LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Political cartoonist Ted Rall and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss the US/Israeli War Against Iran:

• Iran’s overriding goal is regime survival amid overwhelming military superiority from the United States and Israel. Rather than seeking outright victory, Tehran aims to impose high costs on President Trump—through American casualties, surging global energy prices, inflation, and economic disruption—to pressure him into declaring victory and withdrawing. Iran pursues asymmetric endurance by expanding the battlefield regionally: targeting oil/gas infrastructure in Gulf neighbors, attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz (disrupting ~20% of world oil/gas flows), limiting air traffic, and depleting expensive missile interceptors with cheap drones.

• If war is good for business, what’s going on? The New York Times reported that Iranian operatives have sued for peace to the CIA. U.S. stock index futures edged higher after a major sell-off, but $75/barrel oil fuels worries about global inflation. Financial expert Aquiles Larrea joins us to discuss the economic impact of the war.

•  The son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mojtaba Khamenei, is the front-runner to rule Iran.

Also:

• Texas Two-Time? Aggressive Democrat Jasmine Crockett is claiming election cheating—credibly—as her huge 56-44 polling lead evaporated overnight into a 53-46 loss to moderate James Talarico. Why? The Supreme Court against her campaign’s request to give voters from Dallas County an extension to sort out confusion about Republican-led changes to polling locations. The GOP side heads to a runoff.

MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.live

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JohnKiriakou

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu

APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall/id1825379504

The post Iran’s Plan: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast | DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

As people of faith, a Muslim Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, a Protestant Pastor, and a Catholic Archbishop, we come from different traditions, yet we arrive at the same moral truth: The power to take a life must be exercised with profound humility, restraint, and reverence for human dignity. When irreversible harm is at stake, mercy is not weakness; it is moral strength. Across our faith traditions, we are taught that justice is not simply punishment. Justice divorced from mercy ceases to be just at all.

Our faiths teach that judgment ultimately belongs to God. Our responsibility is to protect life whenever possible, to act with compassion toward victims, and to refrain from violence when it is no longer necessary to protect society. Compassion for those who grieve is essential, as is humility about the limits of human judgment. God is God, and we are not.

Doug Battle’s life was taken, and that loss is permanent and devastating. We hold his family and loved ones in prayer, and we do not minimize their grief or the harm caused. Faith does not ask us to forget the victim, nor does it excuse the wrongdoing that led to this tragedy. Rather, it calls us to confront suffering truthfully to honor the life that was lost while resisting the belief that another death can restore what has been taken.

When those most deeply affected by violence, particularly a victim’s own family, call for mercy, faith asks us to listen with care. In this case, the victim’s daughter has publicly urged the governor to choose clemency, and 6 of the 8 original jurors, who once bore the responsibility of this decision, now support mercy in the form of clemency for Sonny Burton. Extreme punishment does not heal loss. It compounds it.

A system that knows when not to kill demonstrates wisdom, not weakness.

While Sonny Burton bears responsibility for his actions, faith traditions consistently teach that punishment must be proportionate to culpability. Capital punishment has long been understood, even by its supporters, as reserved for the most extreme acts of intent and responsibility.

Burton’s case brings this teaching into sharp focus. He did not pull the trigger that took a life, yet he faces execution while the state agreed to resentence the triggerman to life without parole and he later died in prison. In moments like this, faith calls us to examine not only what the law permits, but what conscience requires.

Clemency in such circumstances is not a failure of justice. It is a humane expression of justice, one that recognizes accountability while refusing to impose irreversible punishment where moral certainty is absent. Exercising restraint in such moments can strengthen, rather than weaken, public trust. A system that knows when not to kill demonstrates wisdom, not weakness.

In a situation such as this, where a non-shooter still faces death while the State resentenced the shooter to life without parole, prudence calls for restraint. This is not about being “soft on crime.” It is about being faithful to a vision of justice that is humane, measured, and worthy of public trust.

As faith leaders, we walk alongside families in their pain, and we know this truth intimately: More death does not heal trauma. It only deepens it. As people of faith, we believe this moment calls for mercy.

Governor Ivey, as people of faith, we respectfully ask you to choose humility over finality and mercy over irreversible harm. Clemency for Sonny Burton would not deny justice; it would affirm the sacred value of life.

I have spent my career studying the consequences of US military action. I teach about international conflict and diplomacy. I have lived in communities still scarred by the legacy of US nuclear testing. I do not romanticize war or underestimate how quickly “major combat operations” can become a global catastrophe.

Early Saturday, President Donald Trump ordered US military strikes against Iran in coordination with Israel. He warned that Americans could face “casualties that often happen in war” as if the human cost of war were an unavoidable fact of life rather than a choice made by him.

We have seen a version of this story before.

In 2002, Congress made a historic mistake by authorizing President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. That decision was rooted in deception, fear, and a desire for vengeance. That war cost the lives of thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It also shattered trust in government and left a legacy of instability that the entire world is still living with.

Only two months into the new year, Trump has already invaded or attacked two countries. As Americans, we must treat this moment with the gravity and urgency it demands.

Constraining a president’s ability to launch needless, open-ended war is one of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities. Congress failed to meet that responsibility in 2002. It must not fail now.

There is a dangerous myth in American politics that time will solve what leaders refuse to confront. That if we just “wait and see,” crises will cool and accountability will take care of itself. But as Martin Luther King Jr. warned, time is neutral. If Congress stays silent, time does not become an ally of peace; it becomes an ally of escalation, destruction, and death.

Today, the stakes are higher than they were in 2002. The international diplomatic infrastructure that once constrained conflict has been eroded by the Trump administration. We no longer have the nuclear arms agreements we did a decade, or even a month, ago. And our military is integrating and using artificial intelligence for military operations faster than our lawmakers’ ability to make laws and provide oversight.

We are entering a period where the speed of decision-making is accelerating, while the guardrails that prevent catastrophic miscalculation are weakening. This combination should terrify every American.

Only two months into the new year, Trump has already invaded or attacked two countries. As Americans, we must treat this moment with the gravity and urgency it demands.

The greatest responsibility of our federal government is to protect the welfare of the people who call this country home. As a member of Congress, I’ll fight to make sure that no president—Democrat or Republican—can drag the United States into needless wars based on lies or their own capricious arrogance, and I will never relent in my commitment to securing our country and the world from the threats posed by the weaponization of emerging technologies and the continued risk of nuclear war.

The timing of Trump’s attack on Iran poses unprecedented risks to global security. Friday night, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth canceled a Defense Department contract with the AI company Anthropic over its refusal to authorize the use of their technology to spy on Americans and direct lethal attacks. Anthropic came under scrutiny earlier this year after reports that its AI chatbot, Claude, was used during Trump’s reckless and unconstitutional invasion of Venezuela.

This week, one of the sticking points in the negotiations was whether AI could be used to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Anthropic refused, and Hegseth canceled the contract. Within hours, Anthropic’s rival, OpenAI reached a deal with the Pentagon. It’s a profitable deal for OpenAI and its shareholders, and a disturbing development for anyone who cares about peace and the future of humanity.

Congress must immediately pass legislation limiting Trump’s ability to take further military action against Iran. That is just the beginning of the work that must be accomplished with all deliberate speed. Congress must also pass legislation limiting national security agencies from using AI technology to launch lethal strikes, and prohibit the Pentagon from any use of AI in its nuclear weapons program.

Now is the time to act.

This op-ed first appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Over a year into President Donald Trump’s second lawless, unconstitutional administration, Congress is only “considering” reasserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government. They have mounted no meaningful response to repeated usurpation of war powers and purse, ignoring continued obstructions of justice and violations of civil liberties. Congress has been so desperate to avoid imposing accountability on this administration that the mere idea of impeachment sent them into a “frenzied rage” throughout 2025.

This inaction bears rotten fruit again and again. The president’s unilateral declaration of war on Iran in February of 2026 can be traced directly to congressional inaction after Trump’s unilateral strikes on Iran in May of 2025. At that time, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) forced a vote on H.Res 537, impeaching Donald J. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress voted to table the resolution. By refusing to impose consequences eight months ago, Congress has effectively green-lit this war, including the murder of more than 50 schoolgirls.

American voters across the nation and in swing districts have supported impeachment for nearly a year. Today mainstream grassroots groups like 50501 have joined the call for Congress to impeach Trump. Imagine if Congress was leading this effort instead of fighting it. What could we accomplish if we had our nominal leaders on our own side, rather than fighting against us at every step?

Today, individual representatives say they support impeachment, but they throw up road blocks: insisting it is a process (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)), that there should be an inquiry first (Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI)), that they need to have leadership’s buy-in (Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY)), or that they must wait for the midterms (Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)). These are all lies.

The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.

Impeachment is a privileged resolution, and that means any member can introduce articles of impeachment at any time through Rule IX and demand that the House address it within 48 hours. Congress is missing the will to act.

The first impeachment articles of Trump’s second term were filed in April of 2025 by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), after Citizens’ Impeachment (then Operation Anti-King) coordinated a grassroots campaign to push for impeachment. H.Res 353 incorporated Citizens’ Impeachment’s article on tyranny and was filed under Rule IX to force a vote. The backlash—from Democratic leadership and from his own party—was so intense that Thanedar withdrew the articles from the floor five minutes before the vote. The resolution has been with the Judiciary Committee, untouched, for the last 10 months.

Where would we be if the opposition party had followed through on that vote in April? What if DOGE; illegal firings of federal workers; and wildly destabilizing, illegal tariffs had been enough for Congress to begin asserting their power?

Rep. Thanedar has since learned to use the drafting of impeachment articles as a political tool instead of the desperately needed accountability that the nation requires. In December of 2025, Thanedar’s office asked Citizens’ Impeachment to endorse H.Res 935 impeaching Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for the murder of two shipwrecked survivors. Citizens’ Impeachment did so, with the caveat that simply drafting articles was not enough—the articles needed to be filed under Rule IX and brought to a vote as soon as possible. Rhetoric was escalating, military assets were being moved into position, and it was clear that military action was imminent.

Had Rep. Thanedar forced a vote then, when Hegseth’s murder of shipwrecked survivors was in the news and Congress had just reminded military members that they must refuse illegal orders, he would have brought consequences to bear on one of the least popular members of Trump’s cabinet, and possibly forestalled the Venezuela strikes. Instead, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth once again usurped congressional war powers without consequence. H.Res. 935 remains with the Judiciary Committee, irrelevant and ignored.

Similarly, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) spent months requesting an impeachment inquiry into Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s behavior before Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) decided to just write up the articles and make it happen. A full 187 members of Congress have now endorsed H.Res 996, an impeachment resolution for Noem. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) even claimed he would pursue impeachment if Noem wasn’t fired “immediately.” Without a vote though, even those actions are empty. Jeffries made that promise one month ago. Noem is still in office, H. Res 996 remains in committee, and Noem’s federal paramilitary forces continue their occupation of American cities unabated.

Articles of impeachment record the lawlessness of this administration, but they aren’t magical. The real power that every member of the House has is to force votes on those articles, putting their colleagues on record for their endorsement of the Trump administration’s repeated constitutional violations. And with the exception of Rep. Green, they absolutely refuse to use it.

