use for the benefit of US oil companies.��

And with that in mind, let me head into the past for a moment. In 1968, when riots erupted to protest the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., first appeared on the streets of American inner cities — big, bulging, heavy vehicles, much like the ones being used in the Vietnam War that was raging concurrently.��

That moment could be seen as the public start of the militarization of this country’s police — the start but far from the end of it, which we see today, 77 years later, in states like Minnesota. There, masked, gun-carrying Border Patrol and federalized ICE agents have invaded, terrorizing and innocent civilians and pulling people out of their cars to deposit them in deportation camps. Such scenes not only increase the frustration and fear of so many Americans, but also the desire to carry licensed (or unlicensed) guns to protect themselves.

ICE is the most recent incarnation of weaponization in this country, in which the agents themselves have become the weapons.

Such macho terrorizing actions as in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and other cities, involving the rounding up of immigrants, are all too much like the 1930s in Nazi Germany rounding up Jews. The way I see it, such use of terror is not only sanctioned by the Trump government but also encouraged by racists like Miller. He is the quintessential representation of where this country is headed, if not quickly stopped.

In addition to guns, ICE agents other weapons of war: fire suppressers, lasers, accessory mounts, dump pouches, magazine wells — and they use drones. They even use pepper spray and other debilitating substances against those who protest their terror.

War is now being waged against Americans on the streets of our country. This is not only antithetical to all our laws, but distinctly unconstitutional and, of course, immoral to the nth degree. Such weapons are perfected for one reason: to kill.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is spending ever more money on the Defense Department (now the of War), instead of on health, education, science and so much else. And Trump wants to far more. Guns before butter is an old , which we simply must not accept.

The people’s power

In Minnesota, ordinary people organized against ICE’s cruel actions. Their resistance was not only brave, but an important example of the ways in which the people have chosen good over the actions and behaviors of a bad government, president and the Millers of this world. As demonstrated there, we Americans have refused to go quietly into ICE’s nightmare. We wouldn’t stand for such injustice and intuitively began organizing to meet the needs of our neighbors and those who are being treated horribly. Ordinary citizens organized watch groups, food groups, school groups, even singing groups, inspired by an innate sense of justice and hatred of injustice.

The struggle of Americans during the siege of Minnesota has indeed had results. The Department of Homeland Security, Trump, Miller and their cohorts have lost some credibility and perhaps some of their ability to frighten people into obedience. It’s more than unfortunate, however, that, in the process, children did and will the unjust power exhibited by ICE and Trump.

The use of guns will undoubtedly continue to be a staple of Trump’s war of intimidation. As the outline illustrates, his followers are laying the groundwork for the few to rule the many at the cost of our freedom.

The Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once that, if you introduce a gun in Act One, make sure to use it by the end of the play. In other words, unless stopped, what the Trump administration has been doing will only grow more brutal. Its attempt to militarize this country goes beyond the Department of War to other government departments like the Department of Homeland Security. Its plebeian belief that might is the only right (and only its right) is also its way of opening a road that could lead to an authoritarian government, where voting itself would become endangered.

We’re living through an exceptionally dark time where tyranny and lies at home, and the rapidly accelerating destruction of our planet (with a distinct from Trump), are happening in tandem. Our elected representatives have shown themselves to be spectacularly ill-prepared in the face of such threats.

But neither the president nor his government owns the people. We the people have power, too. There is power in knowledge, power in organizing and power in resistance, all of which can be used to halt the brutality and lies of this administration. Moreover, the people have the numbers. I confidently believe that if we wish not to be overtaken by an authoritarian government in whose hands many more will suffer, it’s important to resist now.

We the people know how to do that. We have done so throughout history. We have rallied and demonstrated. We have called on our neighbors, friends and families. We have called on our local media. We have called on members of Congress. We have written letters and posted signs and billboards. We have sat in protest, walked in protest and even gone to jail in protest. And we weren’t to be stopped. We made our voices heard across society. We appeared in thousands of towns and cities across America.

The history of this country has shown countless times that people together resisting and fighting for justice, even without guns, can win. It was how we won Social Security, ended child labor, stifled the military’s pursuit of the Vietnam War, and that’s just to start down a long list of examples. In January, on MS Now, television host and political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell : “The protestors always win. It takes longer than it should, and people die, but the protestors always win.”

History proves O’Donnell right.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Guns? From Personal Power to Autocracy in Donald Trump’s America appeared first on 51�Թ�.

These achievements are politically because they concern not only Spanish as a language, but also what the language, music and the artist himself represent. In light of the of violent racism and civil rights against Hispanic, Latinx, Latin American and immigrant individuals in the US, both in and in , recognizing and representing these groups is of the utmost importance.

A cultural moment that challenged national narratives

Bad Bunny’s popularity speaks to the resilience of the Latinx diaspora and the undeniable truth of a multilingual, multicultural and multiracial America. It’s safe to assume that almost every person of Caribbean, Latinx or Latin American descent who watched the halftime show felt emotional and experienced a much-needed sense of pride.

However, US President Donald Trump as a “slap in the face to our country” on his social media account. Based on this characterization of the show, I infer that the president recognizes the halftime show as a challenge to his idea of the nation.

Indeed, it was a slap in the face when considering what Bad Bunny’s masterful performance challenged. The reason for the slap is not because it was “terrible” nor because “nobody understands this guy,” as Trump alleged. No, the performance was a slap in the face because it challenged the long-held beliefs of those who support colonialism and white supremacy.

For a country whose greatness is tied to the dispossession of indigenous populations and immigration, it served as a reality check and a historical reminder. Negating the significance of the performance shows an inability to recognize the large Spanish-speaking population in the US and a lack of insight into the shared history of the Americas.

This collective history includes the fact that indigenous populations in the Americas, including parts of the US, were by Spain before the US existed. Spanish was once a colonial language, but today, it is also a symbol of cultural rebellion against Anglo-imperialist ideals of homogeneity, especially given the racialization and criminalization of Spanish speakers.

In the same social media post mentioned earlier, Trump added that the performance “made no sense.” However, the performance struck a chord precisely because it resonated with a large global audience and was deeply relevant to history.

From viral artist to symbol of the Americas

Through this spectacular production, Bad Bunny showed the world that America has multiple meanings and identities — and that more than one person can define them. Since he first went viral in 2016 with his SoundCloud hit “”, and going from working in a supermarket in San Juan to the multimillionaire he is today, Bad Bunny’s artistic persona reflects the multifaceted, complex and intersectional character of the Americas.

In one of the songs from his 2023 Nadie Sabe Lo Que Va A Pasar Mañana (No One Knows What Tomorrow Will Bring), called “,” Bad Bunny tells the story of how he went from humble beginnings to attending the famous Monaco Formula 1 Grand Prix. As he says in , he is hanging out with actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, discussing topics that only billionaires can understand. During the performance hosted by the NFL, when “Monaco” was playing, he delivered a message in Spanish directly to the camera that said, “I never stopped believing in myself. You should also believe in yourself. You’re worth more than you think. Believe me.” Minutes later, he took a moment to whisper, “Puerto Rico, never stop believing in yourself.”

The above parallel between his own journey and that of Puerto Rico is just one example of the many tributes he has paid to his homeland since he began making albums. Bad Bunny’s massive representation has always occurred alongside his public denunciation of Puerto Rico’s involuntary dependency on the US.

For example, “,” a 2018 hit, was the first of many protest songs and Puerto Rican anthems written by Bad Bunny. The song alludes to the messages that Puerto Ricans sent to their loved ones in the diaspora after the caused by Hurricane Maria, which exposed the island’s structural neglect. These anthems, along with some of his public statements and at protests, are a lesser-known aspect of his fame. His unique, melodic, gravelly voice and his ability to blend depth and emptiness in his lyrics with Afro-Caribbean rhythms sometimes overshadow his activism. However, his cultural relevance has caught the attention of academics. Numerous panels, and have been developed around him.

In addition to taking a political stance on Puerto Rico, many of his greatest hits, such as “” and “,” focus on the freedom to express gender and sexuality, central themes to his popularity. All of these songs were featured in the halftime show. However, his latest album, Debí Tirar Más Fotos, was the key focus in the show’s production. This is noteworthy because the album on the disputed history of Puerto Rican sovereignty. Given the resurgence of imperialism under the Trump administration, the fate of Puerto Rico becomes particularly relevant. This resurgence is evident in Trump’s renewed territorial expansionist efforts, such as his interest in and his interventionism abroad, as seen in .��

Puerto Rico has remained the last occupied Spanish-speaking territory since Italian explorer Christopher Columbus set foot on the island in 1492, and the US the island from Spain in 1898. After invading the island, the US made Puerto Rico a free-associated state, granting some rights but taking many others away. These include the right to vote in US elections and, most importantly, the right to national sovereignty. In this regard, the “Lo que le pasó a Hawái” or “What Happened to Hawaii” is one of the most powerful in Debí Tirar Más Fotos, as it conveys the hope that Puerto Rico won’t suffer the same fate as Hawaii and be forced into US statehood.

The nation’s is a contested subject in Puerto Rico and the US Congress. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, has been one of the most advocates of the Self-Determination Bill, and Puerto Ricans have held displaying the complexities and divisiveness of existing in the ambiguity between statehood and self-determination. As I mentioned earlier, Bad Bunny has long advocated for Puerto Rican independence. For example, he has publicly that he “would never want to see Puerto Rico become a state.”

Cultural pride and memory on the halftime stage

Another major theme of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance was his tribute to and recognition of the Puerto Rican, Latinx and Caribbean communities in the US. Through props and imagery, the production not only denounced a long history of resistance to cultural homogenization and erasure but also honored the profound influence of the diaspora on the US’s cultural heritage and social fabric.

For example, Bad Bunny brought the iconic Highland Park Mexican in Los Angeles to the stage, while also paying homage to the importance of the Caribbean in New York City and to the development of Latinx music genres based there, such as salsa. During his halftime performance of “,” the stage was designed to resemble a classic New York street, featuring a bodega next to a Dominican barbershop. The song opens with a remix of “Si te quieres divertir, solo tienes que vivir un verano en Nueva York” by the El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico, which translates to “If you want to have fun, you only have to spend one summer in New York.”

With all eyes on him during the performance of “Nuevayol,” Bad Bunny sang about one of the city’s attractions, “Un shot de cañita en casa de Toñita,” as Toñita, the octogenarian heart and soul of the last Caribbean in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, handed him a drink. As he gradually became the global phenomenon he is today, Bad Bunny made rare appearances at this small social club, located in a Nuyorican neighborhood on the verge of , in the heart of trendy, homogenized Williamsburg.

Bringing Toñita to center stage at the halftime show in San Francisco embodies the struggle of Latinx and Caribbean diaspora communities against gentrification, developers, and other forms of attempts at erasure. Just as the Caribbean Social Club provides a physical and symbolic space for the hispanophone immigrant community, the opening scene of the original “Nuevayol” music video features the Puerto Rican flag flying atop the Statue of Liberty — a well-known entry point for immigrants. In line with the overall sentiment of the song, this tribute to the 1977 Puerto Rican Nationalist of the statue also signals the legitimacy of the immigrant presence in the US.

Bad Bunny’s portrayal of the Nuyorican experience is part of the broader history of the Puerto Rican diaspora’s grassroots activism and art. The first large wave of Puerto Rican immigration to New York in the 1950s. This set the stage for a vibrant second generation of Nuyorican artists and activists who flourished in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, the Nuyorican Poets established a groundbreaking hub for slam poetry in the Lower East Side, and the Young Lords was a pivotal civil rights group. One of the Young Lords’ most notable protests against the lack of public services in their neighborhoods occurred in 1968 when they took over a Methodist church in Harlem and converted it into a daycare center. Given this history, Bad Bunny’s proud representation of Boricuas in the US cements his position within the long tradition of Latinx artists and activists who have fought against the neglect and of their communities while raising awareness through protest art.

Similarly to how Bad Bunny made his way into the most popular American sporting event despite the longstanding institutional exclusion of those he represents, Nuyorican and Latinx communities have historically forged numerous artistic and cultural paths. As previously mentioned, the confluence of rhythms and ethnicities in New York City’s cultural landscape laid the groundwork for the creation of salsa, the most globally influential Latinx genre to date. Although salsa rhythms originated in Cuba and Puerto Rico, the genre did not become established until the founding of the Brooklyn-based , which made 1960’s New York central to its formation.��

In Bad Bunny’s Debí Tirar Más Fotos, salsa takes center stage as he blends orchestral salsa with Puerto Rican , as well as his upscale reggaeton and dembow production styles. Of all the songs on the album, “,” meaning “unforgettable dance,” stands out because it reinterprets and reestablishes the genre. During the halftime show, “Baile Inolvidable” followed Lady Gaga’s performance of a salsa-inspired version of her hit “Die with a Smile.” Bad Bunny danced to “Baile Inolvidable” with Lady Gaga, symbolizing a sense of binational and bilingual unity through rhythm and dance. In several early , before achieving (and maybe even surpassing) Gaga’s global fame, Bad Bunny Lady Gaga as his biggest idol. Their Super Bowl collaboration sends a message of unity and serves as a testament to Bad Bunny’s success story.

A moment of justice: Ricky Martin and the politics of language

His second guest was his fellow Puerto Rican, Ricky Martin. Martin is an iconic Latino artist from a previous generation who “La Copa de la Vida” at the 1999 Super Bowl. The National Football League made him translate the song to “The Cup of Life.” Because Ricky Martin wasn’t allowed to sing in Spanish in the ‘90s, his a cappella performance of “Lo que le pasó a Hawaii” during Bad Bunny’s halftime show has been called an “.” This moment of vindication alone conveys the symbolic intensity of the entire show.

Right before Ricky Martin’s emotional performance, we saw Bad Bunny give his Grammy to a young child and whisper, “Puerto Rico, cree siempre en ti.” The camera stayed on the child for a moment, allowing us time to reflect. Some that the boy represented either Bad Bunny’s past self or Puerto Rico. Others speculated that he was Liam Conejo Ramos, the five-year-old boy who was infamously detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and later . Although the child was an actor, the speculation sheds light on what was on people’s minds as they watched the performance.

Shortly after the shot of the child holding the Grammy Award, Martin’s voice is heard singing the chilling words: “Quieren quitarme el río y también la playa, quieren el barrio mío y que abuelita se vaya. No sueltes la bandera,” which translates to “They want to take my river and my beaches. They want my neighborhood and my grandma to leave. Don’t let go of the flag.” Soon after, Bad Bunny is seen holding a large Puerto Rican flag in the middle of a sugarcane field. The flag is light blue instead of the official darker shade. Incidentally, this flag was from 1948 to 1957 due to laws intended to suppress Puerto Rican nationalism. This moment of him in the field holding the unofficial flag resonates, as stated, with his long-term making of protest anthems.

One such protest anthem is the hit “” (or “The Blackout”), in which a female voice states the same sentiment as in “Lo que le pasó a Hawaii” with the words “No me quiero ir de aquí, que se vayan ellos,” or “I don’t want to leave, let them be the ones to go.” Furthermore, the official video of the song features a short documentary on the human impacts that foreign interests have had on the island.

The song “El Apagón” also has its own epic moment in the Super Bowl. As dancers dressed as sugarcane workers climb electric posts, Bad Bunny sings, “Everyone wants to be Latino, but they lack flavor, energy and reggaetón.” The 2022 version of the song is a testimony to the long-lasting aftermath of Hurricane María in 2017 and the insufficient US aid that left the island without electricity for days. “El Apagón” immediately became an anthem and a form of historical memory for the island’s neglect.

In addition to exposing the unequal and racialized distribution of public aid, the song unveils a centuries-long, systemic colonial worldview. Both “Lo que le pasó a Hawai” and “El Apagón” epitomize what groundbreaking Black feminist scholar Bell Hooks termed “imperialist nostalgia” in her 1992 Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance. This concept describes the paradox by which imperialism destroys and enslaves conquered territories while simultaneously idolizing and mystifying them as paradises to be exploited and visited, or as fashionable aesthetics to be imitated. Thus, the idea that “everyone wants to be Latino” carries significant implications.

“Seguimos Aquí”: identity, sovereignty and the power of presence

Toward the end of the halftime show, a group of flag-holders takes the stage and surrounds the , a signature prop from his latest world tour. From the overhead camera view, we see all the flags being raised. First is the US flag, followed by the Puerto Rican flag and then the flags of all the other nations in the Americas. Throughout the show, we have seen flags emerge as a recurring theme in the symbols employed to vindicate national identity and self-determination. After focusing on the flags, the camera moves to Benito, who is grabbing a football.��

Holding the football, he begins, “God bless America.” Then he continues, “Be it Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and so on.” Bad Bunny made a point of acknowledging all the countries in the Americas. He did so with a traveling shot, walking toward the viewer while continuing to carry the football and looking into the camera the entire time. In the still photo of the larger composition, the flags surround him in the background. Further back, a neon sign reads, “The only thing more powerful than hate is love.” These are the same words he when he received the 2026 Best Album Grammy, directly addressing ICE’s actions toward immigrants and protesters. In addition to what the larger frame shows, listing all the nations asserts their identities and their right to be recognized as sovereign entities with horizontal relationships with one another.

Though not at the top, the US was included on the list of countries stretching from south to north, appearing just before Canada. After finishing the list, he held up the football he had been holding and displayed a message written on it. He then read the message aloud: “Seguimos aquí,” which means “We are still here.” By making a touchdown gesture with the ball, a symbol of victory, Bad Bunny physically expressed the same message written in “Seguimos aquí,” which encapsulates the unwavering presence of Latinx communities in the face of ongoing supremacist, colonial and imperialist endeavors.

The triumphant touchdown momentarily resolved the debate over whether the halftime show was an affront or a source of pride. For at least one cinematic moment, Benito and those he represents claimed victory. “Seguimos aquí” is written in the present tense, expressing the idea of always having been there and a sense of continuity. The surrounding the halftime show ultimately serves as a reminder of historical power struggles over narratives, such as those concerning the use of Spanish and the right to occupy spaces of representation. Despite the government and armed forces’ attempts to undermine indigenous sovereignty and fundamental civil rights, Bad Bunny’s halftime performance shone as a much-needed moment of beauty and vindication.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Bad Bunny’s Record-Breaking Popularity Proves That Latinos are Paving the Way in the Americas appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Lesnes offers a somewhat different account of the man Douthat finds so admirable. Her column begins with this more focused description of the influencer: “A libertarian US tech billionaire, Peter Thiel is also a Bible enthusiast who hunts for the modern Antichrist figure.” In other words, the French reporter prefers to characterize Douthat’s “influential right-wing intellectual” as an “enthusiast” (a synonym for fan) and a hunter, or a man who “hunts.”

Those contrasting descriptions of the same public personality may serve to highlight a fundamental difference between US and French intellectual culture. Nearly four hundred years ago, French philosopher René Descartes asserted that thinking was the key to existing (cogito ergo sum). Anyone serious intellectual capable of concluding that “I think, therefore I am” will inevitably embark on thinking critically and logically in the quest to construct a complex understanding of reality. That thinking may, of course, lead in different directions and create structures of thought more or less deeply consistent with observed and observable reality, but the driving force for such intellectuals is the act of thinking. The result, following Descartes’s lead, is the past three centuries of European philosophy representing a wide variety of contrasting ways to interpret the world.

In her brief description of Thiel, Lesnes, the European, points to a different trend active at the core of the US intellectual tradition, especially when it seeks to differentiate itself from the European tradition. Thiel is an “enthusiast” who “hunts.” In that attribution of motive, she correctly identifies hunting (for survival) — which can mean aggressively dominating the environment — and the fostering of enthusiasm (adopting and conducting a mission) as factors that provide the driving force in much of US intellectual endeavor. Both point towards a taste for conquest as the key to security, complemented by the sense of being justified by some kind of providential force. Other intellectual traditions exist, but these forces largely absent from the European tradition are clearly discernible as constants, especially among the right-wing intellectual class Douthat and Thiel identify with.

The great philosophical divide

In the wake of Descartes, Europe set about producing what historians have dubbed the “Enlightenment” (“Lumières,” or lights in its native French version). Through the eighteenth century the French set the tone for all European thinking, characterized by its willingness to embrace empirical science and accompany its theoretical development. During that same period, an expanding group of English colonies was spreading up and down the North America’s Atlantic coast on their way to becoming a new independent secular republic before the end of the 18th century. The North American elite received and echoed much of the intellectual energy produced by contemporary European sources. But collectively they were less focused on ideas than on survival and security based on territorial conquest. The particular contribution of Anglo-American culture, in contrast with the idea of enlightenment (focused on reason alone), appeared in the form of a series of “,” moments of religious enthusiasm. The first emerged around 1730, but waves of “great awakenings” have continued even to this day.