In perhaps the most baffling abdication of both power and good sense, only two members of Congress have even considered impeachment for the Department of Justice's inept and corrupt handling of the Epstein Files. No articles have been written or filed though, despite the nearly unanimous vote to release the Epstein Files; the enormous, bipartisan outrage of the public at the Epstein Class; the blatant cover-up and obstruction of justice at the hands of Attorney General Pam Bondi; and pre-written articles of impeachment sent directly to Congress by thousands of constituents. Congress cannot seem to connect the dots to realize that not only would impeachment be good for the country, it would be overwhelmingly popular, even as midterms loom on the horizon.

The American people like cowards even less than they like fascists. As a result, Democrats today are less popular than Donald Trump.

What’s new here is that Congress already knows it can and should do more. As early as July 2025, one anonymous representative admitted it to NBC, saying of their constituents: “They aren’t buying that just because we are in the minority, we can’t do anything. The truth is we can. And we should.”

With the midterms coming up, voters have a chance to do something about this toxic dynamic. There are more than 100 pro-impeachment candidates on the ballot this election cycle, including prominent contenders like NJ-11 Analilia Mejia, former national political director for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign and a member of former sPresident Joe Biden’s Department of Labor

The 435 members of the House are the only people with the power to begin impeachment proceedings. The 100 members of the Senate are the only people who can convict and remove Trump and his enablers from power. For a year, these powerful people have refused to take action. They have chosen to delay, and wait, and defer, allowing ever more harm to come to America and its people. In 2026 we should replace them all—they do not have the courage to meet this desperate moment for the country.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sports neo-Nazi tattoos yet holds a top job in the cabinet. ICE officers routinely murder, rape, and assault people they kidnap, with impunity. Prisoners who commit the same crimes must be wondering whether they can get jobs working for the government.

The post Criminal Thugs Were Ahead of Their Time appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

It’s common sense, Republicans say. You have to show ID to buy a beer, board a plane, or land a job as a snow shoveler. Why not require proof of identity from those who seek to exercise our most sacred civic right, casting a vote?

According to the polls, the GOP has won the argument. Most Americans favor a Voter ID law.

What Republicans are currently pressing for, the SAVE Act, however, is not a Voter ID law, a requirement that registered voters prove who they are when they go to the polls. SAVE is a Prove You’re a Citizen law.

Why is the GOP pushing SAVE? Republican voters will be hit hardest. Clearly, neither President Trump nor the Republican Party knows what’s good for them.

A Voter ID law—something most states, especially red ones currently have—passes the common-sense test for most Americans because it requires a form of identity nine out of ten people have, or can obtain fairly easily, like a driver’s license or non-driver’s state identification card. Some states even take non-photo IDs. Voter ID laws have been promoted by Republicans primarily because they limit or eliminate mail-in voting, which they wrongly assume benefits Democrats.

The SAVE Act goes much further than Voter ID. In an attempt to improve Republican candidates’ chances under the guise of protecting voting integrity, it tries to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

Ironically, it will have the opposite effect.

Voter ID attempts to verify who you are. SAVE requires you to show proof of citizenship in the form of a passport or a birth certificate with your current name on it. (Non-citizens can get a driver’s license.) Far more Democrats have proof of citizenship than Republicans.

Fewer than half of U.S. citizens hold a passport. For these elites, the SAVE Act would be a breeze. 64% of Americans with a household income above $100,000 have a passport, while only 21% of those earning under $50,000 do. Upper-middle-class voters lean Democratic; poor ones lean Republican.

Roughly half of Trump 2024 voters have passports, compared to two-thirds of Harris voters.  The 13 states with the lowest passport rates all voted Republican in 2024. Congressional districts with low passport ownership are overwhelmingly GOP-held, rural and/or southern. Rural voters (a GOP stronghold) face longer drives to election offices for in-person verification. Older voters, military personnel, tribal citizens, and working-class Americans—Republican-leaning demographic groups—are less likely to have the required documents.

A substantial number of voters don’t have a physical copy of their birth certificate. Research by the Brennan Center “indicates that more than 9% of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available. There are myriad reasons for this—the documents might be in the home of another family member or in a safety deposit box. And at least 3.8 million don’t have these documents at all, often because they were lost, destroyed, or stolen.”

Poor voters—who vote Republican—live more disorganized, mobile lives. They’re less likely to know where their birth certificate is, how to obtain a new one, or be motivated to find out.

SAVE would effectively repeal women’s suffrage. “84 percent of women who marry change their surname, meaning as many as 69 million American women do not have a birth certificate with their legal name on it and thereby could not use their birth certificate to prove citizenship,” notes the Center for American Progress. “The SAVE Act makes no mention of being able to show a marriage certificate or change-of-name documentation.”

Women who change their names—twice as likely to be Republican—would have to present themselves at their county board of elections office, which is only open during business hours, when most people work.

There, local election workers—overwhelmed by a sudden surge of applicants—would have to sort through each individual’s marriage and divorce decrees and other miscellany to determine whether Mrs. Jane Doe, née Jane Smith, is eligible to vote. Given that SAVE mandates a fine and prison time for an election official who wrongly allows someone to vote, even someone who is a citizen but without the right documents, the path of least resistance for a beleaguered, poorly-paid local election clerk would be to reject rather than approve name-change voters, including trans people.

After decades of easing voting with same-day registration, automatic registration with driver’s license renewals, early and mail-in voting, SAVE would make voting much harder. Many people will choose not to vote rather than jump through so many bureaucratic hoops for the right to choose between a center-left and center-right party, neither of which delivers for them. Here is the purpose of SAVE—to radically reduce the number of voters.

Most of whom, hilariously, are Republican.

It’s bizarre that the Right is fighting for SAVE. Democratic worries about discouraging working-class voters are sweet but run counter to their interests. As the 2024 election proved, poor and lower-middle-class voters are no longer theirs to lose. If Democrats were smart, they’d be the party pushing the SAVE Act—or getting out of its way.

The GOP wants SAVE because they haven’t internalized the class reversal in the American electorate. Republicans have become the party of the working poor (even if they don’t care about them) while Democrats are now the party of coastal elites (though they pretend to champion Joe and Jane Sixpack).

If passed, and signed into law, the SAVE Act is likely to backfire for its Republican sponsors in the same way that Trump’s advice to MAGA followers not to use write-in ballots contributed to his loss in 2020.

(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Never Mind the Democrats. Here’s What’s Left.” Subscribe: tedrall.Substack.com. He is co-host of the podcast “DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou.”)

The post Voter ID: Political Suicide for Republicans appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

We, the Cabinet of the Progressive International, condemn in the strongest possible terms the US-Israel military assault on Iran—a devastating escalation that has already killed scores of civilians and propelled the world towards war.

The assault once again exposes the true character of US diplomacy. Indirect talks between Tehran and Washington—mediated by Oman—were little more than a screen behind which the Trump administration coordinated an agenda of “major combat operations” under the banner of ‘Operation Epic Fury.’

Trump has been clear: This is a regime change offensive—devoid of any legal justification let alone authorization. Trump has framed these strikes as “pre-emptive,” necessary to eliminate “imminent threats,” and to defend national security. Yet Iran has made no immediate threats to the US. On the contrary, it is a longstanding ambition of the US and Israel to wage war on Iran—the lethal consequences of which will be borne by its people.

These strikes did not begin today. They are an extension of a longer project to redraw the map of West Asia by force. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, Yemen to Iran, each escalation is a stepping stone in a broader project to suffocate regional sovereignty in the service of US and Israeli interests. Each has left behind shattered states, displaced populations, and the wreckage of societies that dared to assert independence.

Imperialist war does not liberate peoples—it subjugates them. The evidence is found in the ruins of Gaza, Baghdad, and Tripoli, where bombs leveled cities and “democracy promotion” left ashes in its wake. Marco Rubio made it clear in Munich: the US does not wage war for freedom, but for recolonization—whether in West Asia, or across the Western Hemisphere.

We refuse to remain passive observers of this project to recolonize the planet. From the Cabinet of the Progressive International, we commit to working with members and allies across the world—in their factories and ports, parliaments and courts—to break the war machine that propels our species toward extinction.

Last week, Trump’s Labor Department proposed a rule aimed at making it easier for businesses to call workers “independent contractors” instead of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It’s the latest round in a regulatory back-and-forth. The legal details get dense fast. But the real-world implications are straightforward: millions of workers are at risk of losing foundational minimum wage and overtime protections, exacerbating their financial precarity.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides employees with minimum wage and overtime protections. When Congress passed the FLSA, it sought to cover the broadest concept of employees possible, including those who were performing piece rate garment work out of their kitchens - something that today might look like gig work.

Since the 1940s, courts across the country and in vastly different employment contexts have consistently held that someone is an employee if they are economically dependent on the employer for work. Despite this broad protection in the law, too many employers today misclassify workers as independent contractors—including dishwashers at restaurants, auto mechanic technicians, and even nurses—in order to sidestep legal obligations and lower labor costs. These misclassified workers don’t just lose out on minimum wage and overtime protections. They are often misclassified under other employment laws too, leaving them saddled with higher payroll tax burdens, all while not having the protections of Unemployment Insurance if they are let go, Workers’ Compensation if they are injured on the job, or other typical benefits associated with employment.

Trump’s latest proposed rule would give employers cover to misclassify more workers as independent contractors. Specifically, it tosses aside a decades-long test that the Wage and Hour Division uses when determining a worker’s economic dependence, and instead advances a slimmed down version of the test that will enable businesses to more easily skirt their responsibilities under the FLSA. The Department believes that the long-standing test as articulated in the Biden 2024 Final Rule leads to “unnecessary classification of….workers as employees” and makes the independent contractor classification “more difficult.”

In short, the Department thinks the current test is too complicated, and employers are erring too often on the side of classifying workers as employees. The Department further claims that a slimmed-down test of classification would be a better fit for the modern economy. But at a time when businesses’ relationships with workers is getting more complicated, the test for determining classification shouldn’t be narrowed; it should remain probative. At a moment when we need a high-powered microscope to understand the complex layers of business models and management practices, the Department of Labor is seemingly saying a simple magnifying glass will do just fine. This approach will only exacerbate trends already underway in industries and occupations that have traditionally provided stable, middle-class jobs. Take, for example, nursing.

You might assume that someone working as a nurse in a hospital or nursing home is surely an employee of those entities. Not so anymore. Already, hospitals are relying on staffing agencies to fill nursing positions, and these agencies, in some cases, are misclassifying nurses as independent contractors. Research from the Roosevelt Institute has also highlighted how new app-based companies are using Uber-like platforms to hire, place, and manage nurses, all while claiming they are independent contractors. On these platforms, workers must compete for shifts and bid on pay, sometimes not knowing until the morning of whether they got a shift. These gig platforms have created a race to the bottom in wages and job quality, leaving some nurses without their own health insurance and relying on second jobs to make ends meet. Under Trump’s proposed rule, it will be far harder for workers under these models of management to realize their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. And it will only encourage other businesses to follow suit.