The metaphor of “awakening” deserves to be taken seriously. It means that to an exceptional extent, US culture has crafted itself as a process of perceiving the world at an unstable moment of cognitive transition, that fleeting instant that marks the threshold between the chaos of dreams and the awareness of emerging as an ego in the real world and having to interact with concrete reality. Many European thinkers have sought to articulate in rational terms the relationship between reason, faith and belief. In the American tradition, marked by its propensity to encourage enthusiasm, the bulk of the effort has focused on predicting which of the contestants, thanks to their strength, will be the winner. As often as not, reason, belief and faith become bundled together in unexpected combinations.

By 1648, Europe desperately needed to cultivate a new brand of rational, empiricist-oriented philosophy in the hope of establishing a stable cultural order after a period of extremely violent disorder that lasted nearly a century and a half. The continent was stunned and in many places devastated by its repeated wars of religion. Beginning in the early 16th century Protestants and Catholics battled for political control of the emerging entities that could not yet be called nations. 

On the other side of the Atlantic it was a different story. The newly disembarked British colonists in North America in the mid-17th century had little time for philosophizing, nor did they feel any pressing need to engage in it. They spent most of their energy hunting to ensure survival, claiming the territory in which they might feel secure and being “enthusiastic” in the service of an ideology that saw their destiny as a people and a race in the role the providential conquerors of a land they conceived of as the “New Jerusalem.”

Once the new republic was fully established in 1787, two contending intellectual traditions persisted and intermingled. On one side, the citizens of the new federal assembly of rapidly united “states” (13 in total) inherited an increasingly bourgeois, secular but still broadly Christian tradition of philosophical, political and scientific thinking from Europe. The exceptionally literate and innovative Founders of a radically anti-monarchic political system drew freely on that tradition. They fell quite naturally into the role of a ruling elite. In contrast to Europe’s militant rationality, however, the background culture of the newly created nation maintained its tradition of fighting for survival and reliance on the Puritanical quest to understand the world through a series of awakenings. The War of Independence, still referred to in the US as “the American Revolution,” reflects that penchant for enthusiasm.

The two traditions — European enlightenment and North American religious enthusiasm — have persisted and are still visible today. On the east and west coast (New York and California), a dominant hard-nosed “modern” enlightenment reflected in finance and technology sits alongside a heartland whose culture is heavily influenced by the enthusiasm-generating local churches and megachurches that not only persist in the tradition of “the New Jerusalem” and the “shining city on the hill,” they have more recently taken to identifying their new one with the old Jerusalem in Israel. I’m, of course, referring to the 30 to 50 million who have increasingly influenced US foreign policy and never as directly as in the current Trump administration’s war of aggression conducted in tandem with Israel against Iran.

For the most part, those two contrasting worldviews, one inherited from Europe and the other native to North America, developed and evolved with minimal interpenetration between them. Broadly speaking, Americans who identify as Democrats see their mission in continuity with the European rational tradition. Republicans are to this day more likely to rely on a feeling of “enthusiasm.” But even Democrats, as former US President Joe Biden regularly insisted, embraced the idea of American exceptionalism as “the .”

Will Thiel deliver and convict the Antichrist?

So, given this cultural and intellectual divide, where does Thiel fit in? His career is closely linked to both Wall Street and Silicon Valley. That should put him in the rationalist European and Democrat camp. But not only is he a Republican who endorsed Donald Trump at the 2016 Republican convention and has remained close to him ever since, he is, as Lesne tells us, both a libertarian and a “Bible enthusiast” besides being a tech billionaire.

Most of us have a pretty good idea of what it means to be a libertarian in US political and economic culture. And everyone knows what a billionaire is. On that score, Le Monde is misleading because Thiel is not only a multi-billionaire (his fortune is estimated as upwards of $23 billion), he belongs to the specific class of Silicon Valley billionaires who use their financial clout not just to influence but to twist, politically and financially, US culture into a shape that pleases them.

I nevertheless found Lesne’s description of Thiel as a “Bible enthusiast” bemusing. Religious Christians of most denominations regard the Bible as the source of their theology. What could it mean to be a fan of the Bible? In the Muslim world, where scripture is deemed the source of law and morality, it would make no sense to call someone a Qur’an enthusiast. That language is more appropriate when applied to movies or pop groups.

Lesne’s description may be right. Thiel isn’t a typical believer. He’s a man with a mission and a talent. It consists of lifting from the Bible valuable nuggets whose meaning he alone, among all mortals, can understand and apply infallibly to today’s political world. Even if the scripture he’s relying on was penned two thousand years ago.

Thiel now lectures about the Antichrist, most recently in , in the shadow of the Vatican. His reading contains no original historical evidence and directly conflicts with the and indeed every other serious Christian exegetical tradition. It does however coincidentally correlate with his own business interests. Thiel speaks about the need for a “restraining force” in the world — usually in the form of a strong state or a “sovereign” leader — to prevent the world from sliding into total, violent chaos before humanity invents the technology to escape it. Thiel and Palantir, a company he co-founded alongside Alex Karp, appear dedicated to providing some of the quintessential “preventive” technology.

Thiel himself as a “small-o orthodox Christian.” He is not a Roman Catholic.�� It stands to reason that he would pay no attention to the opinion of the two most recent popes, who have their view on artificial intelligence and, more generally,�� new generations of technology. “Popes Francis and Leo XIV stress it must serve the common good, not private profit or power accumulation.” Thiel appears committed to a clearly uncommon good that he alone, as an inspired enthusiastic reader of the Bible, can understand and share with selected (paying) audiences.

It’s interesting to note that a cofounder of , whose technology potentially permits the clandestine surveillance of every citizen, appears to have direct knowledge of what Paul of Tarsus meant by “ὁ κατέχων (ho katechōn),” usually translated as “restraining force.” Perhaps Thiel has managed to get that same surveillance technology to time travel, allowing him to record and analyze some of St. Paul’s ancient WhatsApp messages. How else could a “katechon” designate actual people living today, such as ? All this demonstrates Thiel’s undeniable gift for “enthusiasm,” but it happens to be a form of enthusiasm this Devil’s Advocate clearly finds suspect.

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition 51�Թ� began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of the 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Peter Thiel: The Antichrist Hunter of Silicon Valley appeared first on 51�Թ�.

And when asked why he abandoned even the pretense of propriety, Trump offered a more damning than any indictment: “I found out that nobody cared.”

He is right. And this essay is addressed to the “nobody” who didn’t care.

Not to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. They were promised something: border security, cheaper groceries, no wars, restored greatness. They voted for it in good faith. That most of those promises have been broken is Trump’s betrayal of them, not theirs of the country. The base is not the subject of this letter.

This letter is addressed to the people who knew. The CEOs who sat in the front row at the inauguration and who possess the education, resources, institutional power and platforms to have said no. Mark Zuckerberg. Sundar Pichai. Tim Cook. Jeff Bezos. Satya Nadella. The billionaire donors who wrote checks after January 6, after the indictments, after the conviction, after the “very fine people on both sides.” Stephen Schwarzman. Ken Griffin. Nelson Peltz. Larry Ellison. The venture capitalists who built media empires to launder authoritarian governance as “disruption.” David Sacks. Chamath Palihapitiya. Marc Andreessen. The finance titans who called Trump’s tariffs “economic nuclear war” in private and applauded his “business-friendly agenda” in public. The senators who voted just a few weeks ago to let a president wage war without their consent because party loyalty outweighed their oath to the Constitution.

You are the “nobody” who didn’t care.

And as of three weeks ago, the consequences of your cowardice are measured in body bags.

The Iran test

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel a joint military campaign against Iran, code-named “Operation Epic Fury,” that killed the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and targeted Iranian military infrastructure across the country. The strikes were ordered by a president who campaigned on a promise of “no more forever wars.” They were executed by a Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was a Fox News host six months before his confirmation. They were launched without , without a UN mandate, without a clearly articulated strategic objective, without a plan for the day after and without basic contingency planning for the blindingly obvious consequences.

This is the part that should terrify every American: Nobody in this administration appears to have war-gamed what would happen next.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. of the world’s oil supply was disrupted overnight. Brent crude surged past $80 a barrel within days, with Goldman Sachs it could reach triple digits if the closure persists. Gulf state airspace shut down. Emirates, Qatar Airways and thousands of commercial flights were grounded. Dubai International Airport, one of the world’s busiest hubs, went dark. European natural gas prices spiked 38% after attacks on Qatari facilities, threatening energy security across the continent and driving up fertilizer costs that will ripple through global food supply chains for months.

The contagion spread faster than the war itself. South Korea’s Composite Stock Price Index in a single day, the worst crash in its history, worse than September 11, triggering a circuit breaker that halted trading. The next day, it fell another 7%, cementing the worst two-day streak in decades. Samsung, SK Hynix, LG: the pillars of a major allied economy, gutted. Thailand imposed its own trading curb after an 8% decline. Bloomberg that emerging markets became “one of the worst places to be for global investors,” with Korean stocks down 18% in a single week. South Korea imports 98% of its fossil fuels. It did not start this war. It did not consent to it. It is paying for it.

The destabilization extends far beyond markets. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict now merging with the Iran-Israel proxy war. Central Asian nations, landlocked and dependent on Iranian ports for trade routes to the Indian Ocean, face severed commerce. India, which depends heavily on Gulf oil imports, is bracing for inflation shocks that will hit its poorest citizens hardest. Pakistan and Afghanistan have that the conflict could spill over their own borders. Djibouti’s president has denounced the risk of the war cascading into Northeast Africa’s existing conflicts in Somalia, Sudan and Chad. The Houthis have to attack any US or Saudi military facilities in Yemen. The very allies this administration claims to be protecting are now scrambling to contain the chaos it created.

Six American service members are dead. Hegseth told reporters the operation is “just getting started” and that the US could “sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.” Trump the New York Times the strikes could last “four to five weeks.” Representative Hakeem Jeffries pointed out what should be obvious: “This notion of regime change has never been successful, as most recently indicated by its failure in Iraq, its failure in Libya and its failure in Afghanistan.”

The Senate on March 4, 2026, on a war powers resolution to require congressional authorization for further military action in Iran. It , 47-53, almost entirely along party lines. Rand Paul was the only Republican who voted yes. John Fetterman was the only Democrat who voted no. Speaker Mike Johnson called the resolution “siding with the enemy.” Senator Tim Kaine responded: “If you don’t have the guts to vote yes or no on a war vote, how dare you send our sons and daughters into war where they risk their lives?”

A CBS News found that most Americans disapprove of the war with Iran. About half believe the conflict could last months or years. The American people see what the enablers refuse to acknowledge: This war has no endgame, no authorization and no limiting principle.

This is the test. And every enabler in America is failing it.

The broken promises

Before I walk through the full ledger of what the enablers sanctioned with their silence, I want to address the people they claim to represent. The voters. The consumers. The workers. The families who were promised something tangible and received something very different.

Trump promised to “end inflation and make America affordable again, starting on day one.” Inflation the Federal Reserve’s 2% target throughout 2025, with the personal consumption expenditures deflator ending the year at 2.9%. The Fed’s own research attributed as much as half a percentage point of that inflation directly to tariff policy. Grocery prices rose in the year, the sharpest increase since March 2024. Beef prices are up over 16%. Coffee is up 20%. Electricity bills rose by 6.7% in 2025, more than double the overall inflation rate, costing the average American household an additional $116 per year. The promise to cut energy costs in half was, in ’s precise words, missed “by a lot.”

Trump promised that “jobs and factories will come roaring back.” The US labor market added roughly jobs in all of 2025, a fraction of the 1.5 million created in 2024. Manufacturing, the sector Trump vowed to resurrect, lost jobs between April and December after the trade war escalated. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that “fewer Americans work in manufacturing than at any point since the pandemic ended.” January 2026 brought the worst month of job cuts since the Great Recession: , three times the December figure.

Trump promised, “no more forever wars.” He has now bombed or conducted military operations against eight countries in a single year, including an unauthorized war against Iran that his own defense secretary says is “just getting started.” The man who mocked the “endless wars” of his predecessors has launched an open-ended conflict without congressional approval, without a strategic endgame and without the consent of the American people.

Trump promised free markets. He delivered Trump markets. Companies are told what to build, where to build it and whom to hire. Those who comply receive tariff exemptions and regulatory favor. Those who dissent receive investigations and public threats. The Supreme Court in February 2026 that Trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing broad tariffs, a violation of congressional power over trade. The administration promised to replace them using other legal tools. American consumers are shouldering up to of the tariff costs, according to Goldman Sachs, a burden projected to rise to 70%.

Trump promised to restore global respect. American soft power is in freefall. Allied markets are crashing from a war they were never consulted about. The UN, NATO, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have been gutted or abandoned. The global order that — whatever its imperfections (and there are many) — maintained a predictable framework for security and commerce is being dismantled by the country that built it. Even Republican voters are souring: A found that “by 15 percentage points, more voters rate the economy as weak rather than strong,” the worst showing of Trump’s second term.

These are not partisan talking points. They are data. They are Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, Federal Reserve reports, consumer price index measurements and trade deficit figures. The GoFundMe CEO that the economy is so challenged that people are raising money to buy food. Deloitte’s holiday spending survey the least optimistic consumer outlook since 1997.

The people who voted for Trump are not stupid. They are being robbed. And the enablers who financed, promoted and legitimized the administration that is robbing them will face no consequences. They never do.

The ledger: what you enabled

Let me walk through what the “reasonable” men — the CEOs, the donors, the senators and the editorial boards — enabled with their silence, their checks and their front-row seats.

You enabled the dismantling of constitutional governance. This president has governed almost exclusively through executive orders, in his first 100 days, because he has almost no legislative accomplishments. He imposed tariffs without congressional approval. He attempted to freeze funds that Congress had already appropriated. He tried to birthright citizenship by executive fiat, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. He fired members of independent agencies to install loyalists. He attempted to a Federal Reserve board member. He reclassified tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees to enable mass firings. He did not govern the republic. He ruled it by decree. And you said nothing.

You enabled the construction of a domestic surveillance and deportation apparatus. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are detaining and, in documented cases, American citizens. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has been to justify mass deportations. Asylum seekers are systematically jailed. Families are separated. Palantir’s databases track and target communities with algorithmic precision. The “remain in Mexico” forces asylum seekers into conditions the UN has described as inhumane. And you, the same people who profess to believe in “freedom” and “individual liberty,” have said nothing, donated millions and attended galas.

You enabled the demolition of global institutions. In one year, this administration has gutted or undermined the UN, NATO, the ICC, the ICJ, UNHCR, the World Bank and USAID. Decades of American soft power have been systematically destroyed. Allied nations are realigning away from the US. Adversaries are emboldened. The global institutions that constrain war, protect refugees and adjudicate disputes between nations have been weakened to the point of irrelevance. You calculated that deregulation and tax cuts were worth more than the international order that protects your supply chains, your markets and your employees’ children from conscription.

You enabled economic destruction in the name of “free markets.” The man you funded has replaced free markets with a command economy run by tweet. He rewards allies and punishes critics through tariffs, procurement and regulatory favor. His own supporter, Bill Ackman, the tariffs “economic nuclear war” before going quiet again. Small businesses are being crushed. Consumer prices are rising. The manufacturing boom he promised is a manufacturing contraction. And the billionaires who funded this, whose portfolios are buffered by diversification and offshore holdings, will be fine. The people who voted for cheaper groceries will not.

You enabled the weaponization of justice. Over January 6 participants have been pardoned or had their sentences commuted, including people who assaulted police officers, broke into the Capitol and called for the murder of elected officials. The president has directed investigations into former officials who criticized him. He has threatened the press credentials of outlets that publish unfavorable coverage. He has filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, a bank regulated by his administration, alleging “political bias” for closing his accounts after an insurrection he incited. The rule of law is not being bent. It is being broken.

You enabled complicity in genocide. This president has provided unconditional support to an Israeli government whose leadership is by the ICC. He has advanced fighter jets and approved AI chip exports to Saudi Arabia, the same week he welcomed its crown prince. He has deployed American military technology, including the platforms built by Google, Amazon and Palantir under contracts their own employees protested, in operations that have killed thousands of civilians.

And now you have enabled an unauthorized war. Not a “limited strike.” Not a “targeted operation.” A war. With American casualties. With a defense secretary who says it’s “just getting started.” With no congressional authorization, no strategic endgame, no exit plan and no contingency for the economic devastation already rippling across the planet. With South Korea’s market in its worst crash since 9/11. With the Strait of Hormuz closed. With oil heading toward triple digits. With the conditions for a wider regional conflagration already in motion.

This is what you enabled. This is what “nobody cared” produced.

The double standard

I need to say something that will make some readers uncomfortable. I say it not to score political points but because it is the structural diagnosis without which nothing else in this essay makes sense.

If Barack Obama had profiteered $4 billion from the presidency, the impeachment proceedings would have begun before the ink was dry. If Obama had a convicted money launderer whose platform subsequently enriched his family’s cryptocurrency business, Fox News would have run the chyron for a year. If Obama had launched an unauthorized war against a sovereign nation, killing its head of state without congressional approval, while his defense secretary, a former television commentator with no military command experience, told reporters he was “just getting started,” the same senators who voted today to let Trump continue would have drafted articles of impeachment by sundown. And let me be clear: I am no Obama fanboy. I voted for him with historical emotions in 2008; I not only abstained but also became a vocal critic thereafter.

If Obama had told the New York Times “nobody cared” about his profiteering, the word “corruption” would have been on every front page. When Trump says it, it lands on page six.

The silence is not neutral. It is the sound of every institutional constraint — congressional oversight, media independence, corporate accountability, civil society pressure, staff resignation — collapsing simultaneously. Previous presidents were not necessarily better men. They were more constrained men. And the people who provided those constraints have chosen, for the first time in modern American history, to abandon them entirely.

These men, and they are mostly men, mostly white, though not exclusively, did not suddenly discover that presidential profiteering is acceptable. They did not suddenly decide that unauthorized wars are constitutional. They did not suddenly conclude that dismantling independent agencies and firing civil servants is good governance. They decided that this president, who flatters their portfolios, guts their regulatory constraints, appoints their allies to the bench and provides the political cover for a vision of governance they always wanted but couldn’t say aloud, is worth the cost.

The cost is being paid by others. By the six dead service members in Iran. By the asylum seekers in detention. By the small business owners bankrupted by tariffs. By the 108,435 workers laid off in January alone. By the 77,000 manufacturing jobs that vanished after “Liberation Day.” By the farmers watching their markets collapse. By the federal workers fired for the crime of competence. By the journalists investigated for the crime of reporting. By the citizens of allied nations whose markets crashed this week because an American president chose war without a plan or authorization.

The enablers will be fine. They are always fine. That is the definition of the word.

The cowards’ gallery

I will not dwell on the true believers. Elon Musk, who contributed to elect this president and now operates a parallel executive branch, is not a coward. He is an ideologue pursuing a vision of governance by technological aristocracy. David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, who use their podcast to gaslight millions into treating constitutional erosion as “liberal hysteria,” are not cowards. They are propagandists with conviction. Alex Karp, who mocked Google’s refusal to build military AI and now builds surveillance systems for governments, is not a coward. He is a man who found that power tastes better than principle.

The cowards are the converts. The people who knew better and chose anyway.

Mark Zuckerberg built a platform on “connecting the world” and “giving people the power to build community.” He spent years cultivating a reputation as a defender of democratic discourse. Then he Trump’s response to an assassination attempt “badass,” dismantled Meta’s fact-checking apparatus, adjusted his algorithms to amplify MAGA-aligned content and eliminated Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, all before anyone asked him to. This was not capitulation under pressure. This was pre-emptive obedience. Zuckerberg calculated that the cost of Meta’s regulatory exposure exceeded the cost of his credibility. He was right about the calculation. He was wrong about what it made him.

Jeff Bezos spiked his own newspaper’s presidential endorsement. The Washington Post, the paper that published the Pentagon Papers, that broke Watergate, that employs the colleagues of Jamal Khashoggi, was from endorsing a candidate because its owner wanted to protect Blue Origin’s government contracts. Bezos did not need to say a word. The suppression was the statement. It told every journalist at the Post that their independence is conditional on their owner’s business interests. It told every reader that the paper’s editorial judgment is for sale. And it told every authoritarian on earth that the American free press can be silenced without a single law being changed. All you need is a billionaire with a portfolio.

Tim Cook attends inaugurations, maintains “friendships” and secures tariff exemptions while Apple’s supply chain depends on and its App Store extracts feudal rents from developers worldwide. Cook has perfected the art of apolitical complicity: the posture of the executive who “doesn’t do politics,” while every political calculation is embedded in every product decision, every market entry, every regulatory negotiation. His silence is not neutrality. It is the sound of a man who has decided that human rights are a marketing problem.

The Wall Street are perhaps the most revealing. Stephen Schwarzman distanced himself from Trump after January 6, then returned, citing “economic and immigration policy.” Nelson Peltz said he “regretted” voting for Trump in 2020, then endorsed him in 2024 for the tax cuts. Ken Griffin contributed $108 million to Republican causes. These are men who, in their private lives and professional environments, would never tolerate the behavior they fund in public life. They would not hire a CEO who had been convicted of fraud. They would not invest in a company whose founder pardoned criminals for personal financial benefit. They would not sit on the board of a firm that launched unauthorized operations costing lives without a strategic plan. But they fund a president who does all of these things because the after-tax return is sufficient. Their morality is a function of their marginal rate.