To be sure, there are many legitimate independent contractors who are in business for themselves. These small businesses are important parts of our economy. But a dishwasher in the back of a restaurant isn’t in business for herself. An auto technician who shows up to the same shop day in and day out likely isn’t in business for himself. And surely a nurse caring for patients in a hospital isn’t in business for themselves.

The Trump Administration pulled out a sledgehammer on a cornerstone of the New Deal. Trump’s DOL and others who are proponents of making it easier to classify workers as independent contractors often claim this provides workers with greater flexibility in their life. But flexibility doesn’t mean better outcomes. Weakening the FLSA doesn’t result in a better life for more workers.

In fact, recent research on job quality experienced by workers shows stark differences in outcomes between independent contractors and employees across some key metrics. Independent contractors, for example, are more likely to report receiving less than 24 hours notice of when they need to work. At the same time, they are no more likely than W-2 employees to say they have input on when they can take a few hours off for personal reasons. Yet, independent contractors remain more likely to report wanting to work more hours and receive more money.

Last week’s proposed rule sadly isn’t a surprise but it is a stark reminder of how little this Administration cares about using the tools of government to enforce laws and advance policies that enable workers to secure a better life.

For what seems like the 50th time in my long life, the US, with Israel, has attacked another nation, as per usual without an honest debate in Congress and so far with the reported deaths of both Iran’s leader and 80 or so of its schoolgirls. I’m not going to pretend that I understand the workings of President Donald Trump’s brain well enough to gauge the casus belli, but I will note—because again I’ve been around a while—that Iran has the world’s second-largest reserves of natural gas and the third-biggest pool of oil (trailing only Saudi Arabia and, um, Venezuela).

As oil executives helpfully explained to Politico last month, they are generously prepared to be a “stabilizing force” in Iran should the regime fall—indeed, they’d rather do it there than in Venezuela because, as executives explained, “Iran’s oil industry, despite being ravaged by years of US sanctions, is still considered to be structurally sound, unlike that of Venezuela’s”:

Bob McNally, a former national security and energy adviser to former President George W. Bush who now leads the energy and geopolitics consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, said the prospects for growing Iran’s oil production are “completely different” from Venezuela’s.

“You can imagine our industry going back there—we would get a lot more oil, a lot sooner than we will out of Venezuela,” McNally said. “That’s more conventional oil right near infrastructure, and gas as well.”

In the meantime, our attack almost guarantees that the price of oil will jump, also good news for the industry that backed the president’s re-election so fulsomely. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported:

Iran and its neighbors on the Persian Gulf are some of the largest oil and gas producers in the world and the country has long threatened to disrupt oil exports as an act of self-defense or retaliation from attack.

That may be already happening. According to data from Bloomberg, some oil tankers are pausing or turning around outside the vital Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, deep channel between Iran and Oman that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and thus to global markets in and bordering the Indian Ocean.

But this kind of analysis is almost too easy, because so much of the geopolitics of the last century has been about the control and the flow of oil.

What’s interesting is the lessons others are taking from it.

Let’s look for a moment at Cuba, which seems like it might well be next on the Trump hit list. The president said Friday that he was looking for a “friendly takeover” of the island nation, and it’s clear that the tool he’s using is energy: After cutting off Venezuelan supplies, he’s also pressured Mexico to stop sending crude to Havana. As a result, he explained, “They have no money. They have no anything right now.”

Which is largely true—things in Havana have grown desperate in the last few weeks as Washington has tightened the screws they’ve been turning for decades. As the Spanish newspaper El Pais put it in a story, the entire nation is on “the verge of darkness” as energy supplies dwindle. It quotes a young anthropologist, José Maria:

He says the blackouts don’t affect him as much as others: His area is “privileged,” close to the water pump that supplies the municipality. He doesn’t have a generator, but he does have a rechargeable fan and a battery for his phone. From his apartment, on some days, he can see entire neighborhoods plunged into darkness.

As it happens, I went to Cuba to do some reporting the last time the country was in such a fix, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and with it Havana’s economic lifeline. In those days the country’s biggest problem was food, and it survived in part with a fairly remarkable turn toward urban agriculture. I was endlessly impressed with the Cubans I met who were learning how to grow the food their neighbors needed, even as I was depressed by the police state they were inhabiting.

Now the overwhelming problem is energy, and it’s here that something else quite profound has been happening: an almost unbelievable surge in the production of solar power. As The Economist reported on Thursday:

Mr Trump is obsessed with oil, but Cuba has been building out an alternative source of energy supply at record pace: solar panels imported from China. According to Chinese export data compiled by Ember, a think tank, in the 12 months to April 2025 Cuba’s imports of Chinese solar panels grew by a factor of 34, faster than anywhere else in the world. The island has gone from having almost no solar power a few years ago to levels which help it cope with Mr Trump’s embargo.

The regime’s energy policy is mostly responsible for the boom. In March 2024 the government announced a plan to build two gigawatts of solar power plants by 2028. It depends heavily on China for funding and construction, as well as for the solar panels themselves. On February 11 the government claimed that its new solar plants generated almost a gigawatt of power during the lunchtime peak, enough in that moment to meet the electricity needs of a third of the country.

With their help, life of a sort stumbles on. Here’s a Reuters report from last week:

“Given the frequent outages, which pretty much stop you from doing anything, a friend offered to help me invest in panels and set everything up,” Havana resident Roberto Sarriga told Reuters.

Sarriga said that with the help of solar panels he could have internet, charge his phone so people can locate him, and power a TV to keep his elderly mother entertained watching her favorite soap operas.

Most people can’t afford their own panels, of course—unless they have relatives abroad who can send them dollars. But private businesses often can, and on Thursday the government offered new tax breaks for businesses that undertake new renewable energy projects. Perhaps in response, the Trump administration said on Friday that it would allow small oil sales to private businesses.

“The strategy here is to show the Cubans and the world that the only lifeline that Cuba has left is the United States,” said Ricardo Herrero, executive director of the Cuba Study Group, a nonpartisan policy and advocacy group in Washington. “That doesn’t mean choke them off. That means leave it clear that they have become a de facto dependency of the United States.’’

But it’s not the only lifeline. China has solar panels to sell, for cheap, and once they’re up your lifeline is the sun. And unlike the oil terminals we apparently bombed at Iran’s Kharg Island complex Saturday morning, there’s really no good way to strike at solar energy, because it’s inherently decentralized. Look at that picture at the top of this essay, of a small farmer washing off his solar panels; that’s a person set up to survive what the world has to throw at him.

That’s clearly the story from Ukraine, which has weathered Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assault on its energy infrastructure by building a new, harder-to-attack infrastructure. As Paul Hockenos reports:

Wind and solar arrays with independent transmission lines are scattered over the landscape, which makes them harder to hit and easier to repair. “A coal power station [is] a large single target that a single missile could take out,” says Jeff Oatham of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest energy company and its largest private energy investor. “You would need around 40 missiles to do the equivalent amount of capacity damage at a wind farm.”

Solar, too, makes an unattractive target. “Attacking decentralized solar power installations is not economically rational,” says Ukrainian energy expert Olena Kondratiuk. “Missiles and drones are expensive, and significantly disrupting such systems would require a large number of strikes, while the overall impact on the energy system would remain limited.” Both solar and wind parks can function even when parts of them are out of operation.

It’s not just missiles, either. Iran, for instance, is widely regarded to have the ability to mount cyber attacks on centralized American infrastructure. As Rodney Bosch reported during the last round of US strikes on the nation:

US intelligence officials had warned that Iran might retaliate against American involvement by launching cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. Electrical grids, water systems, and financial networks were seen as high-risk targets.

(On days like this, I’m glad I have solar panels all over the roof. )

China has obviously figured out all these lessons. It foresaw the attacks on Venezuela and Iran, two of its big suppliers of crude, and began to dramatically increase its oil stockpile. But of course it’s done something much more important: build out the un-embargoable supply of electrons that come, most easily and cheaply, from the sun and wind.

Since 2021, China has added more power capacity across all energy technologies than the US has in its history, including 543 gigawatts last year, according to figures released late last month by the country’s National Energy Administration.

None of this is about ideology. China, Cuba, the US, Venezuela, Iran—all suffer from democratic deficits at this point (a sad list for an American to have to compile). It’s about power, in both meanings of that word.

And it’s about survival, as the rest of us imagine rebuilding a world that might actually work for its inhabitants. We have a few humble but powerful tools—the solar panel, the windmill, the battery—that make it easier to imagine something other than our current nightmare.

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Political cartoonist Ted Rall and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss the US/Israeli War Against Iran:

• Once again, the U.S. has decapitated the leadership of a country without a reasonable plan to fill the power vacuum it created. Trump tells Iranians to “take over your government,” but there’s no organized opposition. “The plan,” a German official worries aloud, “is to have no plan.”

• Escalation: Israel, the U.S. and Iran are poised to hit more targets with more powerful weapons. At least 787 Iranians and 6 Americans have died.

• Iran threatens to blow up ships attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, a major oil-exporting nation, watches oil prices soar. Gas prices are already rising. Today will be a rough day on Wall Street. Financial expert Aquiles Larrea joins us to discuss the economic impact of the war.

• Marco Rubio explains the “imminent threat” behind the war: Israel, he says, was going to attack. Iran would have retaliated against US bases. Why didn’t he tell Israel not to attack, or notify Iran of the danger from Israel?

Also:

• In Texas John Cornyn, a four-term incumbent, is facing off against the state’s attorney general, scandal-plagued MAGA darling Ken Paxton.

Democrats are facing a choice between Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who plays to the party’s base, and state representative James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian preaching a blend of Christianity and liberal values.

TO ASK A QUESTION FOR TED AND/OR JOHN BEFORE TODAY’S SHOW AIRS LIVE: https://ahaslides.com/4UJWT

MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.live

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JohnKiriakou

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu

APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall/id1825379504

The post Regime Derange | DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

"Cuba is next," said Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday night in America, March 2, 2026, grinning between a Venezuelan surgical decapitation and an Iranian bombing campaign like a man checking items off a list. "They are going to fall. This communist dictatorship in Cuba, their days are numbered."

They are already falling.

They fall in hospitals without power. They fall in nursing homes without food. They fall in cancer wards where the machines went silent weeks ago and no one came back to restart them. They fall in kitchens where mothers boil water they carried for miles, over fires made from broken chairs and splintered tables. They fall in apartments dark for 20 hours a day, on an island 90 miles from Florida, while a United States senator smiles on television and calls it progress.

This is not a warning about what might happen to Cuba. It is a clinical description of what is happening right now, today, while you read this, while the news cycle skids forward to the next detonation and pretends the last one never happened.

The strategy is to open enough fronts to make sustained resistance on any single front feel impossible.

Since December 2025, the United States has seized oil tankers on the open sea, threatened tariffs against any nation that dares sell fuel to Cuba, and pressured Mexico into halting shipments. The timeline is precise: The first tanker seizure came on December 10. The last major fuel delivery arrived on January 9. On January 29, the executive order dropped, threatening tariffs on any country that supplies Cuba with oil. The island has not received a significant shipment since, and Bloomberg satellite analysis shows nighttime light levels across eastern Cuba have fallen by 50%. The island is going dark, and we can see it from space.