David Solomon, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, described the market’s reaction to the Iran war, a war that killed six Americans, crashed South Korea’s market by 12% in a single day and disrupted 20% of global oil supply, as “.” He said it on the same day his own research team warned oil could hit triple digits. This is what enablement sounds like at the institutional level: the language of normalcy applied to catastrophe. If the market is “benign,” the war must be manageable. If the war is manageable, the president’s judgment must be sound. If the president’s judgment is sound, the donations were justified. The logic is circular, self-sealing and, as of today, costing lives.

What they would have done to Obama

I want to hold this frame for one more moment, because it is the frame that explains everything.

Imagine that President Obama had: Made $4 billion from the presidency through cryptocurrency ventures he previously called “a scam”; Pardoned a convicted money launderer whose platform subsequently enriched his family; Announced Saudi real estate deals the same week he sold advanced weapons to the kingdom; Launched an unauthorized war that killed American soldiers, with a defense secretary who had no military command experience; Told the Times “nobody cared” about his profiteering; Governed almost entirely through executive orders, with virtually no legislation; Imposed tariffs so sweeping that allied stock markets had their worst crashes since 9/11; Fired 250,000 federal employees through an unelected advisor; Used the Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations; Pardoned 1,500 people who violently stormed the Capitol; Presided over the worst January for job cuts since the Great Recession; Lost 77,000 manufacturing jobs while promising a manufacturing boom; Allowed electricity bills to rise 6.7% while promising to cut energy costs in half

He would not have survived the first month. And every person named in this essay knows it. This knowledge is what makes them cowards rather than fools.

The agency we still have

I have spent this essay in anger. I want to end it in clarity.

The enablers have failed. The institutions they were supposed to steward — corporate boards, media organizations, financial markets and the US Congress — have been captured, hollowed out or bought. The Senate voted to let a president wage an unauthorized war. The CEOs attend galas. The billionaires write checks. The editorial boards issue measured calls for “dialogue.”

But here is what I know from 30 years of watching power operate: The countermovement never comes from the institutions that capitulated. It comes from below.

The civil rights movement did not wait for corporate America to develop a conscience. It forced conscience upon a nation through boycotts, marches, sit-ins and the willingness of ordinary people to absorb violence in the service of justice. The labor movement did not wait for Wall Street to discover fairness. It organized, it struck, it bled and it built the middle class that Wall Street now profits from. Solidarity did not wait for the Polish establishment. It began in a shipyard.

The 300 million Americans who are not in that room, who are not at the galas, who do not write the checks, who do not sit in the front row, are not powerless. They are, in fact, the last institution standing. When the Senate abdicates, when the courts defer, when the press is purchased, when the corporations kneel, the citizenry is the final check on power. Not as aspiration. As structural reality.

There are members of Congress who voted their conscience, some against their own party, knowing it would cost them. Thomas Massie, who called the strikes “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.” Rand Paul, who said his “oath of office is to the Constitution.” Tim Kaine, who demanded: “If you don’t have the guts to vote yes or no on a war vote, how dare you send our sons and daughters into war where they risk their lives.” Warren Davidson, a former Army Ranger, who said simply: “No. War requires congressional authorization.” Andy Kim, who told the administration that it “owns” the results of this conflict, including every American death. They exist. They spoke. They voted no.

There are Google employees who were fired for refusing to build technology that powers genocide. There are journalists who continue to report under threat. There are small business owners, teachers, nurses, veterans, organizers and citizens who refuse to accept that “nobody cared” is the final word.

The enablers have made their choice. The question now is whether the rest of us will make ours.

Trump said nobody cared. He was describing the people who surround him: the court jesters, the cowards, the converts, the profiteers. He was not describing America. Not the America I have spent my career serving, the America that has always, eventually, painfully, imperfectly, chosen the harder right over the easier wrong.

The enablers bent the knee. The republic does not have to follow them down.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Nobody Cared: A Letter to the Enablers of American Collapse appeared first on 51�Թ�.

According to their analysis, this development carries important geopolitical implications because the US has long relied on the threat of excluding banks from the SWIFT network as a key instrument of financial sanctions. If a growing share of global payments migrates to alternative infrastructures such as CIPS, the effectiveness of this sanctions tool could gradually weaken.

This observation aligns with broader evidence presented by economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Recent IMF staff assessments of China’s economy several indicators suggesting that RMB internationalization is progressing gradually. These include rising shares of trade invoicing settled in RMB, increased offshore RMB lending and expanding issuance of “panda bonds” — RMB-denominated bonds issued in China by foreign institutions. Central banks have also modestly increased their holdings of RMB assets as part of broader reserve diversification strategies. Although the RMB still accounts for only a small portion of global financial transactions and foreign-exchange reserves compared with the US dollar, these developments suggest that international currency usage may be slowly diversifying at the margin.

Payment Infrastructure and the visibility of RMB transactions

Launched in 2015 by the People’s Bank of China, CIPS functions as a clearing and settlement system for cross-border RMB payments. It also provides messaging services that allow participating banks to transmit payment instructions across borders. In its early years, CIPS remained closely linked to the existing global payment infrastructure. Most CIPS transactions still relied on SWIFT messaging protocols to transmit payment instructions. As recently as 2022, estimates that roughly 80% of CIPS payments were accompanied by SWIFT messages.

Since 2024, however, the structure of the system has begun to evolve. The number of direct participants in CIPS — banks capable of sending payment messages directly through the system — has expanded significantly. Direct participants from 139 banks to nearly 193 institutions, representing a growth of roughly 40%. This expansion has gradually shifted the flow of payment messages away from SWIFT and toward CIPS’s internal messaging channels. As a result, a growing share of RMB transactions no longer appears in SWIFT statistics.

This shift helps explain why SWIFT data may underestimate the actual level of cross-border RMB activity. As more payments are processed through CIPS rather than SWIFT, the apparent decline in RMB usage within SWIFT statistics does not necessarily indicate a decline in global RMB transactions. Instead, it reflects a migration of financial messaging infrastructure.

The implications of this migration extend beyond technical changes in payment systems. For decades, the US has exercised significant influence over the international financial system through its central role in global payment infrastructure. SWIFT, though headquartered in Belgium, operates within a financial ecosystem closely tied to Western regulatory frameworks. As a result, access to SWIFT has become an important instrument of economic statecraft. Financial sanctions imposed on countries such as Iran and Russia illustrate the power of this mechanism. By threatening to exclude banks from SWIFT, the US and its allies have been able to restrict targeted countries’ access to global financial markets. In practice, this ability to control access to payment networks has reinforced the international influence of the US dollar.

At the same time, the emergence of alternative payment infrastructures such as CIPS may reduce the effectiveness of this specific strategy at the margin. If more international transactions can be processed through networks outside SWIFT, countries subject to sanctions may find limited ways to maintain financial connectivity despite restrictions imposed through Western-controlled channels. Even so, it would be misleading to interpret such developments as evidence of an imminent decline in dollar dominance. The dollar’s central role in global finance remains supported by much deeper structural factors than payment messaging alone.

US Treasury securities remain the most liquid and widely trusted safe assets in global financial markets. The size and depth of US financial markets continue to provide unparalleled infrastructure for global capital flows, liquidity management and collateral formation. Dollar-based markets also remain central to hedging, derivatives pricing, reserve accumulation and external financing. For these reasons, shifts in payment channels do not automatically translate into a generalized weakening of the dollar’s broader international role.

Structural foundations of dollar dominance

from ANZ Research reinforces this perspective. Analysts there argue that even developments such as the potential emergence of a “” — oil transactions denominated in RMB — are unlikely to trigger a rapid shift in the global monetary system. If major oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia were to accept RMB as payment for oil exports to China, this could increase the currency’s role in trade settlement and encourage central banks to hold more RMB-denominated assets. However, such changes would more likely represent incremental diversification than a wholesale transformation of the international currency hierarchy.

In this context, this article by your author should as denying the strength or persistence of the dollar. Nor does it attempt to analyze the political dynamics through which the US sustains the dollar as a uniform form of monetary hegemony. Questions concerning the political strategies, institutional coalitions and geopolitical forces that underpin the durability of US monetary power fall outside the scope of the author’s model. Instead, the article adopts a different analytical perspective: It interprets dollar dominance as a form of infrastructure power distributed unevenly across distinct monetary functions within the international monetary system.

From this perspective, the resilience of the dollar derives less from a single hegemonic mechanism than from the dense network of financial markets, legal institutions, safe assets, payment systems and hedging instruments that collectively support global dollar use. The author’s model, therefore, does not deny dollar dominance; rather, it specifies how that dominance operates unevenly across functions. It argues that changes such as the expansion of alternative payment infrastructures, bilateral settlement arrangements or the increased use of non-dollar currencies in trade may permit partial bypass of the dollar in specific domains — especially payments and invoicing — without displacing its central role in more demanding functions such as safe-asset provision, financial anchoring and global liquidity supply.

Evidence of such functional reconfiguration can also be in the structure of global energy trade. In 2024, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Iraq together accounted for 57.5% of China’s crude oil imports. Russia emerged as the largest supplier, exporting approximately 2.19 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of crude oil to China — about 41% more than Saudi Arabia’s 1.55 Mb/d. Malaysia and Iraq followed with exports of 1.39 Mb/d and 1.24 Mb/d, respectively. Together, these four countries supplied more than half of China’s crude oil imports. Notably, Malaysia overtook Iraq by roughly 12% in exports to China despite not being a major oil producer. This pattern has led analysts to suggest that part of these exports may include Iranian crude oil rebranded as Malaysian in order to circumvent international sanctions.

Such trade patterns are closely linked to sanctions evasion and the diversification of transaction routes. Countries subject to Western financial sanctions — most notably Russia and Iran — have increasingly sought to reduce their dependence on dollar-denominated settlement and Western financial infrastructure by utilizing alternative payment channels, including renminbi-based settlement arrangements and non-Western payment networks. As a result, a portion of energy transactions has begun to shift toward settlement in RMB or other non-dollar currencies.

However, these developments remain concentrated primarily in the transactional functions of international money — specifically the medium-of-exchange and unit-of-account roles associated with trade settlement and pricing. Even in global oil markets, more demanding financial functions such as hedging, liquidity provision, asset management and safe-asset holdings remain overwhelmingly anchored in the dollar-based financial system. The deep liquidity of US financial markets, the availability of dollar-denominated safe assets, and the extensive infrastructure for derivatives and risk management continue to reinforce the dollar’s central role.

Consequently, the expansion of RMB settlement in China’s energy trade should not be interpreted as evidence of the collapse of the dollar-based international monetary system. Rather, it reflects a limited redistribution of payment infrastructure and currency usage within specific transactional domains. The dollar continues to occupy the core of global financial architecture, even as alternative currencies and payment systems gradually expand their presence in selected areas of trade and settlement. The emerging international monetary system, therefore, appears increasingly layered, characterized by partial diversification in transactional functions while the deeper financial foundations of dollar dominance remain firmly intact.

Historical experience also suggests that major shifts in global currency regimes occur only under extraordinary institutional and geopolitical circumstances. The rise of the US dollar as the dominant international currency was closely tied to the creation of the in 1944 and the broader economic and political order that emerged after World War II. Similarly, the decline of the British pound as the leading reserve currency accelerated only after major geopolitical shocks such as the in 1956.

In contrast, the contemporary international financial system lacks a comparable institutional turning point that would facilitate the rapid replacement of the dollar. Moreover, China itself appears cautious about fully internationalizing the RMB. Rather than pursuing rapid financial liberalization, Chinese policymakers have generally favored a gradual approach centered on trade settlement, regional financial links and selective infrastructure development. The expansion of CIPS, along with initiatives such as the digital renminbi (e-RMB), reflects efforts to build alternative transactional channels without fully opening China’s capital account.

For this reason, the evolution of financial infrastructure may prove more significant than the immediate expansion of RMB-denominated transactions. Although CIPS currently processes only a small fraction of the daily transaction volume handled by SWIFT, its growth signals a broader trend toward diversification in global payment networks. Geopolitical fragmentation may reinforce this process, as countries increasingly seek to reduce vulnerability to sanctions and network exclusion.

Ultimately, the expansion of CIPS and the gradual growth of RMB usage point to a broader transformation in the architecture of global finance. Yet this transformation is better understood as functional diversification within a still dollar-centered system than as a generalized transition away from dollar dominance. The central question for policymakers, therefore, is not whether the RMB will soon replace the dollar. It is how the diversification of global financial infrastructure may reshape the distribution of power within an international monetary system whose deepest financial foundations remain anchored in the dollar.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China’s Use of Renminbi and CIPS Challenges US Dollar but Falls Short appeared first on 51�Թ�.

So says , with a measure of defiance. She’s someone who understands that endurance, not provocation, is her greatest transgression. She is now 67: For more than four decades, she’s offended religious leaders, unsettled moral guardians and insulted polite society. Yet none of those affronts has proved as subversive as her refusal to exit quietly. In a culture organized around novelty and replacement, she’s managed to weaponize longevity.

Madonna’s career might be seen as a sequence of calculated shocks: The wedding dress writhing of “,” the supposedly sacrilegious imagery of “,” the BDSM themes of . A notable biography of her is subtitled . But her subversive moments, however incendiary at the time, were ephemeral. If anything, her most renegade accomplishments often went relatively unnoticed. Like earning $50 million (£26.7 million), a record for a female singer in 2004. Or selling more than 400 million records, including albums, singles and digital. Grossing more than $1.3 billion from her tours, another record. In 1992, she signed a then-unprecedented $60 million with Time Warner.

But what really distinguishes Madonna is not the intensity of any single provocation or her prodigious earnings but the cumulative force of her continued presence. She’s outlived her critics, her imitators and many of her contemporaries. The real scandal is not what she did but that she survived so long.

Her endurance matters not simply because it is unusual but because it allowed her cultural experiment to take place. Over decades, Madonna tested the limits of exposure, turning private life into public performance until the distinction between the two appeared to dissolve. What started as provocation became a template for modern celebrity.

The zeitgeist

In February, she sat in the front row at Dolce & Gabbana’s Milan Fashion Week , her arms wrapped around her knees, heavily tinted glasses shading eyes that have seen nearly every iteration of fame in the modern era. Leather gloves accessorized her black outfit, a theatrical flourish that harked back to her Erotica of 1992–93 (gloves, corsets and leather were part of the visual vocabulary she borrowed from fetish subcultures and, in that tour, repurposed for public consumption.) Across the mirrored runway, models twirled in lace and pinstripes, reflecting Madonna’s many incarnations of the past.��

To call Madonna a diva is almost tautological. She is the very definition of a temperamental, world-renowned singer, famed for her volatile temperament and for being notoriously difficult to please. Formidable, demanding, exacting, she’s a force as likely to exhaust collaborators as she is to enchant audiences.

Her epigones and successors — Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Beyoncé, Ariana Grande, included — entertain, enchant, influence and inspire, yet all seem anodyne next to Madonna. None has matched her performative ferocity, her willingness to court scandal and alchemize controversy into precious metal. Forty years in, Madonna remains unrepentant, uncontainable, unyielding, the center of attention. She may no longer shape the zeitgeist on her terms, but she remains part of it.

In the 1980s, the world was barely aware of cellphones, the internet was inconceivable and social media was something English novelist H.G. Wells might have dreamt up. Madonna arrived in this landscape as a wannabe dancer who soon learned how to take the cultural pulse. She figured out that the press (as it then was) could either proclaim or annihilate her, that audiences rewarded artists who aroused as well as just entertained them, and who provided spectacle as well as song and dance. She decided to combine them all. In doing so, she did more than respond to a shifting world; she helped catalyze a further shift, scandalizing at every opportunity and dissolving the binary between private and public.

The experiment

Madonna Louise Ciccone moved to New York in 1978, a 20-year-old with nothing but ambition and a few borrowed instruments. She danced, drummed and sang with local bands before releasing her debut single “” in 1982 and her first album, , in 1983. By 1984, her second album, , produced by Nile Rodgers, cemented her international status. The video for the title track and her at the MTV Video Music Awards in a wedding dress simulating masturbation was a foretaste of what was to come.

In 1985, few could imagine a woman deliberately inducing scandal and usually achieving the results she desired. Madonna’s real innovation lay in recognizing something earlier entertainers had missed: Scandal had changed its meaning. No longer necessarily career-ending — as it had been in the cases of Roscoe Arbuckle, Ingrid Bergman and Errol Flynn — controversy had become a resource. Madonna didn’t provoke randomly; she choreographed provocation, each gesture and outfit a calculated engagement with public sensibilities. Audiences, she seemed to conclude, actually enjoyed being outraged: the surge of anger, shock and indignation was oddly satisfying. This may appear obvious today. In the 1980s, it was radically contrarian.

Her 1989 album marked what might have been a Eureka! moment. Madonna appeared to sense that audiences would demand ever more from stars. This was before ’s launched in 1992, allowing viewers to eavesdrop by watching what became known as reality TV. Madonna seems to have arrived at a broadly similar conclusion: Audiences were turning into peeping Toms.

Her ambition was not to shock for its own sake, but to maintain attention by disclosing more and more of what once passed as a private life — and without inhibition. Madonna became, in essence, her own living experiment in making her personal life open to inspection. Before her, entertainers like Elizabeth Taylor had, in the 1960s, allowed private lives to seep into public view via a more cautious media, but this was rare or sensational and delivered to surprised audiences by the then-nascent paparazzi. Madonna made it a career strategy, presenting her personal self as indistinguishable from her stage persona and inviting audiences to witness. Not just witness: Audiences were encouraged to judge her; condemning Madonna was integral to her success.

Like Semtex

The 1990s solidified Madonna’s role as a cultural provocateur. The Madonna: Truth or Dare (1991) documented her tour with unprecedented candor, offering glimpses into backstage rivalries, rehearsals and intimate moments, all alongside the theatricality of her onstage performances. The film predated reality television by years, yet already anticipated its voracious appetite for the minutiae of celebrity.

Around the same period, her book Sex and the album pushed boundaries of sexual representation, blending performance, fetishism and artifice. She intentionally offended, proving unequivocally that scandal was like Semtex, a powerful explosive, but very pliable so that, handled carefully, it can be turned into different shapes. In the years that followed, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian corroborated this when they appeared on that would have ruined show business careers in earlier times.

Yet Madonna’s influence went beyond shock and outrage. Critics like recognized her as a harbinger of postfeminist performance: She demonstrated how a woman could be sensual, assertive, ambitious and aggressive while curating her image in a way that conferred power. From this perspective, being sexy was a form of empowerment. Madonna’s conquests were both commercial and symbolic, reframing what it meant to be a female entertainer in a male-dominated industry. Her affectations, from the pink cone bra to platinum blonde hair, were signifiers of her autonomy.

By the mid-1990s, Madonna was both a diva in the operatic sense and a pioneer in media literacy. Her aforementioned 1992 renegotiation with Time Warner secured her own record label. She remained a polarizing figure: The world alternately praised and disparaged her, keeping her relevant. She had transformed scandal into art and fame into an instrument of social influence. The celebrity landscape she helped sculpt is what we see all around us today.

Even into the 2000s and 2010s, Madonna’s career reflected a Darwinian adaptability to changing environments. The 2003 MTV Video Music Awards with Britney Spears sparked a viral debate, raising questions about bisexuality. Tours such as and albums like demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with younger artists while retaining her signature sound. Her postfeminist sensibilities, rooted in self-expression and independence, carried through to her later albums and public appearances. At the 2023 Grammys, she to critics, accusing them of “ageism and misogyny.”

Diva provocatrix

Today, Madonna’s presence at Milan Fashion Week is emblematic of both her longevity and her continued authorship of the fame narrative. She’s still a model for what it means to inhabit the public sphere on one’s own terms. Unlike many successors, she hasn’t become her own tribute act. She’s refused to trade on nostalgia and strives to remain relevant. A figure whose demands, exacting nature and unyielding vision have shaped not only the entertainment industry but the very ways in which audiences understand and appreciate spectacle, Madonna evokes a reminder about the way we live — vicariously, voyeuristically, derivatively and by proxy.

Her legacy is inseparable from the media she mastered and, to be fair, was mastered by. Madonna didn’t merely reflect social and technological changes — she anticipated them, attempted to manipulate them and tried to force the world to respond. It did: From MTV to social media, from the controversy of Like a Prayer to the candor of Truth or Dare, she engineered a dialogue with audiences that has altered our relationship to celebrities. Many will not think this is such a good thing.

Madonna belongs in the same pantheon as Maria Callas (1923–77), Judy Garland (1922–69) and Barbra Streisand (b. 1942), all imperious figures feared as much as revered for their exacting standards and refusal to accept reality when it failed to conform to their visions. Like them, Madonna has attracted detractors as well as worshippers, her difficulty inseparable from her distinction. Yet she added something new to the tradition: Madonna was not simply a diva but a diva provocatrix, a performer who treated outrage as an artistic medium. While there are many contemporary stars of immense wealth and visibility, none appears willing — or permitted — to embody the risk, volatility and sheer force that once defined the type. Perhaps Madonna truly is the last of them.

[Ellis Cashmore is the author of ]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Madonna — Diva Provocatrix appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Today, however, rival powers are probing those gates. Rather than attempting to overthrow the system directly, China and Russia are expanding influence along their strategic corridors — regions where multiple interests and means intersect, e.g., energy, maritime routes, military positioning and financial networks. The emerging rivalry between the US and the China–Russia partnership is therefore less a single confrontation than a distributed competition unfolding across multiple regions simultaneously.

Understanding this competition requires looking beyond traditional geopolitical maps. The international system now operates through interconnected physical and financial infrastructures: shipping lanes, commodity supply chains, payment systems, energy corridors and technological networks. But these networks are inseparable from military strategy; naval deployments protect sea lanes while air and missile defenses secure regional balances. Strategic basing and force projection shape the security of trade routes and energy infrastructure.

Power increasingly flows through these interconnected channels. The states that influence them shape not only regional politics but the broader architecture of the .

One way to understand this evolving contest is through what might be called the Four Gateways Strategic Framework. This framework identifies four regions where geopolitical competition, economic infrastructure and military positioning converge: the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East, the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific. Each of these strategic gateways functions as a corridor through which rival powers can project influence across the international system.

For the US, these gateways represent critical pressure points. Securing them requires more than military power alone. It demands a coordinated strategy combining alliances, economic statecraft, energy diplomacy, financial leadership and credible military deterrence.

The architecture of power

For decades, the US has occupied a uniquely central position in the international system. Its influence rests not only on military strength but also on the institutional infrastructure of global finance. The US dollar serves as the for international trade, financial reserves,and cross-border settlement. American capital markets remain the deepest and most liquid in the world. Global banks rely heavily on dollar clearing and correspondent banking relationships tied to US financial institutions.

This architecture gives Washington powerful tools of economic statecraft. Financial sanctions, for example, derive their strength from the ability to restrict access to dollar transactions and the institutions that support them.

Yet the architecture of dollar power is layered rather than monolithic. It consists of multiple components: safe assets, liquid capital markets, correspondent banking networks, derivatives markets, reserve holdings and global payment systems. Because of this layered structure, rival powers do not need to overthrow the dollar system outright in order to weaken American leverage. Instead, they can attempt to bypass or erode specific operational layers — especially those linked to sanctions enforcement and cross-border payments.

China and Russia have increasingly explored such . These include local-currency energy trade, bilateral financial arrangements and alternative designed to reduce dependence on Western-controlled financial infrastructure. These efforts remain limited compared to the scale of the US dollar-based system, but they illustrate how geopolitical rivalry increasingly intersects with financial architecture.

But the same layered logic applies to military strategy. Just as the financial system operates through interconnected infrastructures, so too does military power rely on logistics networks, forward bases, naval chokepoints and alliance structures. The strategic gateways of the international system are therefore not merely economic corridors — they are also potential theaters of military competition.

The four strategic gateways illustrate where these dynamics are most visible:

What makes a strategic gateway?

Not every region of the world functions as a strategic gateway. A gateway emerges where multiple systems of power intersect, and typically includes four elements: geographic access, economic infrastructure, military positioning and financial connectivity. Regions that combine these characteristics become corridors through which global influence can be projected.

Geographically, strategic gateways sit along major transportation routes or chokepoints that shape the movement of goods and energy. Economically, they connect key resource flows, supply chains or financial networks that sustain the global economy. Militarily, they often host forward bases, naval routes or strategic terrain that enables states to project force across regions. Financially, they intersect with global trade settlement systems, energy markets and sanctions regimes that structure the operation of the international economic order.

The strategic logic of gateway control is not entirely new. One of the earliest examples appears in the�� of 1823, which asserted that external powers should not expand their political influence in the Western Hemisphere. Although framed as a defensive principle, the doctrine effectively defined the Western Hemisphere as a strategic gateway region whose political alignment and security were considered vital to the US. By discouraging European intervention in the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent rival powers from gaining footholds near US territory that could threaten the country’s long-term strategic position.

In the 21st century, elements of this logic have reappeared in contemporary US strategic thinking and actions. Based on policy discussions and reporting from late 2025 and early 2026, the administration of President Donald Trump — following his return to office — advanced what some observers described as the��“,” or the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This approach is widely interpreted as representing a modern reinterpretation of the original doctrine, aimed at reasserting American strategic primacy in the Western Hemisphere in the face of growing Chinese and Russian influence.

Unlike the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, which focused primarily on preventing European colonization, this updated doctrine emphasizes preventing rival powers from establishing strategic footholds through infrastructure investment, energy partnerships, financial networks or military cooperation within the region. In practice, this approach reflects a broader recognition that great power competition increasingly unfolds not through direct territorial conquest but through control of critical corridors (or the strategic gateways) that shape global trade, energy flows and financial systems.

More broadly, what some analysts also describe as the Trump Doctrine emphasizes economic sovereignty, great-power rivalry and the use of sanctions, tariffs and military pressure to defend American strategic interests. This perspective recognizes that geopolitical competition increasingly occurs along the infrastructure networks that sustain globalization — shipping routes, energy pipelines, financial systems and technological supply chains.

The concept of strategic gateways builds on this logic. Certain regions become critical not merely because of their geographic location but because they sit at the intersection of military strategy, economic infrastructure and financial power. Control over these corridors enables states to influence the flow of global commerce, the security of energy supplies and the stability of financial systems.

The four regions examined in this article — the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East, the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific — represent areas where all of these dimensions converge. Each functions not only as a geographic space but as a strategic corridor linking military power, economic infrastructure and financial influence within the international system. Together, they form the principal gateways through which contemporary great-power competition is increasingly being conducted.

The Southern Gateway: Venezuela and strategic competition in the Western Hemisphere

The first gateway lies in the Western Hemisphere, where Venezuela has become an important node in the geopolitical relationship between China, Russia and the US.

Over the past two decades, China has Venezuela with substantial financial support through oil-backed loans and infrastructure investment. These arrangements allowed Beijing to secure long-term access to energy supplies while expanding its presence in Latin America. Russia this relationship through military cooperation, intelligence ties and investment in Venezuela’s energy sector.

For the Maduro government, these partnerships provided crucial support during periods of economic crisis and diplomatic isolation. For China and Russia, Venezuela offered a strategic foothold in a region historically dominated by the US.

The Venezuelan case also illustrates the limits of economic sanctions. Despite extensive restrictions imposed by Washington, Venezuelan oil exports continued through complex networks of intermediaries, shadow shipping fleets and indirect trading channels. These mechanisms demonstrated how sanctions can be partially circumvented when targeted states retain access to alternative markets and logistical support.

Yet Venezuela also illustrates the continuing role of military power in shaping geopolitical outcomes. On January 3, 2026, US forces executed��, a covert military operation in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on charges related to narcotics trafficking and narcoterrorism. The raid, conducted by US special operations forces after months of planning, removed one of Washington’s most entrenched regional adversaries and underscored the�� US’s continued willingness to employ direct military force in the Western Hemisphere.

The episode demonstrates that the Southern Gateway remains both a geopolitical and military arena. Influence in the Western Hemisphere depends not only on economic engagement and political partnerships but also on the credibility of US security capabilities in the region.

The Western Gateway: Iran and the Middle Eastern strategic corridor

A second gateway lies in the Middle East, where Iran occupies a central position in the evolving geopolitical alignment between China and Russia.

Iran sits at the crossroads of multiple strategic systems: energy production, maritime trade routes, regional security dynamics and Eurasian connectivity. It also remains one of the most heavily sanctioned economies in the world.

China has as Iran’s largest trading partner and a major purchaser of its oil. Russia has military cooperation with Tehran, particularly following the war in Ukraine. These relationships illustrate how geopolitical alignment can reinforce economic resilience under sanctions pressure.

Recent developments have further intensified the region’s strategic volatility. As of March 2026, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was in a joint US-Israeli air strike targeting senior Iranian leadership during a period of escalating regional conflict. The operation triggered a succession process that elevated Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader, while retaliatory actions across the region produced more than a thousand casualties and heightened instability across the Middle East.

These events underscore the military dimension of the Western Gateway. The Middle East remains a region where energy markets, naval chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, missile and drone warfare, and great-power competition intersect. Control over these corridors affects not only regional security but also global energy flows and financial stability.

The Northern Gateway: the Arctic and the future geography of trade

The third gateway lies in the Arctic, a region whose strategic importance is growing as climate change accelerates the retreat of polar sea ice. The opening of Arctic shipping routes could significantly shorten transit times between Asia, Europe and North America. At the same time, the Arctic contains substantial deposits of oil, natural gas and critical minerals increasingly important for advanced manufacturing and energy technologies.

Recent geopolitical developments have highlighted the region’s growing strategic value. In 2019, and again during his second presidency,�� Trump�� that the US acquire��Greenland, arguing that control of the island was vital for US national security and Arctic strategy. The proposal intensified in 2025–2026, with Washington pressing Denmark and Greenland while framing the acquisition as necessary to counter the expanding Russian and Chinese in the Arctic.��

Russia has already moved aggressively to expand its presence in the region, reopening Soviet-era military facilities and strengthening its control over the Northern Sea Route. These deployments include new Arctic brigades, expanded air defense systems and upgraded naval infrastructure.

China, while geographically distant from the Arctic, has pursued a strategy of economic engagement through research programs, investment projects and partnerships tied to resource development.

The Arctic, as the Northern Gateway, therefore represents an emerging frontier where logistics, resource extraction and military reach intersect. Control over Arctic infrastructure — including strategic territories such as Greenland — could gradually reshape global shipping patterns and supply chains while altering the strategic balance of naval power in the Northern Hemisphere.

The Eastern Gateway: Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific balance

The fourth gateway lies in the Indo-Pacific, where Taiwan remains one of the most consequential flashpoints in global politics. China views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has intensified through naval exercises, air incursions and gray-zone operations designed to test the island’s defenses and the credibility of American security commitments.

US policy debates have also reflected the possibility of direct military escalation. During private remarks reported in the media, President Trump claimed he warned Chinese leader Xi Jinping that the US would “” if China invaded Taiwan, framing the threat as a deterrent against a potential attack.

At the same time,��Taiwan��occupies a central position in the global technological economy. The island produces a of the world’s advanced semiconductors, which are essential for everything from consumer electronics to artificial intelligence and advanced weapons systems, largely through firms such as��Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

A crisis in the Taiwan Strait would therefore have global consequences. It would disrupt maritime trade routes, trigger economic sanctions and export controls, and potentially fragment financial and technological supply chains. Military escalation could also draw in regional allies and reshape the security architecture of the Indo-Pacific.

The Eastern (Taiwan) gateway thus represents the most advanced form of geopolitical convergence — where military operations, technological supply chains, financial sanctions and maritime security all interact simultaneously.

Distributed competition in a fragmenting world

Taken together, the four gateways reveal how contemporary great power competition differs fundamentally from earlier eras. During the Cold War, strategic confrontation was concentrated largely in Europe, where the geopolitical divide between NATO and the Warsaw Pact defined the central theater of global rivalry. Although conflicts occurred in other regions, the strategic balance of power was primarily determined by military deployments and political alignments on the European continent.

Today, however, competition among major powers is geographically dispersed and functionally interconnected. Rather than focusing on a single strategic theater, rivalry now unfolds simultaneously across multiple regions and domains. China and Russia increasingly pursue influence through coordinated diplomatic, economic, technological and military initiatives that span across the world. By expanding their presence across the Strategic Gateways, they create a pattern of distributed pressure against the US and its alliance network. These actions do not necessarily aim at immediate territorial conquest; instead, they seek to gradually reshape regional balances of influence, secure access to strategic resources and weaken the cohesion of US-led institutions.

The result is a form of competition more diffuse and multidimensional than the bipolar confrontation of the 20th century. Infrastructure investments, energy diplomacy, arms transfers, technological supply chains and military deployments now operate together as instruments of geopolitical influence. Developments in one region can quickly reverberate across others — for example, shifts in Arctic shipping routes can affect global trade patterns, while tensions in the Taiwan Strait could disrupt semiconductor supply chains and financial markets worldwide.

This evolving landscape significantly complicates American policymaking. Each gateway presents a distinct set of challenges requiring different policy tools and institutional responses. In Latin America, the US may emphasize economic engagement and protection of critical infrastructure such as maritime transit routes. In the Middle East, sanctions enforcement and energy security remain central. In the Arctic, military presence and infrastructure development intersect with environmental change and emerging shipping routes. In the Indo-Pacific, deterrence and alliance coordination play a central role in maintaining regional stability.

Managing these simultaneous pressures requires the US to coordinate across diplomatic, economic, technological and military domains while maintaining strong partnerships with its allies. The effectiveness of American strategy will therefore depend not only on military capabilities but also on the ability to sustain a resilient network of alliances and institutions capable of responding to a geographically dispersed and strategically interconnected form of great-power competition.

Securing the gates

The emerging geopolitical contest is therefore not only about territory or military balance; it is about control over the corridors through which the global system operates.

Energy shipments pass through maritime chokepoints. Financial transactions move through payment networks and banking systems. Commodity supply chains depend on shipping routes and logistical infrastructure that link regions across the world.

For the US, maintaining leadership in this system requires more than defending the center of the international order; it requires securing the Strategic Gateways themselves.

In the Western Hemisphere, that means strengthening partnerships and maintaining credible regional security capabilities. In the Middle East, it requires managing the intersection of energy markets, military deterrence and regional stability. In the Arctic, cooperation with allied states will shape the governance of emerging shipping routes and strategic resources. In the Indo-Pacific, maintaining credible deterrence around Taiwan remains essential to preserving regional balance.

At the same time, safeguarding the integrity of the US dollar-based financial system requires continued confidence in American institutions, transparent capital markets and resilient global payment networks.

The future of the international order will depend not only on who occupies the center of the fortress, but on who secures its gates. In an era when power flows through shipping lanes, financial networks, energy corridors and technological supply chains, the gateways of the global system may prove just as decisive as its walls.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Guarding the Gates of the Global Fortress: Great Power Rivalry at Global Strategic Chokepoints appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While this image may seem a throwback to a bygone era, it is strangely relevant in today’s geopolitics.

The lumbering beast is the current USA. It is big and powerful — in terms of economic might and military ability – and it throws its weight around. It has soft power too and a broad cultural reach. Sometimes and unexpectedly, it shits on other countries — friends and foes alike. It is not always smart. And it can be directed.

The mahout is Israel. It’s small and relatively weak, but it’s smart. It directs the US and tells it what to do. Vote this way in Congress and give us these arms. Shield us in the UN. Make our enemies your enemies. Now start a war on Iran (June 13, 2025). Now stop the war on Iran (June 24, 2025). Now, restart the war on Iran (February 28, 2026). And now, report this on the news — and report it in this way. Say this; do not say that; and certainly don’t ask about that other stuff.

The Israeli narrative

Not only is Israel steering US foreign policy in the Middle East, but it’s also steering the Western narrative surrounding this most recent war on Iran. The story coming from the Israeli administration, Western leaders and Western mainstream news channels is identical. And with the recent takeover of TikTok by pro-Israeli , even social media is being controlled by Israel.

In that strongly pro-Zionist story, the chapter on Iran does not begin in 1953, when the British and American secret services the democratically elected, hugely popular, anticolonial government of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mosaddegh — because Mosaddegh was planning to nationalize their country’s oil industry so that at long last the Iranians could profit from their own oil resources — and placed their own man, “The Shah of Iran”, as dictator. In fact, no one — not even supposed hard-hitting objective journalists — should bring up this seminal event.

The Israeli narrative — and now the West’s accepted narrative — begins on the date that the countries and the people Israel and/or the US (the border blurs) have been long harassing, finally cannot take it anymore, and retaliate. In terms of Iran, that story begins on November 4, 1979, when — for no apparent reason — 66 Americans were at the US Embassy in Tehran.

The rules of the ride

Like any good story, there are several simple, easy-to-understand premises. Israel is the good guy and “the victim,” and always will be. And as such, it is to be unconditionally supported, even if it is conducting a in its own country. Iran is the bad guy and the aggressor, and always will be. And as such, it can never be trusted or negotiated with. There is no room for nuance.

The Iranians are supremely unhappy under their current government. This has nothing to do with the fact that, since 1979, the West has severely its energy, banking (leading to shortages in medicines and agricultural products) and military sectors, resulting in a difficult life for Iranian citizens. It is only because the Iranian administration is suppressing, torturing and killing its people. Apart from making life hell for Iranians, the Iranian administration’s other raison d’être is to destroy Israel and the US. Therefore, as long as Iran exists, neither Israel nor the US — nor indeed the world — can be safe.

In a throwback to a colonial and racist era, Israel — being a white-presenting and west-facing country — is the only country in the Middle-East that is mature, trustworthy and responsible enough to have nuclear arms. Never mind that in the 1960s, US President John F. was against Israel having nuclear weapons. Conveniently, he did not survive for long. Israel then stole both nuclear technology and from the US to make its own nuclear weapons.

And like any good story, it is selective. Don’t portray Israel as anything less than perfect. Don’t mention that they invaded Palestine in the early 20th century, and later formally occupied the country. Don’t mention that they displaced and have suppressed Palestinians for over 70 years. Don’t mention that Israel has a history of inciting wars in the Middle East — beginning in when they preemptively attacked Egypt during the Suez Crisis and in when they proactively attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Don’t mention that Israel has killed over in Gaza since October 2023 and, despite a supposed current ceasefire, to do so in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Don’t bring up former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s about Mossad agents walking together with the Iranian protesters this January. Don’t question if and how Israel may be involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s network, nor why the US feels compelled to do Israel’s bidding — even when it goes against American national interest. Do not state that this most recent war on Iran, and the US was forced to join in. Do not report that Israel continues to use the Gaza-honed tactic of “” targets (including schools and hospitals) to maximize civilian casualties in Iran. Don’t question possible Israeli attempts to expand the war with in Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Azerbaijan and Cyprus. And don’t forget that Israel is God’s “”, the current US President is that same God’s “chosen one”, and so neither is bound by any earthly rules of sovereignty or human rights.

Don’t portray Iran as anything more than evil. Don’t mention that Iran has a glorious to rival that of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. Don’t mention that Israel owes Iran of dollars (mostly for purchases of oil before 1979), which it has been ordered to pay but still has not done so. No need to mention that Iran has a moral backbone and has been continuously Palestinians in their fight for freedom.

Remember that while Israel has an “administration” and “allies,” Iran only has a “regime” and “proxies.” Don’t mention how Iran came in good faith to the with the US several times in the past year, and each time, just when they were making progress, Israel bombed Iran. Don’t mention that this time Iran had already agreed to all US demands before Israel attacked them. Don’t humanize Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (despite his regime’s obvious transgressions) by mentioning that he was also a religious leader revered by many, was a family man with a wife and six children, spoke several languages, loved poetry and lived a Spartan lifestyle. Don’t mention that his death was mourned — not only in Iran, but in Pakistan, , and Australia.

Say that Iran is bombing neighboring countries, but don’t clarify that they’re aiming specifically at bases and assets in those . Don’t mention that by allowing US bases and arms on their land and allowing US planes to use their airspace, those neighboring countries are aiding the US in its attack on Iran. And certainly don’t ask why — contrary to the American administration’s earlier confident predictions and — not all Iranians are in the streets of Tehran deliriously happy that Israel and the US are bombing them and killing their leaders, nor are they demanding regime change; those expressions seem limited to the Iranian , mostly in the US.

All aboard

The Western nations — both leaders and people — see the elephant and are impressed by its massive strength. In their awe, they unquestioningly swallow the narrative. But they don’t always notice the mahout. Within hours of the US and Israel attacking Iran, regardless of their ongoing disagreements on trade and even severe concerns over the US threatening their sovereignty, the Western nations all fell in line behind the proposed narrative.

���ܲ��ٰ���������’s did not go so far as to openly support the attack on Iran, but painted Khamenei as a total bad guy and therefore an acceptable target for assassination and regime change. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, was more robust in his support, Iran “the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East.” Both men were reiterating long-established Israeli talking points. And stunningly, most countries (such as Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden) actually condemned Iran for retaliating.

Israel has already been successful with its first target of regime change: the US. It has weaponized the US and is using it as a spearhead to attack Iran. But the rest of the West need not follow. The big question is not who will win this immediate physical war, but rather, who will win the narrative war. In the answer to that question lies our world’s well-being.