An engineer would call what followed a cascading systems failure. Fuel feeds the electrical grid. The grid powers the water pumps. The pumps keep millions of people alive, or they used to. Sever the first link and the rest follows with mechanical certainty, then human consequence, then preventable death.

Now the grid fails for up to 20 hours a day in parts of the country. Eighty-four percent of Cuba's water pumping infrastructure depends on electricity that no longer reliably exists, so taps go dry and pressure vanishes. Nearly 1 million people get drinking water from tanker trucks that are running out of diesel, which means even the emergency solution is collapsing. Five million Cubans live with chronic illnesses, and chronic illness does not pause for politics. Thousands of cancer patients have watched chemotherapy and radiotherapy simply stop, not because the medicine is gone, but because there is no power to deliver it. The United Nations resident coordinator in Havana has called it what it is: acute humanitarian risk, deteriorating by the day.

Cuba's population has plummeted from roughly 11 million to an estimated 8.6 million in five years, a peacetime collapse that demographers compare, for sheer velocity, to nations at war. Sugar production has fallen to its lowest level in over a century. The official inflation rate masks a real rate economists estimate near 70%, which means wages rot while prices sprint. Airports cannot provide jet fuel. Garbage trucks sit empty. Hospitals operate by flashlight, and a flashlight is not a ventilator.

And on Sunday, a senator from South Carolina went on television to say their days are numbered, as if the dying had not already begun, as if the darkness were not already inside the wards.

I am an engineer by training. I see systems. I also see what people do when they want to hurt civilians while keeping their hands clean.

Siege is a system.

It has inputs: fuel, food, medicine, money. It has choke points: tanker seizures, executive orders, tariff threats. It has predictable failure modes: grid collapse, pump failure, hospital shutdown, preventable death. It has a kill chain too, and it selects its victims with the cold efficiency of triage in reverse. The elderly go first. Then the chronically ill. Then the infants whose mothers cannot reach hospitals that cannot run incubators. Then everyone else, slowly, invisibly, deniably.

This is not new. The architecture is old. Only the language changes, and the public gets trained to hear that language as policy instead of violence.

In the Warsaw Ghetto, supply lines were severed, medical infrastructure collapsed, and a population was sealed inside and slowly starved. The authorities described it as a public health measure. The engineers of that system understood that you do not need to kill people directly if you can cut off what keeps them alive and let time do the rest. In Gaza, the same architecture returned: fuel cut, hospitals dark, water systems destroyed, international law invoked by everyone and enforced by no one, while cameras rolled and the death toll climbed and the world performed its anguish on schedule and moved on.

Cuba, March 2026: tankers seized on the open sea. Airports grounded. Cancer wards without power. A population that increasingly cannot leave because Nicaragua has closed its visa-free corridor and the Florida Straits remain as lethal as ever. The Supreme Court struck down the tariff mechanism that underpins the blockade, and the administration has shown no sign of relenting. Not a pause, not a pivot, not even the decency of shame.

The architect of this particular siege is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American whose parents left the island before Fidel Castro took power. He has spent a career positioning himself for this moment. That a man whose family left the island seeking a better life now engineers another for the millions who remain is not irony. It is the kind of cruelty that requires a surname and a face.

I am not calling this a genocide. I am describing a pattern, because the pattern is visible if you stop letting the headlines drag your eyes away. Civilian populations besieged through infrastructure strangulation. Justified by the language of regime change. Enabled by the manufactured exhaustion of everyone who might object.

That exhaustion is not an accident. It is the strategy.

I have spent the past year documenting how this administration builds systems designed to break people slowly. Detention facilities that warehouse human beings indefinitely while the paperwork dissolves—70,000 detained and climbing at 3,000 a month, with the courts gutted too fast to process them. Environmental protections gutted by executive order faster than any court can respond. Regulatory frameworks designed to expire by default if no one has the resources to defend them. The cruelty is not always loud, but it is always organized, and it always counts on you to look away.

Cuba is not a different story. It is the same story, told in Spanish, 90 miles from shore, with an ocean in between that is treated like a moat around your conscience.

Consider the sequence. In January, Venezuela was struck and its president seized. On January 29, the executive order blockading Cuba dropped, pushing its population into darkness. This weekend, Iran was struck. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to operate in American cities under rules that courts have challenged and the administration ignores. Detention capacity expands. Environmental rollbacks accelerate. Each crisis buries the last, and the burial is the point.

Venezuela buried the detention story. Iran buried Venezuela. Cuba is being buried by Iran. And by Tuesday, something new will bury Cuba, because the machine does not rest and it does not need your agreement. It only needs your fatigue.

This is not incompetence. It is architecture. The strategy is to open enough fronts to make sustained resistance on any single front feel impossible. To overwhelm not just governments and institutions but the moral attention of ordinary citizens. To make atrocity feel normal, ambient, inevitable, like background noise you learn to tune out because it hurts too much to keep hearing it.

Every authoritarian project in history has relied on the same calculation: The public's capacity for outrage is finite and can be outpaced. Move fast enough. Break enough things at once. People stop tracking the damage. Then silence arrives, and even when silence is not consent, it functions like consent, and the architects know that. They build for it.

We said, "Never again" after the Holocaust. We said it while watching Gaza in what should have been real time but always felt like delay. We are saying it now, about everything and nothing, the words worn down by repetition, polished by overuse, easy to carry and easier to abandon.

Cuba is 90 miles from Florida. The people are real. The starvation is real. The hospitals are dark. Cancer patients are dying. Water is not coming. And a United States senator went on television Sunday evening and smiled about it.

So here is the test, and it is not abstract. The lesson of "never again," apparently, is that it has a radius. It has an attention span. It has an expiration date. The architects of this era know exactly how to exploit all three, and they do it in plain sight, with clean suits and confident voices and a grin that dares you to care.

Do not let them.

Do not let Cuba become the crisis you meant to care about but never quite got around to, wedged between the bombing and the raid and the next emergency engineered to make you forget the last one. Do not outsource your moral attention to the news cycle. Do not accept exhaustion as an excuse. Do not accept policy language as a mask for suffering.

The siege is the strategy. The overwhelm is the weapon. And your attention, right now, today, is the one thing they cannot seize on the open sea.

When the Israeli lobbying group UN Watch spread disinformation about Francesca Albanese, they were trying to silence her condemnations of the true “common enemy of humanity”—the illegal system of oppressive, corporate-media-military and surveillance forces shaping a brutal new world order, and now bombing Iran.

Francesca Albanese has evoked the ire of Israeli officials, the US government, and Western countries that have failed to stop, and continued to support, Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They are mad at her for doing her job and excelling at it. When she accepted the position as United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, she was a widely published human rights expert. She never hid her focus and strong positions on the rights of Palestinians or the fact that her historically grounded research focused on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. She began as special rapporteur in May 2022, and by November she gave a talk at the Irish Center for Human Rights titled, “Resetting the Mind: Settler Colonialism, Apartheid, and the Right to Self-determination in Palestine.”

Albanese has proven to be the most important global voice defending Palestinians against the Israeli extermination campaign in Gaza that has continued for 28 months. In doing so, she exposed a growing web of neocolonial forces at the forefront of genocide, still intent on completing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and turning Gaza into a multibillion-dollar resort for the billionaire class (revealed on a disgusting though rarely cited videotape). President Donald Trump’s profit-making enterprise called the “Board of Peace” convened for the first time in January, and some 60 countries were invited to join for a one-billion-dollar fee in a pay-to-play scheme that Pope Leo XIV referred to as an attempt to replace the UN. Jeremy Scahill explained on Democracy Now! what exactly this muddle of corporate shills, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a group of ragtag government representatives are dreaming up for their Epstein-Class playground on the Mediterranean. Depriving Gazans of any independent representation or defense, their terms are these: “You either fully bend the knee and accept a colonial apartheid regime [and] accept a new reality as dystopian plantation workers on Jared Kushner’s real estate project or we’re going to kill you.” As Asal Raad pointed out, “’They’re building resorts on the graves of Palestinians… slaughtered in a genocide—for profit—and @nytimes calls it a ‘glittering plan.’”

Francesca Albanese has incisively corrected the record and debunked Israel’s denials and justifications for genocide so often repeated in the Western Press. It took her one eloquent sentence to expose media’s role in facilitating Israeli attacks on the enclave when she wrote, “Israel has written one of the darkest pages of human history and the world is still holding the pen.”

The powerful global consortium of weapons-based profiteering and neocolonial states have attacked one of the most forceful advocates for humanity, at the same time the US and Israel are bombing Iran.

She made it look easy when she shattered a foundational rhetorical question lobbed at anyone who dare criticize the state of Israel, Do you believe Israel has a right to exist? When a journalist threw that one at Albanese, she patiently explained: “Israel does exist. It is a recognized member of the United Nations.” France and Italy exist, if they want to merge that’s up to them, but she added, “What is enshrined in international law is the right of a people to exist.”

Last year over 700,000 people signed a petition nominating Albanese for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. But her effective advocacy for Palestinian rights made her the target of US sanctions. The action came after she published a study in July 2025, naming the major global corporations profiting from Israel’s ongoing occupation and genocide in Gaza. She named 60 companies that have played a role in "sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project.” The military-industrial complex, dominated by US weapons manufacturers, is, unsurprisingly, at the heart of this nexus. The occupation and bombing of Gaza “provided a testing ground for cutting-edge military capabilities: air defense platforms, drones, AI-powered targeting tools, and even the US-led F-35 programme.” After being used on Palestinians, deadly technologies are marketed as “battle proven.” At a major weapons conference in Tel Aviv in December 2025, Israel boasted that their weapons are tested “live on Palestinians” to increase profits.

In the July report, Albanese also drew attention to the financial industries, consulting firms, social media, and public relations companies that help design the misleading narratives that have deflected blame, refused to use terms likes genocide, and parroted Israeli talking points in sanitizing Israel’s brutality.

In tandem with the nexus of military force, security surveillance, corporate and media power, its acolytes are formulating an attendant neocolonial ideology. At a Munich Security Conference in February, US Secretary of State Mario Rubio introduced the conceptual architecture for, in the words of Jonathan Cook, “a return to brutal Western colonialism,” in a speech well-received by European dignitaries. The humanitarian community is left struggling to find a way to continue to represent humanity as the ground shifts beneath their feet.

When Albanese began to expose the big picture of expanding military domination, and warned of its global consequences, the campaign to discredit her went into high gear. The latest attacks on the special rapporteur came in response to a videotape appearance she made at a conference in Doha where she argued that this growing systemic threat should be viewed as a “common enemy of humanity.”

The pro-Israeli lobbying group UN Watch, released an altered video of her talk and claimed that Albanese called Israel itself the “enemy of humanity.” One need only look at the original tape of her address to prove that she said no such thing. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot augmented the false charges adding that Albanese condemned Israel “as a people and a nation,” and demanded her resignation. Pointing to the doctored videotape being used to portray her as antisemitic, Albanese told Medhi Hasan, “The cut and paste of that video was so rudimental that it was almost insulting to human intelligence.”