As long as we swallow this Israeli narrative, conflict will continue. Israel does not seem satisfied with just Palestine or even destroying Iran. Its ambitions (and recently US ambassador to Israel, Mike ) speak of a “” spanning from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Syria and Iraq, as well as parts of Turkiye. Just last month, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali said, “Turkey is the new Iran”. And with America’s unconditional support, Israel has the muscle to fight for it. However, there’s no need for the rest of the West — people and politicians — to help Israel fulfill this ambition. In fact, it would be dangerous, destructive and immoral to do so.

Fortunately, today, our sources of news and views are no longer limited to mainstream press and our leaders. We now have a range of independent media. One can easily turn to numerous online platforms and podcasts to get different perspectives from respected voices. As just a few of many examples, hear retired American Colonel Douglas and Columbia University economics professor on political science professor Glenn Diesen’s Greater Eurasia podcast, or foreign analyst Alexander on The Duran podcast, or geopolitical theorist Xueqin on the Breaking Points podcast. We should listen and learn.

In fact, we’ve probably already learnt several significant things just in the last few days. We’re being taken for a ride. The elephant is big and has the potential to do a lot of harm, but don’t be overawed by it. However, notice the mahout; it’s wise to know who he is and where he wants to take us. And most importantly, it’s imperative to know when to get off.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Tale of the Elephant (the US) and the Mahout (Israel) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

That world is largely gone. Since the US from the JCPOA in 2018 and, together with Israel, turned increasingly to unilateral kinetic action against Iran, Europe’s most tangible diplomatic success has become the stage on which its influence is steadily eroding. The massive US–Israeli on Iran launched on February 28, 2026, and the subsequent killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on March 1, marked not only the decapitation of the Islamic Republic’s leadership but also laid bare Europe’s strategic paralysis and its profound doubts about the way American power is now being applied.

The case for confronting Iran — and Europe’s unease about how it is being done

There is a serious, substantive case for confronting the Iranian regime, up to and including efforts to bring about its end. Effectively, the US and Iran have been in a shadow war since . Tehran’s network of proxies has killed more than American servicemen in Iraq alone and has US and allied bases across the Middle East.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), now officially listed as a by the EU, has orchestrated or supported operations targeting civilians and infrastructure from the Levant to the Gulf. This is a regime whose leaders “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” and have backed those slogans with missiles, militias and terrorism. Ending the rule of a government that openly calls for the destruction of US and European partners and acts to that end is, in principle, a perfectly defensible strategic and moral objective.

Not only that, but Iran has developed biological weapons and can launch . also has sleeper terror cells in Latin America and could try to infiltrate Europe and the US, if it hasn’t already.

Many European policymakers, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, quietly, and sometimes openly, recognize the danger. For them, an Iranian regime willing and able to the Strait of Hormuz, attack EU-flagged vessels, destabilize Gulf monarchies and edge toward nuclear weapons is not an abstraction but a direct threat to European security and prosperity. But if the case for confronting Iran is strong, the way the US has chosen to wage this war, and the reasons President Donald Trump appears to have for doing so, are far more troubling to European eyes.

A personalized American war

In previous eras, American presidents who embarked on wars of this magnitude, however flawed their decisions, at least made an effort to answer two basic questions: Is this in the American national interest? And what is the political endgame? Trump’s approach is different. Because his administration is so thoroughly personalized, the key question appears to be: How is this in my interest? How will this shape my image as an actor on the world stage? Trump has always possessed a predator’s instinct for exploiting his opponents’ weaknesses. He is now deploying that instinct globally, probing for vulnerabilities he can exploit to glorify his own legacy. He has already pointed to the successful external pressure that helped topple President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as a model he can replicate in Iran, overlooking the fact that the Middle East is an entirely different strategic and political landscape.

For Europeans, this is the heart of their discomfort. The war in Iran may be justifiable as a confrontation with a bloodthirsty state that has harassed Western interests for decades. But it is being conducted by a Washington that increasingly seems to substitute presidential ego for strategy, and media cycles for end-state planning.

Europe’s fractured response

European foreign policy toward Iran has undergone a dramatic transformation since the first missiles fell. For years, Brussels clung to the JCPOA as the embodiment of its preference for negotiated solutions. Even after the Trump administration reimposed sanctions in 2018, the EU3 tried to keep the deal .

That posture collapsed in late 2025. With Iran expanding enrichment and stonewalling inspectors, the EU3 the snapback of UN sanctions, effectively ending what remained of the JCPOA. By early 2026, European diplomacy had already shifted from salvage operation to damage control.

The outbreak of a US–Israeli war in 2026 accelerated this transformation. In a striking break with past caution, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has publicly for a “credible transition” in Iran that reflects the democratic aspirations of its people. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas Khamenei’s death as “an open path to a different Iran.” These are not the words of a bloc neutral on regime change; they are the vocabulary of a Europe that has, at least rhetorically, moved closer to endorsing it. Yet this new language masks deep internal fractures.

Member states are sharply split on how far to go in supporting the war and an implied regime-change agenda. Germany, under Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has largely avoided criticizing US strikes and stresses solidarity with Washington. Merz has gone so far as to that international law is becoming a thing of the past and that Israel and US tactics should not be criticized if Europe shares US objectives on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Berlin’s view reflects both long-standing Atlanticism and a sober recognition that a nuclear-armed Iran would be catastrophic for European security.

The UK, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has aligned closely with Washington militarily and diplomatically. London has always allowed the US to use its bases in Cyprus for strikes on Iranian missile sites and frames its role as “defensive,” aimed at protecting shipping lanes and allied forces. The UK government initially to grant the US permission to use the Diego Garcia base for potential strikes against Iran, citing legal concerns. However, this stance was , and permission was later granted for limited, defensive and specifically targeted operations. Post-Brexit, the UK sees unwavering support for the US not just as a strategic choice but as a core element of its identity as a global actor.

France, while also a close US ally, has taken a more ambivalent stance. Paris has bolstered its regional military presence after its base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was by Iranian missiles, but it has been more outspoken than Berlin or London in insisting on respect for international law and a clear post-war political roadmap. French policymakers are acutely aware that France has economic stakes in the region and that there is a significant domestic debate over another Middle East war.

Spain and several Southern European countries have the war outright as a violation of international law. For them, the US–Israeli campaign against Iran looks alarmingly like previous interventions — Iraq, Libya, Syria — where Europeans paid heavily in terms of migration, terrorism and economic disruption without having a meaningful say in the original decision to use force.

Strategic risks: escalation, sea lanes and economic shock

This patchwork of responses has left Brussels struggling to speak with a coherent voice. On paper, EU institutions call for de-escalation, respect for international humanitarian law and a renewed diplomatic track. In practice, some member states are facilitating military operations while others denounce them, and the Commission’s own rhetoric edges toward support for transition in Tehran.

To Tehran and to many observers in the Global South, the current situation looks like another European double standard, as member states loudly preach international law in Ukraine, but quietly accept its creative reinterpretation in Iran.

Trump has presented the war as a low-cost, high-impact campaign in which air and cyber power can force political change in Tehran. Europeans with operational experience in the region are more skeptical. In the modern era, there are few, if any, examples where air power alone has toppled a regime and produced a stable successor. Even is not a true precedent, since in that case Libyan forces were on the ground advancing against Muammar Qaddafi. In Iran, by contrast, the regime’s security forces remain cohesive, and nationalist sentiment has been inflamed by the perception of an existential foreign threat.

Khomeini, for all his radicalism, always pulled back from directly provoking a full-scale US attempt to destroy the regime. He knew that the US had the capacity to do it. Today’s leadership in Tehran, decapitated but not defeated, has every reason to believe that it is already under such an existential assault. That removes any remaining incentive for restraint. The logical response, from their perspective, is to escalate as far as possible and to fight to the death.

Europe’s fear is that Washington has not fully grasped what that means. A regime that believes it has nothing left to lose can drag the entire region, and by extension Europe, into an escalating conflagration. If Trump is not prepared for that, Europeans argue, he owes his own citizens and his allies a frank explanation of the rationale, the risks and the endgame. So far, that explanation has not been forthcoming.

Europe on the front line of the consequences

The war has immediate operational consequences for Europe, particularly at sea. As Iran and its proxies intensify attacks on maritime traffic in retaliation for US–Israeli strikes, the EU is debating an expansion of its Red Sea naval mission, . An expanded mission could secure critical trade routes, especially for energy and container traffic transiting between Asia and Europe. Signaling European resolve might protect its own interests, rather than merely free-riding on US naval power. But the enlarged role could also deepen military entanglement, turning European ships into direct targets of Iranian missiles, drones and proxies.

Europe can’t easily proclaim a neutral, law-centric position while its vessels help contain Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. For some in Brussels, reinforcing Aspides is necessary to preserve Europe’s economic lifelines and credibility. For others, it is precisely the sort of incremental step that could transform the EU from wary observer into active belligerent in a war whose strategy it does not control.

European economic interests in Iran have already shrunk dramatically since the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, but they have not disappeared. Before sanctions snapped back, European energy giants and industrial firms — French, Italian, German and others — saw Iran’s vast gas reserves and large consumer market as major long-term opportunities. Even under , European companies and banks have remained attentive to potential future access, while member states like Italy, Greece and Spain track Iranian energy flows as part of their broader diversification strategies.

The war has revived Europe’s greatest nightmare: an energy crisis triggered by instability in the Gulf. Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and its strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure have sent gas prices , doubling in a matter of days. For heavily import-dependent economies such as Germany or Italy, this is not an abstraction but a direct hit to households and industry.

Beyond energy, EU agencies warn of potential refugee waves of “unprecedented magnitude” if Iran’s population of is further destabilized. Europe still bears the political scars of the 2015 ; another influx triggered by a war it did not initiate but is seen as condoning could be politically explosive, strengthening far-right forces and deepening divisions inside the Union. In short, even as formal trade and investment with Iran have withered, Europe’s economic and societal exposure to instability in Iran and its neighborhood remains immense.

Europe’s strategic dilemma

This war crystallizes a broader shift in Europe’s perception of the US. On one level, the old dependency remains. The EU still relies heavily on American hard power to deter Russia, protect sea lanes and provide strategic enablers, from intelligence to logistics, that Europe lacks at scale. Many Central and Eastern European governments, in particular, view US power as indispensable.

On another level, however, the way Washington is using that power in Iran reinforces every European anxiety about an increasingly personalized, unpredictable America. The US appears less bound by multilateral procedures and legal constraints than by the impulses of its president and his political calendar. European interests are consulted late, if at all, and often treated as secondary to domestic political needs in Washington.

To some in Europe, the US now looks less like a guardian of order and more like a great power ready to launch regime-change wars whose costs will largely fall on others. The result is a dual sentiment in European capitals, a reluctant recognition that there is a strong case for confronting Iran and that only US military power can credibly do it, coupled with an equally strong fear that this power is being wielded without a coherent strategy and with little regard for European vulnerabilities.

The most frustrating aspect, from a European perspective, is that this conflict should have been precisely where the EU could make a constructive difference. With Tehran weakened but not destroyed, Arab Gulf states desperate for security and the US searching for a viable endgame, there is a real need for a diplomatic framework that can rein in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, address regional security and provide off-ramps to de-escalation. In the past, Europe’s ability to convene, mediate and design such frameworks was one of its few distinctive strengths.

Instead, by passively condoning the decapitation strike against Khamenei while refusing to engage openly with the regime-change implications of the war, Brussels has undercut its credibility. It now risks being seen as a moralizing actor that invokes international law when convenient, looks away when its allies violate the same norms and offers only vague calls for “dialogue” when hard choices are required. If the war ends with an unstable, embittered Iran and a shattered JCPOA framework, Europe will have lost not only influence in the Middle East, but also one of the last proofs that its model of power — legalistic, diplomatic, multilateral — can shape events.

The stakes for Europe’s strategic future

Uncertain wars rarely yield stable outcomes. Air strikes can decapitate regimes; they cannot, on their own, build legitimate successors. Iran’s leadership has every incentive to fight to the bitter end. The regime’s fall, if it comes, could unleash a wave of chaos, refugees and nuclear insecurity whose front line will be Europe, not the US. Iran itself could fragment. of Iran is made up of minorities, many of whom resent the Persian majority. There has long been an active and violent low-level insurgency by armed Kurdish groups (many based in Iraq) fighting for autonomy or secession.

For that very reason, diplomacy should not be dismissed. But neither should the reality that the diplomatic track is now intertwined with a war prosecuted by a Washington whose motives are, in European eyes, uncomfortably personal. Europe needs to reconcile three truths. First, there exists a powerful case for confronting an Iranian regime that has waged war by against the West for decades. Second, the way the US is currently applying its power in Iran is dangerously personalized and opaque. Finally, the EU cannot afford either moralistic passivity or automatic alignment, but rather must define and defend its own interests, even when that means resisting both Tehran and Washington.

Whether Europe rises to that challenge, or resigns itself to being a sidelined commentator on a war that will shape its own security for years to come, will be one of the defining tests of its strategic maturity. If Europe is serious about once again playing a serious strategic role in international affairs, this is the moment to put up or shut up.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Europe, Iran and the New Face of American Power appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Struggling with my own effort to understand, I addressed the following prompt to Claude:

Are any “serious commentators” in the legacy media in the US calling attention to the fact that Donald Trump’s manner of both speaking and acting would normally be described as beyond the pale, if not hopping mad?

Claude provided a number of examples but concluded with these thoughts:

So there is a meta-conversation happening in the press about whether the media is being sufficiently honest about what it is witnessing — which suggests many journalists privately believe the situation is more alarming than their published output reflects.

In short: yes, serious commentators are raising these concerns, but the volume and bluntness varies enormously by outlet, and there’s a persistent tension between what many journalists appear to think privately and what institutional and commercial pressures allow them to say in print.

This led me to explore the question in more focused detail.

In a recent column I invoked the ludicrously violent eponymous hero of Alfred Jarry’s controversial 1896 play, Ubu Roi, inviting a comparison with US President Donald Trump. I followed this up with another column that highlighted parallels with the plot of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. I felt these comparisons —�� first with a character who calmly indulged in the most exaggerated violence (Jarry) and second with a play that imagined supernatural interventions in history (Shakespeare) — could serve as metaphors that could appropriately illustrate the palpable absurdity of contemporary political events. I’m now struck by the realization that the boundary between creative fiction and the historical drama now being played out across the globe is becoming difficult to distinguish.

I cite as an example Trump’s characteristically account of the state of his and Israel’s war on Iran. But rather than analyze the Ubuesque absurdity of this scripted text – which he is visibly reading rather than merely improvising – I prefer to focus on the audience’s reaction at a critical pause that occurs after he congratulates “the greatest military anyone’s seen.” Most of the people in the room – but clearly not all – politely applaud.

How should we account for their behavior? Is it just another “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation? Those who fail to applaud may be sending the message that they are witnessing the babbling of a madman. It’s perfectly understandable, however, that no one will speak up to challenge him as this wasn’t intended to be a political event. I noticed that soccer legend Lionel Messi, whom Trump honored on this occasion, was among those who applauded. But he did so while directing his regard to the right as far away from Trump as possible.

The NewYork Times the event, not as news but in its sports section “The Athletic.” And yet this was one of those moments when the serious media should have been looking for clues to clarify Trump’s egregiously incoherent geopolitical strategy that most pundits admit they do not understand.

So here’s my question: Given the daily examples of sheer delirium, not just in Trump’s speech but also his actions, why are so few voices – and none in the legacy media – pointing to what’s obvious: that the Oval Office is occupied by a dangerous madman? More importantly, why are they not calling into question the political system that allows this to happen?

This is a genuinely important question, and it deserves a serious answer rather than a diplomatic one. Your analysis of the Messi moment is acute, and the scene itself is a kind of perfect encapsulation of the problem you’re identifying. Trump delivered a boast about Iran’s military demolition at what was supposed to be a ceremony honoring Inter Miami’s MLS Cup victory, with Messi and his teammates standing silently and awkwardly behind him. The juxtaposition — sports pageantry colonized by war propaganda — is precisely the kind of thing Jarry would have staged deliberately for shock effect. Here it was simply… Tuesday.

Your deeper question — why the legacy media won’t call this what it appears to be — has several interlocking answers, none of them flattering:

The institutional capture problem. The major outlets have normalized the abnormal through sheer repetition. Each new outrage becomes the baseline for the next. Calling Trump a “dangerous madman” would require a media organization to step outside the conventions of “objectivity” it has spent decades using to define its own legitimacy. To say it plainly would be, in their own self-understanding, to become an advocate — and advocacy is what they accuse their critics of. The framework itself prevents the diagnosis.

The legal and commercial threat. Trump has litigated aggressively against media organizations and has made the revocation of broadcast licenses a stated threat. Institutional caution is partly rational self-preservation, which makes it no less corrosive.

The precedent of Biden. The press was burned badly for being slow to report Biden’s evident decline. That experience, paradoxically, has not made them bolder — it has made them more cautious about being accused of asymmetric treatment. They fear being seen as diagnosing one president while having protected another.

The language problem. Words like “madman” or “unhinged” carry clinical implications that editors consider legally and professionally dangerous without a formal medical assessment. Even Axios, which is among the more frank outlets, limits itself to noting that “no intelligence backed” the administration’s stated casus belli — a polite way of saying a war was launched on a fabrication — without drawing the obvious conclusion about what that implies about the decision-maker.

Your “Emperor’s New Clothes” framing is exactly right, and it points to the deeper structural failure. The media, like the courtiers in that story, has a material interest in the stability of the court. Naming the emperor’s nakedness doesn’t just embarrass him — it destabilizes everything those institutions depend on for access, revenue, and relevance.

As for the systemic question — why isn’t anyone interrogating the political architecture that makes this possible — that’s perhaps the most telling silence of all. The US Constitution was designed by people who feared tyranny of the majority, not the specific scenario of an executive who behaves in the way Trump does while commanding legislative deference and judicial sympathy simultaneously. The Founders’ toolbox assumed good-faith actors. Nobody built in a provision for Ubu.

What your Jarry and Macbeth comparisons illuminate, I think, is that fiction has always been the space where a culture can say what it cannot say directly. The fact that reality has now overtaken those fictions — that the metaphors are struggling to keep pace with events — is itself a form of cultural emergency that the legacy media, trapped in its conventions of “balance” and “objectivity,” is structurally unable to report.

I appreciate your characterization of this state of affairs as “a form of cultural emergency.” The question this raises is troubling: if the symptoms are political and the causes are cultural, and if we citizens of democracies seek to advance, where does one begin? I have my own ideas, none of which is easy to implement. What about yours? It’s never too late to start a conversation.

This is the kind of question I find genuinely worth thinking through carefully rather than offering a tidy list of remedies. Let me engage with it honestly.

First, a methodological point about your framing

You’ve identified something important in saying the symptoms are political and the causes are cultural. Most reform efforts get this backwards — they target the symptoms (electoral systems, term limits, campaign finance) while leaving the cultural substrate untouched. That’s why so many institutional reforms have proven fragile. Norms, it turns out, were doing more structural work than anyone realized.

The language problem as a starting point

Your own columns — invoking Jarry and Macbeth — suggest something I think is underappreciated: that the recovery of adequate language may be the first necessary act. Not clinical language (“madman” runs into the problems we discussed), but literary and historical language that bypasses the false objectivity trap. When you write “this is Ubu,” you are saying something true and precise that a journalist writing “Trump made controversial claims” cannot say. The arts and humanities have always been the space where a culture processes what it cannot yet say directly. That capacity is being systematically defunded and marginalized — which is not, I suspect, entirely accidental.

The attention economy as the core infrastructure of the problem

The cultural condition enabling all of this is the collapse of sustained, shared attention. Ubu works as theatre because the audience sits together for ninety minutes and cannot look away. The contemporary media environment is structurally designed to prevent exactly that kind of sustained, collective witness. Outrage replaces analysis; the next absurdity displaces reflection on the last. Trump — or whoever manages his public presence — understands this intuitively. The volume of events is itself a strategy. Reform that doesn’t address this substrate will keep failing.

The role of intellectuals and the problem of audience

There is a real crisis of what one might call the public intellectual function. Not the absence of serious thinkers — there are many — but the fragmentation of the public they might address. Chomsky, Said, Sontag operated in an era when a long essay in the New York Review of Books could actually constitute a cultural intervention. That transmission mechanism has largely broken down. What replaces it? Substack has created some interesting new channels but tends toward preaching to the already-converted. The question of how serious analysis reaches genuinely mixed audiences is largely unsolved.

Claude’s response didn’t stop here. It continued by taking up my challenge to suggest how we might begin solving the problem. That has led us into an increasingly nuanced but necessary dialogue. Claude and I will continue to develop the conversation in next week’s column.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51�Թ�, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Emperor Has No Words… and the Empire’s Media No Balls appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The House has shown the same pattern. A bipartisan War Powers push led by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie a test not only of Republican loyalty to Trump but also of whether Democratic leadership would risk a recorded vote that could split the caucus. Even when members publicly invoke the Constitution, many behave as if the vote itself is the threat.

That is the “theater” problem. Congress keeps rehearsing oversight while letting the executive branch set facts on the ground. A War Powers process that begins after thousands of sorties and hundreds of deaths is not a guardrail. It is a postscript.

A strategy built on speed and ambiguity invites civilian catastrophe

The administration’s public case has leaned heavily on urgency and prevention, but urgency is not evidence, and prevention is not a legal blank check. A UN panel was “deeply disturbed” by the on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, southern Iran, which Iran’s UN mission said killed more than 160 children, with calls for transparency and an investigation. Washington and Tel Aviv can say they did not intend to hit a school, yet intention is not the only standard. International humanitarian law feasible precautions, distinction and proportionality. When children die at that scale, the burden shifts to the attackers to explain what happened, what intelligence supported the target, what safeguards were used and what changes will prevent repetition.

Hospitals have also been pulled into the blast radius. Reuters imagery and reporting the aftermath at the Gandhi Hotel Hospital in Tehran, including residents carrying belongings and visible damage. Al Jazeera’s photo gallery likewise damage at Gandhi Hospital amid the US-Israeli strikes. These are the kinds of incidents that turn policy failure into moral failure. Once hospitals and schools become recurring features of the war’s footprint, claims of surgical precision stop sounding like reassurance and start sounding like evasion.

This is where Trump’s approach is uniquely dangerous. His political style favors maximal threats and minimal disclosure. In war, that combination is not strength. It is volatility. The less the public knows about objectives, target selection and constraints, the easier it becomes for the campaign to expand while accountability shrinks.

Costs are not just dollars; they are capabilities

War Powers debates often get framed as constitutional symbolism. The numbers make the argument concrete. Estimates indicated that the first day of the US offensive through roughly $779 million, about 0.1% of the 2026 defense budget, a staggering sum to spend before Congress authorizes anything. Even if precise accounting varies, the direction of travel is unmistakable: The US is consuming high-end munitions at a high speed.

The more strategically relevant story is what those expenditures do to readiness. The US is shortages of key missiles and interceptors such as Tomahawks and SM-3s amid the ongoing offensive. Shortages do not simply raise the bill. They narrow the menu of choices. As stockpiles tighten, leaders become more likely to “double down” to avoid an ugly pause, more likely to widen the battlefield to chase decisive outcomes and more likely to treat restraint as weakness. A campaign that begins as air strikes can drift into a larger commitment because the political cost of stopping rises as the sunk cost grows.

This is the core indictment of Congress’s passivity. When lawmakers refuse to force an upfront authorization debate, they do not prevent war. They prevent strategy. They hand the executive a blank check, then act surprised when the ink runs out.

Trump’s war-making model is escalation plus impunity

A serious war policy requires three things the administration has not credibly supplied: a clear legal rationale, a defined objective and an off-ramp. The legal debate is not academic. Experts have whether the scale of the operation fits within presidential authority absent congressional approval and noted the limits imposed by international law on the use of force. If the White House believes the operation is lawful and necessary, it should be able to state the rationale plainly, publish supporting evidence where possible and accept independent scrutiny where evidence cannot be made public.

Instead, the administration has relied on assertion. A striking example is the reported gap between the rhetoric of imminent threat and what officials privately told lawmakers. Reports the Pentagon told Congress there was no sign Iran was going to attack the US first, undercutting claims of urgent self-defense. When a war is framed as necessary to stop an imminent attack, but briefings acknowledge no clear sign of one, the policy begins to look less like defense and more like a choice.

This is where Trump is politically exposed. A president who normalizes war without authorization is not merely bypassing Congress. He is hollowing out the accountability mechanisms that protect Americans from executive overreach and protect civilians from unchecked military force. The civilian toll inside Iran and the strain on US capabilities are not separate issues. They are the predictable products of the same model: act fast, disclose little, dare Congress to stop it.

What an actual War Powers response would look like

If Congress wants to prove the War Powers Resolution still has meaning, it has to treat authorization as a threshold, not as commentary. That means a binding requirement for specific authorization for continued hostilities, with defined objectives, geographic limits, time limits and mandatory public reporting on civilian harm. It means independent investigations into incidents like the Minab school strike and the damage to medical facilities, with findings released in a form the public can evaluate. It means funding tied to compliance, not compliance tied to vague promises.

A War Powers vote that comes after the bombs is still better than silence. But if Congress lets this war proceed without authorization, it will be sending a message that the Constitution is optional in wartime, civilian protection is negotiable and presidential discretion is the only policy America needs. That is not oversight. That is surrender.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Congress Can’t Keep Pretending the Iran War Is Optional appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The constitutional fault line

Glenn frames the ruling as part of a “tectonic” struggle over the nature of American democracy. The US system, he argues, “was by design to be inefficient,” built on separation of powers and checks and balances precisely to prevent “unfettered executive authority.” For decades, however, a dominant strain within the Republican Party has embraced the theory of the unitary executive. They assert that the president must be empowered to act decisively in the national interest, even in the face of congressional or judicial resistance.

The Court’s ruling reinforces a basic constitutional principle: Taxation and tariff powers rest with Congress. Drawing on the major questions doctrine, which was previously used by the conservative majority to curb federal bureaucratic agencies, the justices now turn that reasoning against the executive itself. For Atul, this demonstrates that the Court is “not entirely a handmaiden of the executive yet,” and that checks and balances still function.

But a deeper crisis lurks. If the executive resists implementation, the judiciary has no enforcement arm of its own. The president controls the Department of Justice and the machinery that executes court orders. In theory, impeachment could discipline open defiance. In practice, however, with Congress divided and midterms looming, that appears unlikely. The ruling thus exposes both the resilience and fragility of constitutional governance.

Legal workarounds and fiscal fallout

The economic implications are immediate and complex. The IEEPA tariffs, imposed after Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on April 2, 2025, had already generated an estimated $200 billion in import duties. Those funds must now be refunded, but repayment could take years of litigation. Companies are lining up for reimbursement; class-action lawyers are preparing to argue that any refunds should flow to consumers rather than remain with corporations. Trump himself has noted that the Court did not explicitly address repayment, leaving the issue unresolved.

Meanwhile, the administration is far from out of options. Supreme Court Justice John Kavanaugh’s dissent emphasizes that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act allows temporary tariffs of up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments difficulties. Invoking this authority, Trump announced a 10% global tariff, raised to 15% on February 21. Other provisions permit duties of up to 50% against countries deemed to discriminate against US commerce, as well as restrictions justified on national security grounds.

More dramatically, Trump could simply delay dismantling the IEEPA tariffs. With control of the executive branch, the administration might slow compliance indefinitely, using prosecutorial discretion and presidential pardons to shield officials. Such a move would deepen the constitutional clash and compound uncertainty.

Trade deficits and inflation reality

Atul and Glenn stress that the tariffs’ original objective, reducing the US trade deficit, has not been met. The overall deficit declined marginally from $903.5 billion in 2024 to $901.5 billion in 2025, a mere $2 billion shift. In some cases, deficits widened. For instance, the US goods deficit with India rose from $45.8 billion in 2024 to $58.2 billion in 2025. A small US services surplus may turn into a roughly $4 billion deficit. 

Simultaneously, tariffs have proven inflationary. Although price pressures have not surged as dramatically as some predicted, Glenn underscores the lag effect: It can take a year for the full impact of trade barriers to filter through supply chains and consumer prices. Markets can adjust to higher or lower tariffs, and even to different constitutional arrangements. What they cannot easily manage is instability. The White House’s determination to maintain and extend tariffs, even after judicial rebuke, amplifies policy unpredictability.

Uncertainty as policy

Capitol Hill sources, including Republicans, privately welcome the ruling. They believe the White House had wrested excessive authority from Congress and that the decision restores some institutional balance. In the long term, they argue, this may prove beneficial for both governance and the economy.

Yet in the short term, FOI expects the opposite of clarity. Businesses and investors should anticipate product-, sector- and country-specific duties proliferating under alternative statutes. Existing tariffs may persist while litigation unfolds. Rather than reducing uncertainty, the Court’s decision may intensify it.

Atul calls the moment a “mini crisis,” constitutional and economic at once. Despite judicial intervention, the administration remains committed to tariffs as both principle and instrument. So despite the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration is poised to maintain and extend its already extensive use of tariffs as a central trade policy tool.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO Exclusive: A Hot Mess After the Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Managed interdependence and structural uncertainty

Contemporary global politics is not defined by the collapse of institutions. International organizations still convene, legal rules are invoked and procedural norms are performed with remarkable regularity. What has changed is the relationship between institutional form and the distribution of power, risk and strategic intent that once gave those institutions coherence. Rules remain, but they no longer align smoothly with the realities they are meant to govern.

What has emerged in place of postwar liberal universalism is not , nor a simple retreat from globalization, but a system of managed interdependence. Markets, finance and supply chains continue to bind states together, access to them is increasingly conditioned on political alignment rather than legal entitlement alone. Efficiency, once the dominant organizing principle of the global economy, now competes with resilience. Uncertainty is no longer episodic, arising from crises or shocks, but structural, embedded in the routine operation of the system.

This shift reflects a deeper transformation in how power is exercised. The postwar order rested on the assumption that economic exchange could be largely insulated from geopolitical rivalry and that legal and procedural constraints would discipline state behavior. That assumption has eroded. Economic relationships are now routinely through the lens of security, vulnerability and strategic dependence. Trade agreements, industrial policy and investment screening increasingly function as tools for managing exposure in a fragmented environment rather than as neutral mechanisms of liberalization.

Japan, Taiwan and the recalibration of ambiguity

Japan’s evolving approach to Taiwan how states adapt to this new landscape. Tokyo’s signaling has grown more explicit in recent years — not because Japan seeks confrontation, but because ambiguity alone no longer guarantees stability. As the strategic environment around Taiwan has hardened, silence and procedural neutrality have come to carry their own risks.

Japan’s response has been multifaceted. Trade frameworks such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (), to secure semiconductor and advanced technology supply chains, and selective forms of security coordination have become instruments for navigating uncertainty. These measures do not amount to a formal abandonment of long-standing policy constraints, but they do reflect a recalibration of priorities. Economic openness is no longer treated as an unconditional good; it is increasingly filtered through concerns about continuity, leverage and alignment.

In this context, recent remarks by Prime Minister Takaichi particular attention. Her suggestion that a naval blockade around Taiwan could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan implied the possible mobilization of the Self-Defense Forces under existing legal frameworks. The importance of such remarks lies less in their immediate operational implications than in what they signal about shifting thresholds for action. Statements once avoided in the name of ambiguity are now articulated openly, not to provoke escalation, but to clarify stakes in an environment where silence may be misread.

This shift reflects a broader change in how strategic ambiguity works. In the past, ambiguity was often seen as a stopgap — a way to postpone difficult decisions while shared rules and norms kept the peace. Today, it plays a difficult role. Clear red lines can rivals to test how serious those threats really are, and overly specific promises can trap governments in commitments they later regret. By contrast, leaving some things unsaid can create caution. When adversaries are unsure where the real limits lie — or how a country might respond —�� they are often less willing to take risks.

The emergence of a G1.5 world order

The broader international system in which these dynamics unfold does not fit neatly into familiar categories. It is neither a leaderless marked by pure disorder, nor a G2 condominium in which the US and China jointly manage global affairs. Instead, it resembles what can be described as a G1.5 world. In this configuration, the US retains primacy over critical margins of access and enforcement, while China possesses growing leverage without shared rule-making authority. Power remains concentrated, yet obligation has thinned. Rules persist, but their application is selective and increasingly shaped by political considerations.

The time, then, is out of joint not because order has vanished, but because its components no longer move together. Power, law and legitimacy have fallen out of alignment. The resulting system is neither chaotic nor stable in the traditional sense. Instead, it is marked by friction — by the continuous negotiation of access, obligation and risk. In a G1.5 world, the challenge is not to resolve every tension, but to manage misalignment with patience, restraint and a clearer understanding of evolving risks.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Time Is Out of Joint: Power, Misalignment and the G1.5 World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Having failed to seek the Constitutionally required authority from the US Congress to go to war with another nation, the Trump administration never communicated either its objectives for the war or its reason(s) for going to war. On the contrary, Trump, his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio and his Secretary of Defense (renamed by this administration as “War”), Pete Hegseth, have vigorously claimed differing (and conflicting) justifications for America’s entry into war against Iran. Israel, which sees the war in more existential terms, has expressed objectives that depart from the various, unclear goals of the US administration. The White House has also fallen short of explaining what outcome the US seeks. 

Under this fog of fact, fabrication and “,” how are the American people, Congress, Israel, the Israeli public, surrounding Arab nations sucked into a war they did not choose, or the Iranian people to know what end state is sought? In military parlance, what is the exit plan?

Recent in the US shows increasing opposition — between 43% and 60% — to the war. This is characteristic of a populace that is uncertain and unconvinced of the country’s reasons for entering a war without clear aims. Expect that number to rise as the war drags on, American fatalities increase and the voices of US allies in the region, especially in the Gulf, become louder.��

Starting with regime change

The administration has danced around the term “regime change” as an objective. But it’s one that harkens back hauntingly to the Iraq War. That war did not play out as the then-US administration of President George W. Bush had anticipated. If regime change had been Mr. Trump’s objective, he could have easily declared victory once Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed on February 28. He could have asserted accomplishing what no previous American president had been able to do: decapitating the Iranian regime, though certainly not ending the Islamic Republic.

He has changed the regime, i.e., forced new leadership, though not necessarily a new form. His supporters would have hailed his triumph, and the rest of the country would have put the short war behind them. Yet, he pursues the war, reportedly eliminating ever more members of the upper echelons of Iran’s military, intelligence, security and political apparatus to the point that even Trump has , “There is no one left” to take charge.

Ultimately, however, the US does not have the capacity or will to shape Iran’s next government. America’s resources and manpower are too limited for a country of 93 million angst-ridden and traumatized souls. Even if it were possible, the administrative and political apparatus and capabilities to effect such a change, as America tried to do in Iraq, no longer exist after Trump and Rubio slashed State Department resources, staffing and expertise, including those with the kind of experience to work with a successor government.

Furthermore, the extensive work required to develop an American regime-change plan would have to be undertaken by an understaffed group of inexperienced sycophants in Trump’s National Security Council. As Iraq of 2003 demonstrated, the Defense Department doesn’t have the will, capability or desire to take on that kind of responsibility.

To cast further doubt about the US administration’s inability to plan for and manage regime change, one might note ongoing about the State Department’s failure to plan for and carry out evacuations of embassy staff and other American citizens in the Middle East. As a former US diplomat, I was aware that the US State Department and its embassies always had plans and staff at the ready for such contingencies and had earned a commendable record of implementing them quickly and successfully, coordinating often with the Defense Department. Failure to evacuate its own employees in the region is a travesty of the administration’s own making.

Hardliners at the helm

One thing is clear, however. As long as hardliners maintain their grip on what’s left of the governing and security structures, they are very unlikely to give in to America and Israel’s demands. That would be to deny 47 years of the deep-seated antipathy that is a core element of Iran’s revolutionary Islamist ideology. It is survival that this remainder of the leadership now seeks.

Moreover, if there were genuine regime change, a bloodbath would likely precede it as the holdouts fought to the end and the victors exacted their revenge afterwards. In 1979, the Shah refrained from using his security forces against the population to avoid what would have been a very ugly and violent clash with the growing opposition. However, that did not save members of his government or the military from the that followed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s takeover of the government.��

Nevertheless, many of the members of the Shah’s regime had places where they could flee, e.g., Europe and North America, and tens of thousands did so with their families. For Iran’s current leadership, there is no such refuge; no government would take them. They have nowhere to go. Even if asylum were offered, it’s unclear whether they would accept it. It’s a very committed group.

Make way for chaos

At one end of the spectrum of outcomes is chaos, not unusual for a country experiencing a potentially complete breakdown as a result of overwhelming external and internal forces. Absent direction from the center, forces on the periphery — united by shared grievance against the Islamist regime responsible for decades of severe oppression — may rise to pursue their interests, which aren’t always mutual. 

No external power would have the ability to control such an outcome. Between 2003 and 2011, the Americans had their hands full trying to manage the often violently competing Iraqi factions of Sunni, Shia, Kurd and others, catapulting casualty figures into the hundreds of thousands. Iran’s many more competing groups — Persian, Azeri, Kurd, Lur, Arab, Baloch and at least a half-dozen others — all bear grudges against Iran’s theocratic regime. Some seek a separate state.

That sort of breakdown would have catastrophic results for Iranians as a whole but also for the region. Various groups would vie for control over Iran’s oil wealth. Refugees would flee to surrounding countries, e.g., Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, the Gulf and Europe. Their numbers quite possibly would overwhelm the facilities and capabilities of those governments and exacerbate existing ethnic and anti-immigrant tensions in those societies. Borders would shut. A humanitarian crisis would follow.  Recall the impact of the flood of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s, inflaming tensions over immigration in Europe and provoking Britain’s eventual exit from the EU, aka Brexit. To underscore, this is not controllable by any external power.

Give democracy a chance

At the other end of the outcome spectrum is democracy. Most of the world would like to see Iran’s eventual transition to a democracy. Of all the peoples in the Middle East, excluding Israelis, the Iranians are probably best suited and prepared for democracy. They had one of sorts until when British and American intelligence agencies fomented a coup against the elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and placed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back on the throne as sole authority. But today, the country lacks the democratic institutions necessary to build a democracy, such as political parties and leaders. Iran’s opposition is fractious, disorganized, headless and unprepared to assemble a democracy. As desirable an outcome as democracy would be, it has a very low probability now.

Keep in mind that under either of the two aforementioned scenarios, chaos and democracy, survivors of the current regime, now nursing their own set of grudges, would gather and organize themselves inside and outside the country to resist whatever might be happening in the country. They would have their weapons and would not hesitate to use them. In Iraq, remnants of the Saddam regime formed and gravitated to extremist groups like Al Qaeda, the Naqshbandi Order, Ansar al Sunna, Free Iraq Army and others. Surviving members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has trained for insurrection and invasion, would be certain to collect and form rival grouping(s) for power. On top of the existing ethnic rivalries, Iran becomes a violently toxic mix of uncontrollable havoc. 

If not chaos or democracy?

In between chaos and democracy, there are a variety of possibilities that might emerge from the current regime. These are an assortment of governments formed by senior and mid-level officials and/or possibly officers of the IRGC and conventional army, the Artesh, who might rise to seize power amid the uncertainty. (Currently, there is no evidence of defections from these two security/defense institutions.) Influential clerics, from the moderate to despotic, could also step forward, though many Iranians are now repelled by the clerical class of any stripe. IRGC officers are the most likely of current regime elements to seize and hold power. Such an outcome might be able to maintain order and stability for a time, depending on what the US and Israel do. Nevertheless, the war has served to break the headlock of hardliners like Khamenei, though not necessarily of another, more flexible and pragmatic authoritarian.

A government of regime leftovers, despite its many flaws, probably has the governing experience to maintain order and some sense of stability for a time. It can salvage practical elements of the institutional structure and work within them. But as there are degrees of capable governance by regime survivors, it’s unclear whether they could maintain power or would be sufficiently palatable to the Americans to call off the war.

Every day that the conflict continues creates greater uncertainty about how and when the war ends and what that end looks like. That is the nature of a war without clear objectives. Such a war risks becoming dangerously open-ended, subject to the whims and biases of the president directing it. Or a quagmire, to borrow a term from a previous American war of choice.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Iran War: How Does It End? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2009, the EPA issued a comprehensive scientific “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases (GHGs) pose a threat to public health and welfare. The agency prepared the document after thoroughly reviewing US and international peer-reviewed climate assessments in response to a US Supreme Court requiring review before regulating GHGs under the US .

The present administration justifies its proposal by citing a new Department of Energy that selectively ignores the extensive body of peer-reviewed research and instead relies on outdated and disproven claims. This illustrates another instance of strong climate change denial efforts.��

In the years following the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, federal action quickly turned the scientific decision into regulations. Starting in 2010, the administration and agencies vehicle-emissions and fuel-efficiency standards. They used the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial sources. These efforts peaked in 2015 with the and a series of climate and mobile-source regulations, marking the most ambitious federal attempt to reduce US emissions.

The next three administrations alternated policies. Between 2017 and 2020, regulations were : the Clean Power Plan was targeted for repeal, the Affordable Clean Energy proposal was introduced and vehicle emissions targets were relaxed under the Safer, Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule (). Starting in 2021, the Biden administration to undo many of these rollbacks, restore stricter standards and reaffirm the scientific basis of the endangerment finding at the core of federal climate policy. Now, with the current US Presidency, there seems to be a trend to disconnect climate science from national environmental regulations.��

Economic claims vs. domestic reality: assessing fossil-fuel benefits

The current administration that, over generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty worldwide. However, a more detailed analysis indicates this isn’t accurate for America since 1980.