The powerful global consortium of weapons-based profiteering and neocolonial states have attacked one of the most forceful advocates for humanity, at the same time the US and Israel are bombing Iran. They are committing crimes of aggression against a sovereign state that has not threatened or attacked them, and major media outlets such as the New York Times have spurred them on. After a US bomb struck a girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, killing 165 people (mostly girls between the age of 7 and 12), hours later another US-Israeli strike on the town of Lamerd hit mostly teenagers in a gymnasium, killing 20 youthful volleyball players. Witnesses described “the continuous screaming of the injured.” But news of these bombings were not prominently featured in establishment media. As Fatima Bhutto put it, “From Gaza to Iran, Children Have Always Been Sacrificed by Western Imperial Aims.” Trump’s illegal war is unpopular—just a quarter of Americans back the strikes on Iran—and there is no legitimate rationale for another war in the Middle East.

Former UN official and Human Rights Lawyer Criag Mokhiber has also identified what he referred to as a “US-Israeli Axis,” calling it “the greatest threat facing humanity today” and describing it this way: “A murderous bombing campaign in Iran, continuing genocide in Palestine… belligerent occupation of several countries, acts of transnational terrorism, repression at home, schemes to profit from murder and colonization… massive corruption of the public and private sectors across the West, sanctions against human rights defenders and international courts, attacks on international institutions, the dismantling of international law, mass surveillance of the rest of us, and a growing trail of blood and destruction around the globe.”

In her characteristic expression of deep humanity, woven into Francesca Albanese’s words is an alternative vision of a world shaped by humanity and freedom. “We, who do not control large amounts of financial capital, algorithms, and weapons, we now see that we, as a humanity, have a common enemy. And freedoms, the respect for fundamental freedoms, is the last peaceful avenue, the last peaceful toolbox that we have to regain our freedom.”

The gaggle of for-profit genocidaires, or what Trump calls his Board of Peace, is looking to expand its mission from Gaza to other conflicts, seeking to further dismantle international law and the humanitarian community. As the death toll escalates under US-Israeli bombs and spreads war throughout the Middle East, Negin Owilaei argues in Truthout, “We need to reckon with the American War Machine,” and I would add, push back against the common enemy of humanity—the growing nexus of military and propaganda alliances.

When I was small my mother warned me never to approach a sick animal. The dying ones, she said, are the deadliest of all.

That hasn’t been my experience; most of the dying creatures I’ve encountered just want a quiet place to pass their final hours. The source of my mother’s anxiety was closer to home than she had yet to recognize, but her fear was palpable. She was haunted by the vision of her curly-haired child falling prey to some sickly, snarling, yellow-eyed feral creature with nothing left to lose. That’s a mother’s worst nightmare.

Flash forward to February 28, 2026. Dozens of schoolchildren were reported dead in “one of two strikes that appear to have hit schools since US and Israeli warplanes launched their attack on Iran around 10:00 a.m. local time.” It was a mother’s worst fear come true, many times over.

Why would Israel and the United States kill children? The genocide in Gaza has made it clear that neither country is shy about the systematic extermination of the very young when it serves their strategic interests. These deaths, however, seem to be the products of tactical indifference rather than intentional annihilation. The girls’ school was near an Iranian naval base, and the high school was in the neighborhood where former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lived and was targeted by bombers.

Every empire in history has eventually turned against its own people, and always at the same historical moment: right before it dies.

This is how dying animals behave in a mother’s nightmare. They’re not looking for human children to kill—not the way an airborne raptor or an Israel Defense Forces soldier would. They simply lash out blindly in a desperate fight against the inevitable. Sometimes children get in the way.

Yes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead. Big deal. Others like him were already prepared to step in.

Our political culture is naive, almost childlike, in its attachment to the “great man” theory of history, with the “evil man” as its shadow side. Powerful figures do sometimes alter history, but only within those timeworn channels Alfred Tennyson called the “ringing grooves of change.” Khamenei’s power began with the US overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, which set the stage for Iran’s current theocracy. The brutality of the Shah only hardened the steely resolve of Khamenei’s predecessor, who cast aside pro-democracy Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to put Khamenei in power. If it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone equally hard-lined.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are merely the latest leaders to be vomited up from a groove whose name is “colonialism.” Its source is not the culture or beliefs of ancient Jewish tribes. This groove traces back to the chieftains and pagan shamans of pre-Christian Europe. It rings with the sound of cauldrons and cannons and the church bells of the inquisitor. If some of its own children must be sacrificed, too, so be it.

Once again, pro-democracy protesters have been betrayed by US-made bombs. Attacks by foreign countries almost always strengthen their current leadership and weaken protest movements. There’s no reason to think this time will be any different. Khamenei is almost certainly more powerful in martyrdom than he was in the last months of his life. The protesters must now wait for the inevitable betrayal. May they find solidarity in just people around the world.

As-yet-unconfirmed reports suggest that the bombers have targeted some of the leaders who are best positioned to form an independent government. That wouldn’t be surprising. The US and Israel don’t want an independent Iran. They want a vassal.

But wait, you say. Israel and the United States aren’t dying animals. They’re very much alive and will be for the foreseeable future. Don’t be so sure. Netanyahu has been clinging to power for years to avoid prosecution for a litany of corruption charges. Trump was also threatened by multiple prosecutions before winning re-election. Both men, having feasted lavishly on ill-gotten gains, were desperate to avoid the consequences of their own actions.

For Netanyahu, Israel’s future looks grim. Much of the world has turned against it. Public opinion is evolving from revulsion over its actions to doubts about its very legitimacy as a theocratic ethno-state. Public support for Israel, once considered immutable, has plummeted in the US and Western Europe, especially among younger people who are more likely to consider it an “apartheid state.”

Israel, dependent on Western largesse, is likely to face a critical decision when these generations assume power: become a truly democratic state that ends radicalized privilege or remain an unsustainable international pariah. Either way, the clock is almost certainly ticking on the era of Eretz Israel envisioned by Zionism’s founders. It may take decades, with great bloodshed along the way, but this change seems increasingly likely.

Trump and Netanyahu may parade before the cameras like winners, but they carry the stink of losers—moral, spiritual, and tactical losers.

This is not an outré idea. Israel’s military and political leaders see this future almost as clearly as independent observers do. No wonder they’ve become increasingly open in their violence. It’s a sign of desperation as well as hate.

The United States may not disappear as a nation in the foreseeable future. But its global dominance and that of its elites will end, and probably soon. That prospect fills its current leaders with existential dread. Billionaires build airstrips in the Hamptons and rehearse the apocalypse in mountaintop retreats. Politicians try to seize control of oil-rich nations through brute force and feed the fantasy that exorbitant military spending can crush the spirit of independent peoples.

As the philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote, “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this twilight, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Richard Nixon said this when he tried selling an equally delusional war to the American people: “If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world."

The “forces of totalitarianism and anarchy” are us. Every war the US has fought in the intervening half century has been a strategic and military failure. The United States has become a pitiful, violent giant—lethal and proud, but pitiful just the same. It spends itself into social oblivion for military machinery. It turns the technology of human suppression against its own population with increasing ferocity. As inequality surpasses that of the Gilded Age, software surveils our every move as drones and helicopters hover in the sky.

Every empire in history has eventually turned against its own people, and always at the same historical moment: right before it dies.

Trump and Netanyahu may parade before the cameras like winners, but they carry the stink of losers—moral, spiritual, and tactical losers. They’re pitiful because they’re desperate, and they’re desperate because their realms are dying. The grief of mothers and fathers means nothing to creatures such as these.

Here’s silent whisper for the wounded and discouraged, the grim-faced and the grieving, the unseen victims in Palestine and Yemen and Iran and around the globe: May they see with their hearts that time is running out for the Trumps and Netanyahus of their hearts. May they take comfort in the inevitability of their fall.

Yes, they’re still deadly. Of course they are. They’re killers. But so was John Wayne Gacy, and he was a clown.

Since resuming power 13 months ago, President Trump has declared he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. At the same time, he has attacked civilian boats in the Caribbean, abducted the head of Venezuela, blockaded Cuba, conducted air strikes in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, and even threatened to invade Greenland. He bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities last June, and now is waging war to achieve regime change, not an easy task in a country of 90 million people.

What is common to all these strikes is that the target was weak. Note that Trump is not trying to topple North Korea, or force Russia out of Ukraine, or threaten China’s economic domination. His targets can’t do much harm to the US, at least in the short run, which makes it easy to score what he calls “victories.”

It’s obvious that Trump loves the feel of power. It no doubt gives him a rush more intoxicating than any drug. He is the ruler of the strongest nation in the history of the world, but he doesn’t have the freedom to unilaterally act on domestic affairs, although he constantly tries. The courts are in the way, as is popular dissent. Judges and citizens are preventing him from exerting his will, even making him change course by removing troops and immigration forces. And it will, he surely knows, get even worse if the Democrats gain control of either house of Congress.

But he has a free hand in foreign affairs. The Supreme Court won’t stop him and there is no international court that the US recognizes, nor does he believe he is morally bound by international law. He couldn’t care less about the United Nations, and he hopes that military engagement against the weak makes him look strong to the American public. Also, in Iran’s case, a war with a quick victory has the added benefit of possibly improving his paltry approval ratings by diverting public attention away from “affordability” and the Epstein files. Already the joke is that they should have called the Iran adventure, “Operation Epic Epstein.”

Just think what the total freedom to attack means for Trump. For starters he gets to deploy his toys—the trillion-dollar arsenal of US warships and fighter planes. It’s the ultimate video game for power-hungry adults. And no one can stop him abroad, and while the Republicans in Congress could, they certainly won’t.

Trump seems to believe that these military attacks will secure his place in history as the greatest president of all time. He and only he had the guts to get rid of the Iranian theocracy that has bedeviled the US since the 1979 hostage crisis. And only he will end communism in Cuba, that pesky island of resistance only 90 miles from shore. Most importantly, he is remaking the Middle East into a US-Israeli safe zone. He is showing the world that the US means business and that whatever it wants, it should get—of course in the name of protecting the US and securing world peace.

As Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller, put it, “We live in a world , in the real world…that is governed by strength, this governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”

Before claiming all this aggression demonstrates Trump truly is a Hitler-like dictator, we should recall that he is not the first Commander-in-Chief to follow these “iron laws of the world.” Truman sent troops to fight in Korea (1950), Eisenhower sent them to Lebanon (1958), Kennedy to the Bay of Pigs in Cuba (1961), Johnson to Vietnam (1964), Nixon bombed Cambodia (1969), Reagan invaded Grenada (1983), George H. Bush invaded Panama (1989), Clinton bombed Kosovo (1999), Obama bombed Libya (2011), Trump sent missiles to Syria (2017,2018), and Biden ordered airstrikes in Syria (2021), and Yemen (2024)—all without a declaration of war by Congress.

This is what US presidents do because they can. But no president has been quite as overtly aggressive as Trump. Even when he tries, he can’t hide his desire to dominate. He doesn’t spend time building alliances or forming a consensus at home. He just acts as if the weaker countries of the world are his playthings. He can push them around at will, first with tariffs then with bombs, and his sycophantic enablers will cheer him on. From Trump’s perspective, what’s not to like?

Nothing, unless it doesn’t end well. And there are dozens of ways his current path in Iran could lead to his own destruction. The American public is not likely to approve of these adventures, especially if prices rise because global trade is severely disrupted. More ominously, it’s possible that a war with Iran could spiral out of control, sucking the US in with ground troops and leading to yet another forever war and American casualties. That’s why MAGA isolationists also are having trouble with Trump’s foreign interventions.

And there is a question of whether the Iranians who want regime change will trust the Americans. They are certainly aware that the Afghans who assisted US forces and the CIA in their (failed) war of liberation were awkwardly abandoned during our troop withdrawal, and those who were given safe haven have in many cases been unceremoniously kicked back to their dangerous homeland by Trump.

The upshot of all this adventurism is that we may again witness a moment in history when the universe actually bends towards justice. Debilitating hubris has a way of striking down the mighty: LBJ was driven from office by his Vietnam debacle and Nixon had to resign because of his secret dictatorial actions. Will Trump blow himself up as well?

Maybe, but let’s pray, with the nuclear button close at hand, he doesn’t take all the rest of us with him.

Once again, the United States and Israel are illegally attacking Iran, as they did last June. It is already a regional war, which will take a horrible toll on ordinary people in many countries, with reports a girls’ school was bombed, killing at least 85 people.

Unlike the limited strikes in last June’s 12-day war, this is aimed not just at Iran’s nuclear or military facilities, but at regime change in Iran, as President Donald Trump declared, and government targets in Tehran have been hit, with Israel claiming Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed. Predictably, Iran is firing back at Israel and at US military bases in the region.

Late last week, the Foreign Minister of Oman, who had been mediating negotiations between the US and Iran, stated prospects were good for a possible agreement. However, according to an Israeli official, the talks were apparently a treacherous ruse, as the US and Israel had planned coordinated attacks on Iran for months.

This crisis lies at the feet of President Trump, who abrogated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in his first term. That multilateral agreement had effectively capped Iran’s nuclear program well short of acquiring The Bomb. Now, once again, two nuclear-weapon states are bombing a non-nuclear-weapon state. Meanwhile, Trump has preposterously called for Iranians to overthrow their government.

Congress should also impeach, convict, and remove the president from office for this illegal act, as politically unlikely as that appears now.

The timing of this attack, while perhaps planned for months, came as momentum was building in just the last few days for Congressional War Powers Resolution votes in both the House and the Senate. Democratic leadership in both Houses of Congress had coalesced behind the resolutions, Senate Joint Resolution 104, sponsored by US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), with 12 other co-sponsors, and House Concurrent Resolution 38, sponsored by US Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), with over 80 co-sponsors. That resolution may be voted on as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday, according to Khanna.

Sen. Kaine issued a statement asking, “Has President Trump learned nothing from decades of US meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East?” and “Is he too mentally incapacitated to realize that we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran that was keeping its nuclear program in check, until he ripped it up in his first term?,” while calling the war a colossal mistake and “a dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.”

US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, stated, “Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” and “It does not appear Donald Trump has learned the lessons of history.”

Congress must assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace against an out-of-control, rogue president and executive branch, and vote in favor of the Iran War Powers Resolutions. Congress should also impeach, convict, and remove the president from office for this illegal act, as politically unlikely as that appears now.

Anti-war protest demonstrations are already being held this weekend in many cities, including Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Princeton, Norwalk, Greenbelt, Canandaigua and others, reflecting not only the illegality of this war but also its unpopularity, as 70% of Americans oppose war with Iran, according to a recent poll. The world urgently needs more diplomacy, not more war.

While this may prove impractical as the war has already begun, and may metastasize in unpredictable ways, we should recall the recent Don’t Give Up the Ship video by six US senators and representatives, all veterans of the military or intelligence services, reminding members of those services of not only their right, but their obligation, to refuse to obey illegal orders. I don’t know if this illegal attack on Iran was what they had in mind, but it certainly applies.

On Saturday in the Washington, DC area, it was sunny and warm after an unusually cold, snowy winter. I had thought of taking a stroll on Theodore Roosevelt Island to watch the Potomac River flow, as Bob Dylan might recommend, but was deterred by the thought of the smell and filth from the collapse of the major sewage pipe that released over 240 million gallons of poo into our precious, life-sustaining, wild river. One cannot help but reflect on the metaphorical, and literal, consequences of our choices as a nation, to prioritize endless, bottomless spending of our tax dollars on war and weapons of destruction over infrastructure to keep our communities safe and healthy.

May we start making better choices, right now. Let’s end this senseless war and prioritize human and environmental needs over the profits of the war machine.

A mini-brouhaha has erupted over whether or not the Democratic National Committee has buried an “autopsy” report on its party loss in the 2024 presidential election. Some fear that the report isn’t being released because it suggests the defeat was the Harris campaign’s failure to break with the Biden administration’s disastrous policy that enabled Israel’s sustained genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza. As a result, some groups are charging the DNC with a coverup and demanding that the autopsy report be released.

I’ve been on the DNC for more than three decades and am no stranger to how the party handles, or avoids handling, issues involving Palestine/Israel. In 1988, I spoke from that year’s convention podium introducing Jesse Jackson’s platform plank calling for “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination” for both Israelis and Palestinians. For my efforts, I was asked to withdraw from the DNC—because “party leaders” were concerned that Republicans would use my membership as an issue in the campaign. (I was reinstated in 1993). I served 16 years on the party’s Executive Committee and 11 as co-chair of its Resolutions Committee. On eight occasions, I presented testimony arguing that the party needed to acknowledge Palestinian rights. And in 2016 I was appointed to serve on the Convention Platform Drafting Committee. Having argued and lost this many times, I am well aware of the party establishment’s fear of addressing Palestinian rights. Finally, this past year, I was appointed by Chair Ken Martin to serve on a Middle East Working Group, which he created to sort out how our party deals with America’s policies in the Middle East.

And yet, I believe that for those of us who support Palestinian rights and are concerned that leading Democrats have been on the wrong side of this issue for too long, the fight over whether an autopsy report exists and, if it exists, what it might say, is not where we need to be focusing our energy.

I say this because we already have all the evidence we need to write our own autopsy report that demonstrates conclusively that voters, especially Democrats and Independents, are fed up with blind support for Israeli policies. This is a fact. And while we have hard polling data to prove it, establishment Democrats and political consultants reject this reality and continue to operate from an outdated playbook.

But the changes are real and can’t be ignored. A wide range of polls have established just how extensive they are. A recent Gallup poll shows that for the first time more Americans sympathize with Palestinians (41%) than with Israelis (35%). This is especially pronounced among Democrats where sympathy for Palestinians is three times greater than it is for Israelis. And a John Zogby Strategies poll from February shows that a plurality of Americans now view the US relationship with Israel as more of a liability (45%) than an asset (34%). Again, among Democrats the margin is three to one (57% to 19%).

This growing antipathy toward Israel translates in shifting attitudes toward policy. In August of 2025, The Economist found:

• 43% of voters favor decreasing military aid to Israel, with only 13% wanting to see an increase in such aid. Among Democrats the decrease/increase ratio is 58% to 4%. Among Independents, it’s almost the same.

• Is Israel committing genocide? Among all voters, 44% say “yes” and 28% say “no.” Among Democrats, the ratio is 68% “yes” and just 8% “no.” And among Independents, it’s 45% to 19%.

Other polls show voters affirming that they’re more likely to support candidates who advance such positions and less likely to vote for those who defend Israeli policies and want to maintain current levels of military aid to Israel.

For further evidence of this shift, with just months before the midterm elections, it’s striking to note that more than three dozen congressional candidates have already declared their intent to reject PAC contributions from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups. This includes a number of sitting members of Congress, all of whom have previously been strong supporters of Israel and have, in previous elections, been the recipients of millions of dollars from pro-Israel sources, including PACs and dark money independent expenditures. One of these members of Congress recently spoke at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in which she termed Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide and announced her support for cutting US military arms to Israel.

While these changes in attitudes toward Israel have been brewing for several years now, they were dramatically accelerated by Israel’s more than two-year assault on Palestinians in Gaza. While the horrors accompanying Hamas’ October 7th attack generated an initial flush of support for Israel, as the toll of Palestinian civilian casualties grew and the extent of Israel’s gratuitous mass devastation of Gaza became clear, support for Israel collapsed.

This was clearly in evidence in the 2024 presidential contest. Post-election analyses showed that Vice President Kamala Harris lost the backing of a wide range of Democratic and Independent voters because she refused to make a decisive break with President Biden’s support for Israel. Instead of listening to her own instincts and being more critical of Israeli practices and more vocal in support of Palestinian rights, she listened to the establishment political consultants who cautioned against “rocking the boat” on this “sensitive issue.”

The consultants, campaign operatives, and media analysts didn’t get the changes that were afoot then, and they still don’t get it now. They are caught in a time warp that views the US politics of the Middle East as if the last two years of Israel’s genocidal war hadn’t occurred. But they did happen and they have been transformative.

It used to be said that criticism of Israel was akin to touching the “third rail” in American politics—avoid it or get burned. In a way, it still is but in reverse. Support for Israel was once the issue sine qua non for candidates for Congress. Polls now show that voters are less likely to vote for candidates who refuse to criticize Israel or who take money from pro-Israel PACs.

As we get closer to the 2026 midterm elections, we can expect more candidates to publicly distance themselves from Israeli policies. We can also expect that pro-Israel groups will panic and up the ante by pouring tens of millions into defeating candidates who are critical of Israel. My sense is that this may backfire, as it did with the recent special House election in New Jersey, because in 2026 what will be controversial are Israeli policies and pro-Israel campaign contributions, not the opposite. The sooner the analysts, consultants, and media figure that out, the better our politics will be.

Given this background, fighting for the party to release an autopsy, is less important. Surely, if it exists, it should be released, but where our attention might better be focused is in supporting candidates who are refusing to accept pro-Israel PAC contributions and running on platforms challenging failed policies of the past. We should also join the growing number of Democratic National Committee members who are calling on the party to ban dark money in elections. This is an instance where looking forward, not backward, will help to bring the change we need—and to be where Democratic voters are already.

I grew up with a vision of a possible instant apocalypse, inspired (if, under the circumstances, such a word can even be used) by the nuclear obliteration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. It could happen at any moment, even if you were “ducking and covering” under your school desk, as I did in those years. And I was hardly alone. That was a genuine generational nightmare of the 1950s and early 1960s — the possibility of a nuclear war between my country and the Soviet Union that might devastate my city, New York (or your city, FILL IN THE BLANK), and our world. But in those years what I never could have imagined was that, even without an atomic blast, I might already be living through the extremely slow-motion equivalent of just such an apocalypse, which should, of course, be the definition of climate change.

And with that in mind, let me start this piece with a distinctly slow-motion apocalyptic moment some seven decades later, one I’m living through not as a young kid under that desk at school but as an old man under the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Recently, in a White House ceremony, the president was crowned the “undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal” by the Washington Coal Club, an event attended by Environmental Protection Agency (or do I mean Environmental Destruction Agency?) administrator Lee Zeldin, as well as Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, both, as the Guardian reported, “staunch coal advocates.” The ceremony was in honor of the “signing of an executive order directing the defense department to secure long-term power purchase agreements with coal plants for military installations and other ‘mission-critical facilities.’”