In the US, although the average income of a US citizen was $57 per day, in 2023, an estimated 36.8 million Americans lived below the poverty line of $24.50 per day, according to the US . This results in an official poverty rate of over 11% of the total American population.

Poverty in the US is often linked to economic and social factors, including the lack of a strong social safety net and significant racial disparities. Since 1980, income inequality has been rising sharply. This trend results from political and economic shifts that seem to have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest. During this period, fiscal policies started to resemble favors to the wealthy, with tax cuts benefiting those already in advantageous positions.

Beyond social inequalities, the continued use of fossil fuels directly conflicts with the endangerment finding issued during President Barack Obama’s first term. However, the EPA now that the decision “unreasonably analyzed the scientific record” and that its scientific basis was overly pessimistic and unsupported. Such an opinion blatantly contradicts the majority of climate science in the US and worldwide.

Science under siege: EPA, evidence and vulnerabilities

In a briefing with reporters last month ahead of the EPA’s decision, the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Manish Bapna, called the expected repeal “the single biggest attack in US history on federal authority to tackle the climate crisis.” On the NRDC’s , they explicitly say: “This decision is dangerous. It’s also illegal. We will see them in court, and we will win.”

The expectation of legal plaintiffs against the EPA’s “endangerment finding” relates to its very purpose and legal basis: Under the Clean Air Act (section 202[a]), the EPA determined whether GHGs from new motor vehicles “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger” public health or welfare. This followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which required the EPA to make such a determination for GHGs if supported by science.

Climate science has always been based on peer-reviewed research, including work from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change () — the��UN body established in 1988 to assess climate change —, the , the US Global Change Research Program and other reputable organizations. These sources demonstrate that GHG emissions are driving climate change, leading to impacts such as rising temperatures and sea levels, extreme weather events, ecosystem and agricultural impacts, and public health concerns.

The dangers of global warming are evident: In , 27 confirmed disasters caused over $1 billion in damage and resulted in more than 550 deaths in the US. This includes Hurricane Helene, which affected North Carolina, Georgia and Florida; the wildfire that destroyed 11,000 homes in California; and the severe floods in Texas in early 2025.

Several peer-reviewed journals and national science academies that revoking the EPA’s endangerment finding would weaken the scientific basis for US climate regulation. Scientific comments and academy statements emphasized that the endangerment finding consolidates decades of peer-reviewed evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to widespread harms, and that removing it could hinder agencies’ ability to use that evidence in policymaking.��

A��new ��from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states that “the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare caused by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.” Across editorials and academy documents, authors pointed to converging lines of research on warming trends, studies linking emissions to extreme events and a large body of impacts research as the basis for maintaining a regulatory framework that connects scientific findings to statutory protections.��

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a nonprofit scientific society, involved climate and health experts, a signed letter and testimony at EPA public hearings, and provided comments with over 650 expert signatures supporting the endangerment finding and its scientific basis. The letter criticized the EPA’s attempts to manipulate or censor climate science with inaccurate information. This is the strategy of most anti-climate-change organizations and their supporters.

The global mean surface temperature discussion

The conservative think tank The Heartland Institute, on the other hand, the upcoming change. According to them, climate science spends trillions of dollars fighting climate change based on flawed assumptions, mainly because it emphasizes temperature measurements on an essentially meaningless and fabricated metric: the global mean surface temperature (GMST).��

Present anti-climate change scientists that GMST lacks a clear regulatory definition and is, in fact, physically meaningless under basic principles of thermodynamics. Yet, they support warming claims based on alleged temperature changes; they assert that the methodologies and assumptions used by the IPCC to identify and predict temperatures are “fundamentally fraudulent” because averaging temperatures is meaningless outside an equilibrium system, which Earth and its various climates are not. They claim that a standard measurement system should be used to obtain accurate measurements of average temperature change.

The technical analyses used to cast doubt on IPCC temperature data are part of a popular “cherry-picked” narrative, where technicalities like the GSMT are quickly discredited by physics and thermodynamics arguments. This is a common climate change denial tactic. We need to examine the IPCC’s methodology thoroughly.

The GSMT is the clearest indicator of planetary warming. It is calculated from land, ocean and satellite data that all show the same trend, and the results are reported with uncertainty ranges. Hence, policymakers understand the risks and confidence level of the numbers. Recent studies indicate that the Earth has warmed by about since pre-industrial times. The agreement among different instruments, consistent methods and transparent uncertainty estimates gives this measure strong scientific credibility.

This temperature indicates the planet’s energy imbalance caused by greenhouse gases and other factors. Climate models that incorporate observed emissions successfully reproduce this trend, and research attributes most of the warming to human activities. A nearly linear relationship between cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and temperature increase allows scientists to estimate remaining carbon budgets and timelines for reaching net zero. The temperature signal is confirmed by rising ocean heat content, shrinking glaciers and higher sea levels, providing additional supporting evidence.

For decision-makers, this metric directly links emissions to impacts, helps establish risk thresholds and guides adaptation strategies and policy choices. Its consistency, physical basis and policy relevance make it essential for monitoring global warming and focusing efforts to reduce emissions to reach net zero.

The evolution of climate science during the endangerment finding

After all, it is interesting to note the evolution of climate science from 2009 to date. Climate science has matured over the last 16 years, thus supporting all evidence for the continued “endangered finding” designation. IPCC is key to this position.

The IPCC unites 195 countries and covers three main areas: climate science, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. It releases comprehensive assessment reports (AR) approximately every six to seven years; the current cycle is . The science working group for AR6 included 234 authors from 66 countries, including coordinating and lead authors, along with hundreds of contributors; the report cites over 14,000 references and received more than 78,000 review comments. The IPCC warns that emissions must decrease by more than 40% by 2030 to prevent catastrophic outcomes. Its findings are subject to thorough expert and government review and have gained global recognition, including a of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

By the time the EPA issued the “endangerment finding”, the IPCC had already its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. In short, it described possible futures: the planet would warm, sea levels would rise and risks would increase if emissions continued. By 2023, the sixth assessment strengthened the science: human activity is unquestionably warming the climate; 1.5°C is likely to be reached soon under many scenarios; and many impacts and limits to adaptation are now visible. The window to prevent the worst outcomes is quickly closing. Meanwhile, anti-climate science clung to cherry-picked narratives, such as distrusting the use of GSMT, while the IPCC advanced the world’s understanding of climate change.

Over the past 16 years, IPCC assessments have strengthened the evidence and refined estimates by incorporating more observations and improved models, directly linking cumulative CO2 emissions to warming through updated carbon budgets. The scenario framework shifted to shared socioeconomic pathways with clear mitigation options, illustrating how emissions choices relate to projected temperature and sea-level changes. The report warns that risks are greater and start at lower warming levels, with damages already underway that will worsen with each additional degree, and it provides more precise short-term reduction targets and net-zero timelines to limit warming.

End-of-century temperatures now range from about 1.5°C with strong mitigation to over 4°C in high-emission scenarios, and sea levels are expected to continue rising for centuries under the worst conditions. The updated carbon budget allows only a few hundred billion tons of CO2 with a roughly 50% chance of staying near 1.5°C, highlighting the importance of reaching net-zero CO2 to prevent further long-term warming.

In the near term (up to around 2040), many pathways still allow us to limit warming to 1.5°C, but impacts will grow more severe and accumulate over time. In the long run, cumulative emissions determine the final amount of warming; delays increase the dependence on carbon removal, raise the risk of irreversible changes and lock in higher sea levels.

Net zero as a timescale: an urgent mandate

The science now reads like a timeline: deep, rapid and sustained cuts this decade, and reaching net-zero CO2, are clear paths to lower long-term risks. Delaying actions increases costs, raises risks and limits options. The choice facing governments, businesses and societies is no longer whether to decarbonize but how quickly and fairly to do it.

Separately, the EPA’s announcement is already sparking legal battles with environmental groups that have pledged to oppose proposed rollbacks. Before that fight officially begins, the agency must initiate a rulemaking process that will take months or longer to finish.

IPPC’s AR6 makes net-zero CO2 a near-term timetable, not a distant aspiration: cumulative emissions determine long-term warming, so rapid, deep cuts this decade are required to avoid locking in irreversible harms. That scientific mandate implies urgent policy actions to phase out unabated fossil infrastructure and scale clean alternatives, while pairing mitigation with adaptation and equity measures. 

Because the EPA’s “endangerment finding” is the legal foundation that allows such rules, weakening it risks immediate and significant litigation; courts will decide whether administrative rollbacks align with established science and statutory obligations, making legal challenges a key battleground for maintaining the timelines AR6 and upcoming reports require.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Undoing the Endangerment Finding: Science, Policy and the Fight Over US Climate Authority appeared first on 51�Թ�.

• ��The Guardian:
• The New York Times:
• The Brennan Center:
• Time Magazine:
• The Guardian:
• The Atlantic:

To write about the complete illegality of US President Donald Trump’s cabal’s action would be redundant. No credible legal expert, no nonpartisan hack even tries to justify Trump’s action (there are a few *cough-cough* legal experts who may try, but they’d probably sell their own children to the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein to stay in the good graces of Donald…)

So, I’m not going to write about the illegality of Trump’s actions — it has been well covered by many more eminent than a pseudonymous ghost on the internet. Rather, it’s important instead to address Trump and his acolytes’ constant derision of legality, to explain why legality matters, not just to the public or the rest of the world, but to the US, and why ultimately the US may pay a long-term price for undermining both international and domestic law and principles. First, we shall look at FDR’s famous speech, the one that inaugurated US participation in WWII:

YESTERDAY, December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy, the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

– US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressing Congress on December 8, 1941

The Japanese failure to deliver their intended declaration of war was due to incompetent planning and a failure to recognize that the very Sunday-morning torpor they planned to exploit at Pearl Harbor would make securing a last-minute meeting with Secretary of State Cordell Hull difficult. But crucially, it was this violation of international law that animated the US’s participation in World War II.

The US was, until recently, a polity where at least the appearance of compliance with the law in its international relations mattered. Even the invasion of Iraq was accompanied by efforts to legalize it such as the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq�� of 2002 and Colin Powell’s efforts to secure an authorization from the UN Security Council; the US presence in Vietnam was accompanied by the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin ; and the war in Korea was accompanied by US Security Council’s 1950 82, 83, 84 and 85.

International law also played a major role in World War I, not just through the 1839 that established Belgium and guaranteed its neutrality — signed by Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia — but also through the US view that Germany had violated international law in its actions ������-à-������ the US.��

But the Trump administration has repeatedly asserted that it is not bound by international law, or indeed US domestic and constitutional law, but, in , “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me…” or as his savant, Stephen Miller : “‘We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power … These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.” Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, has also openly that no one has the right to thwart Trump, even on Constitutional grounds.

In an effort to put some intellectual basis behind this glib, “whatever I can get away with” mindset, in 2017, the then-Trump administration described it as “[a]n America First National Security Strategy … a strategy of principled realism that is guided by outcomes, not ideology,” which it unconvincingly last year.

Even a semblance of legality matters to the US

Fundamentally, the philosophy Trump’s clique is advancing is what Athenian historian and general Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” as well as Greek sophist Thrasymachus’s from Plato’s Republic that “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” and “injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice.” But that philosophy and the Peloponnese war that it spawned shattered political, diplomatic, religious and cultural rules, laid waste to much of the Greek countryside, wrecked its cities and ended the “golden age” of Greek civilization — devastating its principal protagonist and beneficiary, Athens, and ultimately Sparta too.

Like Athens, the main beneficiary of the “rules-based international order” has been the US, just as the British Empire was a previous beneficiary. As far back as Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith’s earliest , The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and later The Wealth of Nations, he asserted that economic prosperity is contingent upon a stable legal framework and “tolerable administration of justice.” According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions , wealthier nations rank highest on the list of the least corrupt countries for the 2025–2026 period, primarily due to their strong institutions. In contrast, the countries at the bottom of the list tend to be uniformly poorer and often suffer from questionable enforcement of the rule of law, a point that Transparency International has :

Corruption and justice are closely linked in a complex and inverse relationship: where justice prevails, there is little room for corruption, but where corruption thrives, it throws the scales of justice out of balance.

A well-functioning justice system is meant to uphold the rule of law, protect human rights and ensure that all other rights and obligations contained in the law, including existing anti-corruption provisions, are appropriately observed.

Moreover, across the US, states perceived as the most corrupt — where justice is least consistently enforced — are consistently also the poorest, with the lowest per capita incomes.

Patterns of migration, internally in countries as diverse as the US, India, China and across Europe, also indicate the preference of the ambitious to move to places where the rule of law is an animating principle. This is a major cause of the migration that politically bedevils the governments of liberal democracies — it is the rule of law that makes their countries attractive to migrants and refugees, its promise not just of safety but prosperity.

It’s not just Shibboleths

It’s easy to just declaim, pompously, that “essential to global prosperity” and equally easy to announce, as one seemingly morally bankrupt commentator on (surely an oxymoron) did recently:

There is no such thing as international law. It’s a papered-over fiction to give some powers power and deny it to other nations. The truth is, what rules the world and has ruled humanity is the law of the jungle. It is power. It is leverage. And the United States maintains preeminent power in this world. There is no illegality to this intervention.

There was a time when conquest was celebrated, for God, for king, for glory, for Americans. There’s no such thing as stolen land. There’s no such thing as international law. There is only such thing as conquest. And if it serves Americans, then so be it. We rule the jungle. We are the lion.

Until you get mange, a broken tooth, a thorn in the paw… But there is broadly accepted international law, even if it is implemented in domestic contexts, and the US benefits from it enormously.

Take a simple, accepted principle of international law: . This principle holds that citizens or businesses of another country are entitled to the same treatment in a country’s legal system as one’s own “nationals.” No one has benefited more from this principle than large international companies, and none more than the US. Pretty much every country, when establishing diplomatic relations, makes the guarantee of national treatment a central part of the underlying Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (FCN), and it is a central provision of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) rules (e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ), the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) , and the Berne and Paris Conventions. It also lies at the core of the treaties that establish the EU.

of the UN charter specifically prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. In August 1975, 35 nations, including the US, Canada and most European states, confirmed the inviolability of Europe’s post-war borders in the , allowing for changes only through peaceful, negotiated agreement rather than by force, and the “penumbra” of the Helsinki Accords has effectively extended to South and Central America. It was Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s breach of Article 2(4) and seizure of Kuwait that legalized the first Gulf War. Russian President Vladimir Putin has also flagrantly violated Article 2(4) when he invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the US under President Joe Biden vigorously opposed it, while Trump almost acquiesced.

The US can’t be “the Preeminent Power” everywhere

For all the “flexing” and muscular preening Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and various Fox News hosts like to engage in, it is infeasible for the US to be a preeminent power everywhere, to face down every challenger like, for example, President Xi Jinping in China. Rather, the US needs and wants its allies. But retaining those allies depends on soft power and a belief that they, too, benefit from the international system the US promoted after World War II — namely, that the US will, for the most part, adhere to international law.

Legality matters to the US’s most important allies, not just as a matter of public opinion. No matter how friendly those allies may seem to Trump’s agenda (and few genuinely are), all of the meaningful allies, beyond Israel, face domestic legal, constitutional and political constraints on what US adventures they can participate in.

When Trump in a meeting on Tuesday with a largely supine German chancellor, Friedrich Merz: “Spain has been terrible … We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain…” Trump was missing the crucial point — Spanish cooperation is not something Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez can just deliver, even if he were so inclined; Sanchez faces issues of legality, of obtaining legal authority for the demanded support.

Meanwhile, Trump’s attacks on British Prime Minister Karl Starmer for the UK’s limited support have, if anything, been helpful to a prime minister being heavily criticized for that support. The more important the US ally, the more likely it is to be a country with meaningful rule of law and basic constraints on its ability to participate in military aggression.

The US economy and its Treasury also rely on that principle, on the belief, for example, that foreign holders of US Federal Government Bonds will always benefit from “national treatment.” Members of the Trump cabal have brought this principle into doubt with the so-called “” floated by Stephen Miran, formerly chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors, until his elevation to governor of the Federal Reserve.

Trump’s tariff games and his threats of random sanctions are themselves illegal under both international law (under WTO rules, as they violated the principle of equal treatment, and under the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement []), and, as the US Supreme Court , illegal and unconstitutional under US law. But what is more notable is they have done to the US economy, both short-term and long-term, with objective data showing they have in the US, leading businesses to delay or even cancel hiring and expansion decisions. Much of this is fundamentally about abandoning basic principles of the rule of law.

It’s a boring, perhaps pompous point, but modern states have built themselves around a legal order, around the idea that rules, fairly applied, matter. Iran, perhaps, was one example of a state where the rules did not matter, at least if you were part of the ruling group. But if the US now fully abandons legality, the end result will not be pretty for Western Democracies. Indeed, at this point, it is hard to see what the US can do in a post-Trump era to restore the idea that the US is an advocate for the very rules-based international order it has benefited from.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Legality Matters: The Crucial Role of Law in Global Order appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The current American way of death is built on an avoidable lie. We’re conditioned to believe that a respectful farewell requires a sealed metal casket, a concrete vault and a body injected with harsh, carcinogenic chemicals. But this “toxic funeral” is neither ancient, globally common nor legally required. It is a largely 19th-century American invention — a post-Civil War marketing success story that has morphed into a destructive industrial standard.

The environmental and economic toll of a toxic tradition

The environmental of this approach are staggering. Annually, the traditional US burial system commits approximately 4.3 million gallons of formaldehyde-based fluid (a chemical preservative and potential carcinogen), 20 million board feet of hardwoods and 1.6 million tons of concrete to the earth. 

Our have become ecological dead zones, meticulously manicured lawns maintained with fertilizer and gasoline, turning sacred ground into resource-intensive, land-guzzling monuments to vanity.

The financial cost is equally . With the median cost of a conventional funeral easily approaching $10,000, the industry has successfully corporatized grief, turning a moment of spiritual significance into a high-pressure sales transaction. 

Crucially, the centerpiece of this system — embalming — is not legally required in the vast majority of the US. Green burial simply adheres to existing law while rejecting these costly, optional industrial standards.

Reclamation: grieving with integrity

Choosing a is, for many, an act of spiritual integrity and social defiance against the funeral-industrial complex. It allows the final disposition to reflect a life lived with environmental consciousness, bringing us back to the traditions practiced by most of the world and much of human history.

For faiths like and , some elements of green burial align well with their mandates: immediate burial, nonembalming and simple shrouds to facilitate the swift return of the body to the earth. Beyond formal religion, natural burial has profound therapeutic value. 

The process the ritual from a sterile viewing in a distant funeral home to a family-led event, offering a deeply therapeutic experience that allows for an active, meaningful “continuing bond” with the deceased. It is a return to an affordable, dignified and democratic way to say goodbye.

The global context and rising adoption

The philosophy behind green burial is not revolutionary; it is a . Many cultures, particularly in Africa and Asia, practice natural burial out of necessity, religious obligation or deep tradition. In Western nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the natural burial movement is well established, with hundreds of certified sites. 

Germany has seen significant growth in “sanctuary forests” or , where ashes are interred at the base of trees, providing a space-efficient and beautifully sustainable alternative. In the US, all states technically permit green burial, as embalming is generally optional. However, states are now creating specific, supportive regulatory frameworks for dedicated sites. 

The is expanding rapidly, with states like California, Washington, Texas and New York seeing a significant in the establishment of hybrid and dedicated natural burial cemeteries. This reflects the reality that the primary hurdle is no longer the law itself, but overcoming inertia and the deep-seated resistance of the conventional funeral industry.

The power of perpetual protection (conservation burial)

The most impactful form of this is the Conservation Burial Ground (CBG). This model moves far beyond simply reducing harm; it actively protects and restores land in perpetuity.

In a , one’s final resting place becomes a living memorial. Burial fees are directly channeled into the long-term stewardship of the land. Legal agreements, often in the form of a conservation easement held by a land trust, permanently restrict future development. 

The burial native habitat restoration, enhances biodiversity and sequesters carbon. The intentional shallow depth of burial maximizes aerobic decomposition and nutrient cycling, directly benefiting the surrounding ecosystem. It is a final act that is regenerative rather than extractive.

Addressing concerns and moving forward

As with any shift in cultural practice, have been raised, primarily focusing on public health and land use. Critics often express fears that unembalmed bodies could contaminate groundwater or be exhumed by animals. 

However, scientific studies and the experience of centuries of natural burial globally that when basic, common-sense regulations are followed — such as proper burial depth and mandated setbacks from water sources, which many states already have —  the risks are negligible. 

Furthermore, the concern over land use is easily dismissed by the Conservation Burial model, which turns the land from an ecologically inert lawn into a perpetually protected, biodiverse preserve. Momentum is building for the greening of burial practices. 

The National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) that over 60% of consumers are interested in exploring green funeral options. However, there are still many obstacles to overcome, such as:

• Awareness and Accessibility: The primary remains a lack of public knowledge and the slow adoption by the established funeral industry. Many consumers and funeral directors remain largely unaware of green burial as a legal, accessible option, leading to a gap between consumer interest and provider availability.
  