And honestly, you don’t need to know much more to grasp that this world — as the Guardian also reported recently — is heading for a potential “point of no return” on the way to becoming an all too literal (if still reasonably slow-motion) hell on Earth, a genuine “hothouse planet.” Imagine that! And imagine that, in the future, the Trump administration is working so energetically to make far hotter, far faster, there will be no desks to duck under. And imagine as well that the man “we” chose to elect to a second term in office in November 2024 is now working all too feverishly to ensure that he’ll be remembered as the president of no return and that, before he’s done, it won’t just be the East Wing of the White House that he will have turned into rubble.

In that context, let me tell you just whom I feel bad for: the reporters on the beat in Washington, D.C., covering… yes, that genuine nightmare, President Donald J. Trump, the second time around. I often dream about trying to tell my parents (who died in 1977 and 1983) about this world of ours and You Know Who. But there would honestly be no way to do so. If they were to appear now, I’d be at a complete loss and, in any case, they would never believe me. Whatever I told them would, from the perspective of their ancient American world, seem like the most ludicrous form of fiction imaginable, not even a good (or bad) joke. A president like Donald J. Trump? Dream on. (Or more pointedly, of course, nightmare on.)

And yet here we indeed are. No question about it. And imagine this: the American people, or at least 49.7% of us, elected for a second time a man whose most essential goal remains the literal fossil-fuelization of planet Earth. Though all too few of us say so, Donald J. Trump as president of the United States should distinctly be considered the nightmare of our age, or possibly of any age. Once upon a time, you couldn’t have made such a thing up and yet, unbelievably enough, he wasn’t just elected president once (after all, anyone can make a mistake, even a truly grim one) but — yes! — twice! How could that have been possible, especially for a candidate so intent on taking our world down with him? Indeed, in November 2024, the American public reelected a former president who seemed to be itching to turn the United States into his personal property, while working all too literally to incinerate this planet. Just try to imagine that!

Can Donald Trump Flip American Democracy on Its Butt?

And that should indeed be considered a nightmare and a half. In this piece, then, let me offer both my pity and compassion to the reporters who have to cover Donald J. Trump for at least the next three years. Yes, hard as it might be to believe, barring a health disaster, always possible for someone who is going to turn 80 in July, we indeed do have (almost) three more years of him — and I should undoubtedly add “at least” to that. After all, he’s already clearly thinking about how to flip the more than two-century-old American political system on its head (or do I mean its butt?) and turn it into something else entirely — transform it, in fact, into his personal property. (Exactly what he and his associates have recently been trying to do with this country’s elections, which the president would now like to “nationalize.”) And to hell with the Constitution or anything or anyone else who might try to stop him! (As he wrote at one point on Truth Social, “RECORD NUMBERS ALL OVER THE PLACE! SHOULD I TRY FOR A FOURTH TERM?”) And don’t forget that the Trump Organization is already selling “Trump 2028” hats for a mere $55.

So, make that possibly five, six, seven, or more flaming years of him working to shut down (or at least endlessly stall) wind and solar projects in this country while continuing to fossil-fuelize the United States (and, naturally, the planet) in a striking fashion.

Of course, I’m perfectly aware that all of that might indeed not happen. Despite this ever eerier present we’re now living through, it might only be my grim fantasy of our future. Even Donald J. Trump might not be able to literally flip the American system on its ass. But given what we’ve gone through so far, don’t count on it not happening either.

And, of course, we’re not just talking about the man who wants to flip the system on its butt, we’re talking about the guy who seems all too intent on doing the same thing to planet Earth. Someday, Donald Trump may be known as the end-times president, since he and his Republican confederates (and I use that word advisedly) seem remarkably intent on ensuring that this planet will indeed become a hellhole for our children and grandchildren. At some level, it should be considered beyond remarkable that even 49.7% of Americans voted for a presidential candidate intent, perhaps above all else, on burning this planet to the ground.

Giving Imperial Decline a New Name

I mean, just imagine that, in Donald Trump’s world (as well as Vladimir Putin’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s, since there’s nothing like a good war to drive staggering amounts of planet-heating fossil-fuel gasses into the atmosphere), this planet is his birthday cake and he’s intent on lighting the candles (most recently, of course, with his war in Iran).

After all, 2023, 2024, and 2025 were, as a threesome, already record-setting when it came to the (over)heating of our world. They were the three warmest years on record, and undoubtedly 2026 won’t be an anomaly when it comes to heating the Earth to the boiling point. In short, to make a particularly depressing point, whether you’re talking about fires, floods, droughts, or heat waves, what once would have been considered extreme weather is becoming ever less so, year by grim year. In the United States in 2025, there were 23 — yes, 23! — extreme climate-related disasters, each of which cost us more than a billion dollars. In short, the extremity of climate change is slowly becoming the norm.

In other words, we’re already on a different planet — and one only becoming ever more so thanks to those wars and world leaders like Donald Trump who remain so committed to the use of fossil fuels. And sadly, by the time they’re done, the resulting slow-motion apocalypse will be one where children won’t even be able to imagine ducking under their desks for protection.

In short, President Donald J. Trump is bringing us ever closer to “a point of no return” when it comes to climate-tipping points. Even in his own terms, by emphasizing fossil fuels the way he does, and trying to put the — yes, torch! — to anything associated with green energy, including electric vehicles, he’s turning whatever future we still have on this planet over to the Chinese in a fashion that should give imperial decline a new meaning. After all, despite the fact that China is still using staggering amounts of fossil fuels, the leaders of that country are also putting no less staggering financial resources and effort into creating green-power systems of every sort, which they’re already selling around the world. Meanwhile, they’re producing and exporting Electric Vehicles, or EVs, in a dramatic fashion. In fact, for the first time last year, the Chinese deployed more clean power in their country than fossil-fuel generating capacity.

On this planet right now, if you want a sign of imperial rise and decline, just check out the opposite ways China and the U.S. are dealing with clean energy. In the end, Donald Trump and crew would rather blow up boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, militarily seize the president of Venezuela, plan for taking control (in whatever fashion) of Greenland, and… well, do I really need to keep going? But climate change? No change there, just more of the same.

In short, President Trump remains remarkably intent on fossil-fuelizing our climate (and us) to death. Just the other week, in fact, he announced that, as the New York Times reported, he was “erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet… a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane, and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather.” And count on this: for the next three years, that’s only the beginning when it comes to the president who has all too bluntly called the very idea that climate change might be a threat to public health “a scam.”

And count on something else as well: blowing up boats will prove to be nothing compared to setting fire to this planet.

Once upon a time in the previous century in this country, “red” was short for communist. In 2026, however, red should be short for fire, for the burning of this planet. Though Donald Trump is certainly no commie, he stands every chance of turning himself into the reddest president ever (and I’m not just thinking of those blazing red ties and hats he wears). Someday, his name will undoubtedly be synonymous with wildfire, drought, and unbearable heat, while “Trumping the planet” will mean heating it to the weather version of the boiling point.

In some fashion, give him credit. Donald Trump is all too literally intent on making himself into the president from hell, the president of no return, while ensuring that the rest of us will be living on one hell of a planet.

LIVE 9:00 am Eastern time, Streaming Anytime:

Political cartoonist Ted Rall and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST.

Today we discuss the US/Israeli War Against Iran:

• Iran was more prepared for war than the Trump administration anticipated, U.S. officials admit. Three American service members were killed and five seriously wounded by Iran at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. Flights across the Middle East came to a standstill after Iran struck at least four airports, including Dubai. Bahrain sustained minimal damage from a drone. Airports in both Kuwait and the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, Irbil, were also hit. Iran hit Zayed Port in Abu Dhabi, where the French navy has a base. Two drones struck a port in Duqm, a port town in Oman. An Iranian bomb struck a shelter in Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem, killing at least nine people. Residential towers in Bahrain were also hit. Kuwait accidentally shot down three F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets—$100 million each—down late last night. Six crew members ejected.

• The war expanded into Lebanon after Hezbollah claimed a rocket and drone attack on Israel. Israel struck the group’s HQ in Beirut and targeted weapons storage facilities. PM Keir Starmer is reversing his decision to bar the U.S. from using U.K. bases. The war has only sped up the deterioration of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

• Trump is publicly warning Americans to gird for a sustained, costly war.“Sadly, there will likely be more [U.S. deaths] before it ends,” the president said. “America will avenge their deaths and deliver the most punishing blow to the terrorists who have waged war against, basically, civilization.”

• Oil futures surged. Brent crude, the international benchmark, spiked 6.2% to trade at $77 a barrel, having briefly surpassed $82 earlier in the trading session. Meanwhile, stock futures fell. Futures for the S&P 500, the Nasdaq and the Dow were all down more than 1%. But Exxon and Chevron shares rose pre-market. Defense stocks, like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, were also up strongly.

Also:

• Pakistan bombed Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Taliban is firing at Pakistani fighter jets over Kabul.

• A man who fatally shot two people and wounded 14 others at a popular bar on Austin’s Sixth Street, 53-year-old Ndiaga Diagne, wore a hoodie that read “Property of Allah” over a T-shirt bearing an Iranian flag.

TO ASK A QUESTION FOR TED AND/OR JOHN BEFORE TODAY’S SHOW AIRS LIVE: https://ahaslides.com/3XL8G

MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.live

https://x.com/tedrall

https://x.com/JohnKiriakou

LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow

SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu

APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall/id1825379504

The post The Republic Strikes Back | DeProgram with Ted Rall and John Kiriakou appeared first on Ted Rall's Rallblog.

When Daniel Ellsberg died in 2023, the world lost a unique voice of sanity. Five decades earlier, as a “national security” insider, he had released the top-secret Pentagon Papers to expose the official lies behind the ongoing Vietnam War. From then on, he never stopped writing, speaking and protesting for peace, while explaining how the madness of nuclear weapons could destroy us all.

Now, Ellsberg’s voice is back via a compelling new book. “Truth and Consequence,” being published this week, provides readers with his innermost thoughts, scrawled and typed over a 50-year period. The result is access to intimate candor and visionary wisdom from a truly great whistleblower.

“My father is dead now,” Michael Ellsberg writes in the book’s introduction, but “I for one care a great deal that he consented to allow us to compile this eclectic corpus of his important thoughts and musings.” Michael worked with his father’s longtime assistant Jan R. Thomas to sift through and curate the huge quantity of private writing.

The book’s subtitle—offering reflections on “catastrophe, civil resistance, and hope”—could hardly be more timely.

Now, the barbaric war on Iran is enabled by remaining silent and just following orders.

At the center of “Truth and Consequence” are the tensions between conscience and deference to authority.

“Don’t delegate conscience,” Daniel Ellsberg wrote.

“Most people conform and accept,” he noted. “A minority protest, withdraw. A tiny minority resist, take risks.”