• Regulatory Inertia and Zoning: Zoning laws and municipal ordinances were written for the conventional, lawn-park model. Adapting these regulations to accommodate the “wilder,” natural look of a CBG political advocacy and legal innovation.
  
• The Future of Deathcare: The industry’s response includes the rise of hybrid cemeteries that dedicate specific sections to natural burial, and the development of new alternatives, such as human composting (natural organic reduction), which are gaining in several states.

The only real concerns are navigating the lack of a uniform definition — leading to “greenwashing” by some conventional providers — and the challenge of zoning laws, which were simply not written to the “wilder,” natural look of a conservation site.

The green burial movement is poised to reshape the funeral industry. It proves that the final disposition of the human body can be a regenerative act. The choice is clear: We can continue to bury our loved ones in an expensive, polluting box, or we can choose to return them to the earth to enrich the living land they walked upon, leaving behind a legacy of conservation instead of consumption.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Thinking Out of the Coffin: Doing Away With the $10,000 Toxic Tomb appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

The Endangerment Finding was signed in late 2009 under President Barack Obama and stated in legalese that “the Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases … in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

The finding determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), via the Clean Air Act, was legally required to regulate harmful pollutants. A raft of environmental regulation followed, including greenhouse gas (GHG) standards and permits for large emitters, such as car and aircraft manufacturers, as well as Clean Power Plans for the US’ energy mix.

From a national health perspective, the finding was a tremendous success. In 2009, over 128,000 deaths in the US were attributed to air pollution. By 2023, this had dropped to 82,000, according to .

The repeal and immediate reactions

Still, on February 12, 2026, the Trump Administration announced an “” of the Obama-era finding, allowing the EPA to wash its hands of its responsibility to regulate harmful emissions.

A White House published the next day announced with great fanfare that the repeal would be the “biggest regulatory relief in history.” The press briefing was unequivocal and brief in its summary: “lower prices, more freedom, and a stronger economy for every American,” along with quotes from spokespeople from the Petroleum Alliance, the Heritage Foundation and the American Energy Alliance.

What follows will be a lengthy legal process full of challenges. Within the week, a collection of health and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Now all eyes are watching to see whether the DC Circuit will issue a stay or an injunction that would block the repeal as the legal challenges play out.

The legal grounds for the repeal will depend on whether the court judges that it was not arbitrary or capricious, inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and in keeping with the latest science. The Federal Government was dealt a blow regarding the latter when a federal court a Department of Energy report in August 2025 that sought to downplay the impacts of climate change. Depending on the outcome, an appeal might bring the challenge to the Supreme Court, which is currently in the Trump Administration’s bad books after the President’s tariff plan. 

A final resolution could take months or even years as it squirms through the due process. The outcome of the midterm elections, despite predicting a Democratic slide, is unlikely to deliver the kind of supermajority needed to reverse the repeal via the Congressional Review Act.

Environmental and market impacts

There are concerns among environmentalists and health experts that the repeal, if and when it is pushed out of the legal system, could have significant impacts on the environment and the wider US economy.

The environmental impacts of the repeal of the Endangerment Finding could see a bounce-back in US emissions of carbon dioxide, which have been on a since 2007, and other pollutants, such as toxic heavy metals produced in coal combustion, that can be deadly when inhaled.

But there are mitigating factors that might dampen an emissions boom. For one, there is the possibility of a state-level fightback. (mainly blue) States and the District of Columbia all have greenhouse gas reduction targets independent of the Clean Air Act, and some, like California, have their own industrial standards and cap-and-trade emissions schemes. 

It is also unclear if market forces will continue to follow the Endangerment Finding after it is repealed. The US automobile industry exported 1.6 million light vehicles in 2023. These same industries might be disadvantaged in export markets as environmental levy policies are put in place for dirtier products. Indeed, there is discussion within the EU that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which today applies only to imported materials, might be expanded to finished products like cars in 2028.

The repeal could negatively impact high-value American industries, redirecting capital and innovation in the US away from rapidly growing markets, like those for electric vehicles. In late 2025, Ford its program to develop its fully electric F-150, while in January, General Motors took a write-down on its EV investments. The result will be sacrificing ground to China in the ever-expanding for electric vehicles, and begs the question: Could industry innovation be endangered by the repeal of the Endangerment Finding and a return to 2009?

Business uncertainty and regulatory volatility

For some businesses, long-term investments in factories and less clean energy infrastructure might prove too costly. Board members will have one eye on the prospect of a switch back to the Democrats in the next election cycle, and might be dizzied by a tightening and loosening of the regulatory environment every half-decade.

In the carefully chosen of Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, addressing Fox Business in the build-up to last year’s tariff Liberation Day: “The more we can have certainty on the policy agenda as we move forward, the better that’s going to support capital investment”. 

Business leaders across the country are looking for a new normal, but the issue is that nothing about politics today is normal. The largest confounding factor is the Trump Administration’s flip-flopping, back-tracking and contradictory approach to government oversight and intrusion into citizens’ lives.

On the one hand, the repeal is the latest example of a federal strategy aimed at reducing departmental spending and powers, especially in departments that have not traditionally aligned with Make America Great Again (MAGA) objectives, begun and imperfected with the Department of Government Efficiency’s job cuts of over federal workers and contractors. 

On the other hand, the incumbent Presidency is only too happy to support branches of government with unprecedented and “” to carry out its goals, with put aside as funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in addition to levying sweeping global tariffs of on all countries.

For example, the drill-baby-drill and “beautiful clean coal” mantras have been one of the more consistent Trump 2.0 policies. Despite that, year-on-year coal consumption in the USA’s electricity mix is projected to in 2026, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.

In the short term, the upheaval of political life in the US today may well have a moderating impact on the industrial response to the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, even if and when it comes out the other side of the courts. 

After that, the real battle may well only take place after the next election. Whatever happens, the incoming president will have important and long-lasting decisions to make about the future of American industry and the health and safety of its people.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Trump’s Continued War on Climate Change: Repealing the Endangerment Finding appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US President Donald Trump, however, is not only pushing the historic turning point that Scholz put in motion in 2022 too far, but also sowing disruption in German domestic politics. In doing so, he is bringing the so-called “” back into the current geopolitical scene. This term is historically associated with European anxieties about �ұ�������Բ�’s strong tradition of militarism and nationalism.

The German question

After �ұ�������Բ�’s in October of 1990, fears emerged that the country’s central geographic position, industrial might and warmongering history could transform it into a potential threat to the rest of Europe. With the sudden strengthening of Germany, indeed, the delicate balance of power upon which the European had been built was turned upside down. A newly empowered Germany, it was believed, could always trigger back latent nationalistic instincts.

Not surprisingly, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher strongly such reunification, dreading that a too-powerful Germany could undermine European stability and endanger her country’s security.

To deal with these fears, �ұ�������Բ�’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Francois Mitterrand came up with the same answer: transforming the European Economic Community into a European . On this basis, the December 1991 of the European Union, approved in the Dutch city of Maastricht, came into being.

The reasons that had motivated both leaders in creating the European Union, however, were exactly the opposite. Kohl wanted to strengthen his country’s links with Europe to keep his fellow citizens’ nationalistic instincts in check, while Mitterrand wanted to strengthen Europe to keep Germany in check. 

Three decades after the emergence of the European Union, Scholz’s Zeitenwende did not raise fears among their fellow Europeans. With an aggressive Russia at the borders, the idea of a stronger military Germany was well received by them. If anything, European distress came not from a strong Berlin, but from a weak one. 

Trump 2.0’s actions, however, are turning things upside down by generating European anxieties about a Germany that could become militarily too strong and politically too nationalistic. In the words of historian and political scientist :

But left unchecked, German military dominance might eventually foster division within the continent, France remains uneasy about the fact that its neighbor is becoming a major military power … In the worst-case scenario, competition might return. France, Poland and other states could attempt to counterbalance Germany, which would divert attention away from Russia and leave Europe divided and vulnerable”. 

Trump’s three-lane avenue

But how is Trump turning things upside down? This takes shape through a three-lane avenue. The first lane propels NATO European members to invest up to of their GDP in defense. The second materializes by to abandon NATO, or, even without doing so, by threatening to disregard the alliance’s Article 5 — the cornerstone of collective security — thus sowing anxieties about America’s reliability. The third takes shape by legitimizing and seeking to �ұ�������Բ�’s ultra-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which is considered an extremist organization.

The first and second avenues have converged, forcing European NATO members to make much larger defense disbursements while seeking European strategic autonomy. However, this is not as easy as it sounds. No other European country can match Berlin’s military expenditure, which by 2029 would budget $189 billion annually. That is, three times more than in 2022. In total, Germany plans to expend more than $750 billion on defense over the next four years. If this is accomplished, Germany would again become a great before the end of the decade.

However, with smaller economies, larger public debt or tight social welfare commitments, the rest of Europe will not be able to follow suit. Having the largest economy in Europe translates into much larger absolute , although, as a percentage of GDP, it could equal what smaller economies allocate to defense. Moreover, countries with higher public debt or tighter social welfare obligations, like France or Italy, have less fiscal space to raise defense outlays. As a result, while Germany was able to its debt brake to invest heavily in defense, many others cannot do the same. All of the above create the conditions for Germany becoming Europe’s military . At least in conventional military terms.

As if this were not enough to create a tremendous power imbalance in Europe, Trump’s third avenue lane aims at putting an extreme right party, the AfD, at the helm of Germany. As Deutsche Welle’s Hans Pfeifer :

The party is also becoming increasingly openly extremist. AfD officials use Nazi slogans, pose with their hands on their hearts in front of Adolf Hitler’s bunker, wear clothing from the mail-order catalogue of �ұ�������Բ�’s largest neo-Nazi organization, and call themselves the “friendly face of National-Socialism.”

Not surprisingly, AfD was as an “extremist” organization by �ұ�������Բ�’s intelligence services.

A military Gulliver under an extremist government

Although important sectors of the population see with fear the rise of AfD, opinion polls show that it has already Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative bloc as the country’s strongest political force. Under those circumstances, the active support this party receives from the President of the US and top members of his administration plays an important role in legitimizing and normalizing it in the eyes of the German people. Specially relevant in this regard was the Trump administration’s of the validity of a 1,100-page report by the German intelligence agency, labeling AfD as “a proven right-wing extremist organization.”

The possibility of a European military Gulliver controlled by a “proven right-wing extremist” government is thus an important one, courtesy of Mr. Trump. If this materializes, a powerful bulwark against liberal Europe would emerge. The largest economy and military in Europe would be at odds with both the and , representing a major historical shift in post-1945 German foreign policy. If so, the “German Question” rather than Russian aggression would become Europe’s biggest problem.��

��Contrariwise, �ұ�������Բ�’s military strength will certainly not be a bulwark against an aggressive Russia. Indeed, AfD is as the most Russophile party in German politics, maintaining a friendly, mutually supportive relationship with the Kremlin.����������

After the first eight decades of continuous peace in Western Europe’s recorded history, Trump is actively sowing the seeds of upheaval.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Trump and German Rearmament: Sowing the Seeds of Upheaval in Europe appeared first on 51�Թ�.

He reaffirmed the US commitment to NATO’s core deterrence mission and to collective defense principles. Even though phrased in transactional language of burden sharing, defense spending targets and monetary contributions, the underlying architecture was not repudiated, which implies that Washington does not intend to abandon Europe’s security umbrella. Rubio framed the relationship less as a community of shared liberal values and more as a strategic partnership contingent on reciprocity. The subtext was clear: Europe must invest more in its own defense and industrial resilience. The tone was firm but not dismissive.

Competition with China naturally remains the organizing principle. Europe was encouraged to align more closely with US positions on export controls, supply chains and technological safeguards, reinforcing the idea that transatlantic relations will remain increasingly linked to broader systemic rivalry. In short, Rubio sketched a future that is pragmatic, security-anchored and conditional — but not isolationist.

While US President Donald Trump’s at times bellicose rhetoric over the past year has focused on America being “taken advantage of” ������-à-������ US defense guarantees, to reconsider NATO commitments if allies do not meet spending thresholds and an “” framing that sometimes blurred into skepticism about multilateralism, Rubio’s remarks were notably more disciplined and less incendiary. He did not dwell on threats of withdrawal. He avoided language implying that alliance commitments are optional. Instead, he presented burden-sharing as a mutual-strengthening mechanism, not a precondition for protection.

That tonal shift matters. It reframes the debate from punitive leverage (“pay up or else”) to negotiated recalibration (“we need a stronger European pillar within NATO”). The substance — Europe must spend more — remains consistent, but the delivery was different: steadier, less theatrical, more institutional and in a sense, more believable.

Recalibration, not retrenchment

A year ago, Vice President JD Vance was more of long-term US commitments abroad, especially regarding Ukraine and broader European security. His framing leaned toward retrenchment and domestic prioritization, suggesting that Europe should assume primary responsibility for its own neighborhood and that US involvement should be sharply limited.

Rubio’s speech, by contrast, did not signal retrenchment. It implied recalibration, not retreat. While Vance emphasized constraint and the limits of American obligation, Rubio emphasized reform and restructuring within an ongoing alliance. The difference is subtle but significant: Vance’s approach reads as strategic narrowing; Rubio’s reads as conditional stewardship.

For Europeans parsing nuance, that distinction is consequential. It suggests internal variation within the Republican foreign policy ecosystem — between nationalist retrenchment and conservative internationalism. They are right to derive some comfort — but not complacency. NATO was not repudiated; US engagement was affirmed, not disavowed; the language of alliance endured; and there was genuine reason for hope.

But that comfort should be cautious because, of course, the ultimate direction of policy rests with the president. The speech did not restore a values-first framing; rather, it embedded the alliance within metrics and expectations. Domestic politics will continue to drive policy volatility and congressional funding debates, and electoral pressures and populist currents will remain structural variables. Europeans should therefore view the speech as evidence that a Trump administration may not seek a dramatic rupture — but they should not assume insulation from pressure or conditionality.

From tone to policy: the implementation test

If the Trump administration were to operationalize Rubio’s tone, five concrete steps would need to be taken. The first step would be to ensure budget clarity by sustaining or increasing funding for European Deterrence Initiative programs and NATO commitments to signal seriousness. The second step is institutional engagement, which requires the US to participate in high-level NATO summits, engage in routine consultations with EU institutions, issue coordinated communiqués and pursue meaningful diplomacy. Third is maintaining coherence in Ukraine policy by avoiding abrupt funding interruptions or unilateral concessions. Fourth is establishing structured US–EU dialogues on export controls and technology standards to demonstrate that alignment with China is more than rhetorical. Finally, the administration would need to eliminate sudden, public threats to withdraw from alliance obligations to ensure predictability.

Without these actions, Munich will be remembered as atmospherics rather than policy.

A post-romantic alliance

So, Rubio’s speech reflects a broader reality: The US is unlikely to abandon Europe, but it is equally unlikely to return to a sentimental conception of the transatlantic bond. The alliance is entering a post-romantic phase. It will be measured in capabilities, spending levels, supply-chain resilience and strategic alignment.

Europeans should neither panic nor relax. Instead, they should accelerate defense integration, expand industrial capacity and prepare for a more autonomous strategic role. Ironically, doing so would both hedge against US unpredictability and strengthen the alliance Rubio appeared to defend.

If the Trump administration translates Rubio’s rhetoric into institutional continuity and disciplined execution, transatlantic relations may stabilize at a new equilibrium — leaner, tougher, less rhetorical, but still intact. If not, Munich will join a long list of speeches that reassured allies briefly while structural rupture continued. The real test is what is funded, signed and sustained in Washington.

[Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions and the author of numerous books on international relations.]

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Europe’s Leaders Should Derive Reserved Comfort From Rubio’s Munich Speech appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The idea of “” — the lingering seasonal bias that survives even after statistical adjustments — has become a powerful lens through which to interpret recent inflation data.��Research from Federal Reserve economists that residual seasonality may help explain why January inflation often appears elevated — though interpretations of what this means for policy remain open to debate.

Yet the most recent data introduce a subtle twist.�� came in at roughly 2.4% (2.39%), noticeably cooler than the elevated early-year averages seen during 2023–2025. Rather than contradicting the idea of residual seasonality, this softer reading complicates it. If previous January spikes reflected a mixture of pricing resets, tariff effects and statistical noise, the latest number suggests that the seasonal “heat” is not guaranteed to repeat. The illusion, it seems, fades when underlying inflation momentum weakens enough.

A seasonal curve and a shift in momentum

Consider the longer historical pattern. From 2006 to 2025, average monthly inflation has been remarkably stable, hovering around the mid-2% range: roughly 2.58% in January, 2.57% in March and 2.47% in October. The seasonal curve is gentle, almost flat — a quiet baseline that rarely attracts attention. Yet when we isolate the more recent period from 2023 to 2025, the curve shifts upward. January jumps to 4.13%, February to 3.97% and March to 3.59%. By late summer and autumn, the numbers cool toward the low-3% range, with October at 2.91% and November near 2.85%.

The image of a tide offers a useful way to think about monetary policy, because central banks rarely react to every passing wave. Policymakers do not chase each crest of incoming data; instead, they try to read the direction of the current beneath the surface. Between 2023 and 2025, the Federal Reserve’s actions appeared less tied to isolated monthly fluctuations and more aligned with the broader trajectory of disinflation. Rate hikes were concentrated earlier in the year in 2025 — with single increases in February, March, May and July — at a time when inflation remained elevated relative to its longer-term trend.

As the year progressed and price pressures gradually eased, the policy stance shifted. Cuts emerged later, with two reductions in September and December and additional moves in October and November, coinciding with inflation readings that had moved closer to historical norms.

Taken together, this sequence suggests that policymakers were responding to underlying momentum rather than short-term noise. If a strong January inflation print resembles a dramatic opening note in a symphony, the Federal Reserve appears more concerned with the evolving melody than with the volume of any single instrument.

The softer inflation reading in January 2026 reinforces this interpretation. Rather than reigniting fears of renewed tightening, the cooler data point implies that patience during the disinflation process may have allowed seasonal distortions to dissipate naturally, enabling policymakers to maintain a steadier course as the economic tide gradually turned.

Tariffs, corporate strategy and the fading distortion

The debate over tariffs another layer to the narrative. Some observers argue that higher import duties have encouraged companies to push up prices at the start of the year. But tariffs and seasonal pricing habits often move together, making it difficult to isolate cause and effect. Businesses frequently reset prices in January — adjusting service fees, subscription plans or post-holiday discounts — regardless of trade policy. In that sense, tariffs may act less like the engine of inflation and more like a that amplifies a seasonal pattern already in motion. The fact that January 2026 inflation cooled despite these dynamics suggests that structural demand conditions may now matter more than seasonal timing.

Corporate behavior hints at this complexity. As consumers became more cautious after years of rising prices, companies began experimenting with affordability strategies: smaller packaging, promotional discounts or diversified price tiers. These shifts suggest that demand conditions are evolving alongside cost pressures. When shoppers hesitate, businesses may find it harder to sustain aggressive price increases — a dynamic consistent with the recent return to lower inflation levels.

, then, is less a technical curiosity than a reminder of how economic data can mislead. Imagine looking at the economy through a window with faint vertical lines etched into the glass. You can still see the landscape beyond, but certain shapes appear distorted depending on the angle of light. January inflation may be one of those distortions — but the cooler 2026 reading shows that the distortion itself can fade when underlying conditions change.

The long horizon beyond the January illusion

What makes the recent period particularly revealing is how policy actions align with the seasonal curve. The early-year months that saw rate hikes also carried inflation averages well above the historical baseline, while the months with cuts coincided with cooling readings. This alignment suggests that policymakers were responding to persistent trends rather than reacting reflexively to single data releases. The softer start to 2026 further supports this interpretation: rather than chasing a seasonal spike, policy appears to be anchored to the broader inflation trajectory.

For readers following the story, the temptation is to treat each inflation report like a weather alert. A hotter-than-expected January feels like a thunderclap, a signal that the storm has returned. But the broader statistics tell a quieter story: a gradual shift from elevated inflation toward something closer to normal. And when January itself cools — as it did in 2026 — it reminds us that even familiar seasonal narratives can lose their grip when the economic climate changes.

In many ways, inflation behaves like a marathon runner at the start of a race. The opening pace may look fast, even frantic, but the real story emerges only over distance. Policymakers appear to recognize this dynamic, adjusting interest rates only when the runner’s rhythm changes consistently rather than when a single split time surprises observers.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson hidden inside the January illusion. Like a mirage on a desert road, a sudden burst of heat can capture attention and distort perception. But step back far enough — and include the cooler reading of January 2026 — and the landscape resolves into something steadier: a long horizon where seasons change slowly, tides rise and fall predictably, and the economy moves forward not in sudden jolts but in measured, deliberate rhythms.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Warm Illusion of Winter Prices — Signal or Mirage? appeared first on 51�Թ�.