“The temptation is strong to obey powerful men passively and unquestioningly,” Ellsberg observed in 1971, the year he turned himself in for giving the Pentagon Papers to the press and faced the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

He instantly became a pariah among colleagues who’d been his friends at the RAND Corporation, a think tank serving the US war machine. He’d been working there as a strategic analyst before and after a stint at the Defense Department.

“After I released the papers,” he vividly remembered, “some people were afraid to write to me . . . to shake hands with me . . . to receive a phone call from me.” Three years later, his takeaway was: “Accept the risks of freedom and commitment, instead of the risks of obedience and conformity.”

Ellsberg came to see grim downsides of society’s upper crust. He had graduated from Harvard and went on to get his PhD there. But in 1976 he wrote: “The function of an education at an elite university is to learn inattention and passivity, to learn to disconnect your daily work from the moral values of your family upbringing—sharing, love, trust, mutual dependence—and be part of maintaining a system of inequality, privilege, unnecessary suffering, war, and risk of extinction.”

The next year he wrote: “I have fallen out of love with the State and its Establishment, and I have regained a hopeful affection in the democratic ideal, process, and people who are untouched by power—those outside the base of the existing pyramid of obstruction, power, and privilege.”

And: “Most human-caused destruction, suffering, death, and enslavement (i.e., ‘evil’) is performed by men, at the direction of men. These are typically ‘normal,’ competent, personally agreeable and compassionate men who perform their acts in obedience to lawful orders—or, less often, in obedience to unlawful orders.”

1982: “Massacre is made doable by a chain of command that continually invokes habit, obedience, and career, as well as by leaders’ geographical and bureaucratic distance from the killing.”

Ellsberg had extensive firsthand experience in helping to fine-tune preparations for inflicting radioactive Armageddon, especially during the Kennedy presidency. Later, it was a role that haunted him.

“In this era of the potentially imminent extinction of most of life on Earth, there is now a moral dimension to every aspect of how one spends one’s life,” he wrote in 1977. “The foundation of all morality is that we must now live with awareness of the mortality of our species and the vulnerability of the Earth and all life.”

1985: “The future is not some place we are going to. The future is what we are creating every day. If we continue to prepare and plan for thermonuclear war, that is what we are going to get.”

By the time Ellsberg suddenly found himself vilified and beloved for releasing the Pentagon Papers in 1971, he was a devotee of civil disobedience. “Use of a radical, novel, powerful, and possibly illegal tactic of nonviolence,” he wrote that year, “is a form of useful work that is perfectly suited to illustrate the evil being combated.”

And he added: “I have never before shrunk from violence—from imagining it, planning it, preparing for it. I have wanted, and I have gained, the respect of violent men. Now I want the respect of gentle women, gentle men, and children.”

1984: “Nonviolent resistance has a special power to raise the question ‘What can I do to change this situation?’ I have felt that power in my own life.”

1985: “One way of calling attention to a danger or an illegal practice is to take an action of obstruction, or symbolic obstruction, that will lead to your being in court. Once there, in the context of your defense you can raise issues of illegality, criminality, constitutionality, and danger.”

1986: “Nonviolent civil disobedience does not eliminate moral dilemmas, costs, consequences, and lesser evils. However, it does inspire a search for new ways of behaving, seeing, feeling, and being.”

1990: “Ask yourself, ‘Where is the environment where I can be showing moral courage now? My work? My family? My community?’ Find the strength and the moral courage to do what is right, without knowing what the effects may be.”

Ellsberg’s activism took him to jail many more times after he summed up his protest activities this way in 2006: “I have been arrested in non-violent civil disobedience actions close to 70 times, probably 50 focused on nuclear weapons: e.g. at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Production facility, the Nevada Test Site, Livermore Nuclear Weapons Design Facility, and the vicinity of ground zero at both the Nevada Test Site and the Vandenberg Missile Test Site. Other arrests have been for protests against U.S. interventions.”

Thirty-five years ago, at the time of the Gulf War, Daniel Ellsberg wrote in his journal: “There is a time when silence is a lie, when silence is complicity, and when silence betrays our troops, our country, and ourselves. We owe it to our troops, as well as to other potential victims of this war, to speak the truth about ourselves: what we believe, what we reject, and what we want.”

On February 16, 2026, one of us (Jeffrey Sachs) sent a letter to the UN Security Council warning that the United States was on the verge of tearing up the United Nations Charter. That warning has now come to pass. The United States and Israel have launched an unprovoked war against Iran in flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter, without authorization from the Security Council, and without any legitimate claim of self-defense under Article 51. They are trying to kill the UN Charter and the international rule of law, but they will fail.

At the Security Council on February 28, 2026, the US and its allies directed their condemnation not at the American and Israeli aggression, but at Iran. One US ally after the next condemned Iran for its retaliatory attacks yet absurdly failed to condemn the illegal and unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran. This performance by these countries was disgraceful and turned reality completely upside down.

The joint US-Israeli attacks were described by Trump as necessary because Iran “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore.” This is of course a flat lie. As the letter of February 16 recounted, Iran agreed a decade ago to a nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. It was Trump who ripped up the agreement in 2018. In June 2025, Israel bombed Iran in the midst of US-Iran negotiations. This time too, the Israel-US war plans were set weeks ago when Netanyahu met with Trump, and the negotiations underway between the US and Iran were a charade. This seems to be the new modus operandi of the US: start negotiations and then aim to murder the counterparts.

It is easy to understand why the US allies behave in the embarrassing and self-abasing way they did at the UN Security Council. In addition to the United States, eight of the other fourteen Council members host US military bases or grant the US military access to local bases: Bahrain, Colombia, Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom. These countries are not fully sovereign. They are partially governed by the US. The US military bases house CIA operations, and the host countries constantly look over their shoulder to try to avoid US subversion in their own countries.

As Henry Kissinger famously said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be its friend is fatal.” We can add that to host US military bases and CIA operations is to turn your country into a vassal state.

As an absurd but telling example, the Danish ambassador parroted every US talking point, pointing her finger at Iran for its aggression as if Iran had not been attacked by the US and Israel. She completely forgot that such humiliating vassalage to the US will not play well for Denmark if the US occupies Greenland.

The truthful voices at the Security Council came from the countries not occupied by the United States. Russia explained correctly that the so-called West (that is, the countries occupied by the US) is engaged in victim-blaming when it points its finger at Iran. China reminded the Council that the crisis began with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, not with Iran’s retaliation. Somalia’s ambassador, speaking on behalf of several African member states, truthfully portrayed the source of this recent escalation. The UN Representative of the League of Arab States spoke brilliantly about the root cause of Israel’s mad aggression: the denial of rights to Palestinian people, and Israel’s use of mass murder and regional war to prevent the emergence of a State of Palestine.

When Iran retaliates against US military bases in the Gulf, it is exercising its inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. We must remember that the US and Israel are openly and repeatedly assassinating Iran’s leaders, with the aim of overthrowing its government. When states murder a foreign head of state and attempt to destroy the government, the target of those threats is entitled under international law to defend itself.

The US-Israeli bombing murdered not only Iran’s Supreme Leader and several top government officials, but also more than 140 young girls in their school in Minab. These young children are the victims of a horrific war crime. The countries today that gave a pass to the United States and Israel for these killings—notably Denmark, France, Latvia, the United Kingdom, and of course the US —are also complicit in this war crime.

This UN Security Council emergency meeting will likely be remembered as the day the United Nations ceased to function from its headquarters on American soil. An international organization dedicated to the peaceful settlement of disputes cannot credibly operate from a country that wages illegal wars, threatens member states with annihilation, and treats UN Security Council resolutions as disposable instruments of convenience. For the UN to survive, and we need it to survive, it will need several homes around the world—in Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and others—honoring the true multipolarity of our world.

Let us be clear about what the United States and Israel are pursuing. The US objective is not the security of the American people. The objective is global hegemony. The attempt is to destroy the UN and the international rule of law—an attempt that will fail. Israel’s objective is to establish a Greater Israel, destroy the Palestinian people, and assert its hegemony over hundreds of millions of Arabs across the Middle East (from the Nile to the Euphrates, as US Ambassador Mike Huckabee recently asserted).

The United States’ delusional efforts at global hegemony are proceeding region by region. The US has recently claimed, in a wholly twisted supposed revival of the Monroe Doctrine, that it controls the Western Hemisphere and can dictate how Latin American countries conduct their economic and political affairs. The US kidnapped the sitting Venezuelan president to prove the point, and it now threatens to overthrow the Cuban government as well.

Today’s war against Iran aims to prove that the US similarly owns the Middle East. The war is part of a 30-year campaign, initiated by the Clean Break doctrine, to overthrow all governments that oppose US and Israeli hegemony in the region. Those joint Israel-US wars have included the genocide in Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank and the decades of wars and regime-change operations in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

One part of the US global plan is to commandeer the world’s oil exports and to weaken China and Russia in the process. The US seizure of Venezuela was designed to ensure American control of that country’s oil exports, especially to control the flow of oil to China. US sanctions on Russia aim to prevent Russian oil from reaching India and China. Now the US aims to stop the flow of Iran’s oil to China. More broadly, the US aims to control the entire Gulf region plus Iran to maintain its imperial dominance.

The international order that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt helped to build after the catastrophe of WWII was founded on a simple and profound idea – that law and respect, not force, should govern relations among states. That idea is now being destroyed by the very nation that did most to promote it in founding the UN. The irony is bitter beyond measure.

The truth is that the devastation of the war will not directly affect the so-called West: their children will not suffer traumas or death, and their countries will not be set ablaze. The victims of this attack are the people of the Middle East. They are the expendable ones who suffer from Western arrogance, abuse of power, and addiction to war.

We close with two observations. First, the United States will not achieve global hegemony or kill the UN. The world is too large, too diverse, and too determined to resist domination by any single power, much less one with 4 percent of the world’s population. The world outside of the US and the countries it occupies want the UN to live and thrive. The US attempt will surely fail, but it may cause immense suffering before it does.

Second, if Israel continues its addiction to war and occupation, it too will not survive. That addiction represents a mix of theocracy and post-traumatic stress. Part of Israel believes that it is the biblical kingdom of the 5th century BC. The other part lives in the traumatic memory of the Holocaust, and so is determined to kill any perceived adversary rather than learn to live together with it in peace. The Israeli Ambassador’s twisted defense of Israel’s brazen attack on Iran, as usual, cited the Bible and Auschwitz as the two justifications. These are Israel’s two perennial references, but not the real world of today.

A state that depends on permanent war, permanent occupation and slaughter of the Palestinians, and the indefinite subjugation of millions of people has no viable future, and the policies that the United States is now pursuing on Israel’s behalf will accelerate rather than prevent that outcome.

The two-state solution, which the Council has endorsed repeatedly, offers Israel a path to peace. Tragically Israel rejects that. The result, eventually, will be the end of Israel itself in its current form, especially as the US population is rapidly turning against Israel’s violent theocracy and towards the cause of Palestine. Perhaps there will be one democratic state for both Arabs and Jews living in peace, together, with an end of apartheid rule.

These are harsh truths, but emergencies demand honesty. The UN is being murdered by Israel and the United States. The Security Council must rouse itself from their military occupation by the US, and remember that they are the stewards of the UN Charter’s promise to maintain international peace and security.