That projection helps explain Trump’s cratering numbers on his mind-bogglingly stupid Iran War. Even in his MAGA base, support for the war was only about 50% last May. It is now only a third. And that’s Trump’s base. In the rest of the country people want it to be over with yesterday every time they fill up the tank.

Rabobank has downgraded forecasts for Netherlands economic growth in the next two quarters to 0.2% because of high diesel and fossil gas prices, and expects the real purchasing power of the average Dutch consumer to fall. BBC Monitoring reports,”Head of Dutch Economics at Rabobank’s research division Hugo Erken describes the outlook as ‘a crisis in slow motion,’ warning that ‘the worst price rises are yet to come.”‘

The opposition People’s Republican Party in Turkey is alleging that what with the high diesel prices, Turkish farmers are “unable to produce” (Artışların çiftçiye üretim yapamaz). That would be bad news for people who, like eat food.

In the European Union, average transportation fuel inflation was over 20% in the spring and was still high at an increase year over year of 13.7% in June. It is now spiking again.

India and South Africa are also suffering from high fuel-driven inflation.

Big Oil shills have been attacking green energy for two decades as unreliable and intermittent. The sun, they say, doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t always blow. This line of attack has been terminally blunted by two developments, however. The rise of megabatteries on the Chinese and Californian grids, for instance, has allowed solar and wind energy to be stored and released when needed.

The other development, spurred by the Ukraine and Iran Wars, is the increasing unreliability and internmittency of fossil fuels themselves. Although it has changed tactics in the past week, Ukraine had been striking Russian refineries during the past month, creating fuel shortages and causing Russia to halt diesel exports. The Trump administration tore up the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran ten days ago and began intensively bombing that country, leading to a near re-closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Then this week the Helpers of God (Ansar Allah) government of North Yemen announced that they would target shipping to and from Saudi ports on the Red Sea through the Bab al-Mandeb (“The Gate of Tears”) that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and thence the Indian Ocean.

These events have put Brent crude back up over $90 a barrel. The Russian halt of diesel exports through the end of this month, on top of the interruption of diesel and gasoline exports from the Gulf, poses special challenges to world economies.

Diesel is the work horse of modern societies, crucial for trucking, agriculture and industries. Prices in the US have crept back up to $5 a gallon (more in California, which is tied to the Asian market). Diesel prices are especially inelastic — that is, when it is expensive you can’t easily just cut back and use less of it. Trucking companies delivering food from farmers to grocery stores have to hit the road even if the price to fill up is high. People need food. Many trucking companies are seeing shrinking profit margins because they have to spend so much on diesel.

Photo by Rhys Moult on Unsplash

But the added cost of fuel then causes the prices of the commodities, especially food, being delivered by truck also to rise. So diesel shortages of the sort being produced by the triple bottleneck of our 21st century drone and missile wars are especially inflationary.

The Iran War had put US inflation up to 4.2% in May. After the MOU was signed and Gulf shipping resumed, the inflation rate in the US fell in June to 3.5%. But now? It will likely rise again, not only the rest of this year but well into 2027 (depending on what happens in Russia and Iran).

It seems pretty certain that a lot of working families are going to be hurt by higher food and fuel costs this year because of Trump’s foolish attack on Iran.

Consumers who can afford to do so can protect themselves by buying electric cars, coupling them with rooftop solar and home batteries. As for replacing diesel, China has developed big electric trucks and wants “at least 1.6 million electric heavy-goods vehicles on the road by 2030” according to SCMP. Since they put a world-class nincompoop in the White House, American voters will, in contrast, just suffer . . . for a very long time.

( Middle East Monitor ) – Normalising genocide was a way to normalise colonial expansion in Gaza. Only three weeks after Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich revealed plans for three Israeli settlements, the Nachala settler group organised a march last Sunday, in which settlers and ministers, including Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Economy Minister Nir Barakat and other Likud politicians, marched to a closed military zone, bypassing the Israeli military’s roadblocks to reach the border with Gaza. The call was for rebuilding the former settlements of Elei Sinai, Dugit and Nisanit which were evacuated in 2005 under the Disengagement Plan by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz is pushing for the establishment of three Nahal outposts in Gaza, which historically have proved to be the precursor to colonial expansion. 

Both Ben Gvir and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi advocated for Jewish settlement in Gaza. Ben Gvir reiterated the so-called voluntary emigration scheme to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza, while Karhi described settling in Gaza as “a meaningful picture of victory.”

A colonial victory, however, is violent. Since before the 1948 Nakba, Zionist settler-colonialism has been replete with various forms of violence and dispossession. Throughout the decades, settler-colonial expansion across Palestine cannot be considered as anything other than an ongoing act of violence. Israeli settler narratives, therefore, remain violent, as there is history to tie to the expressed rhetoric. The genocide in Gaza is one example of recent violent colonial history.

The destruction of Gaza and the forced displacement of Palestinians not killed by Israel during the genocide are somehow portrayed as a necessity in Israeli settler narratives, but the fact remains that genocide was committed against Palestinians.

Another fact that cannot be omitted is that the international community took too long to call out Israel’s genocide, and it will now take too long to oppose colonial expansion in Gaza. When it is too late to speak out, the international community will issue a condemnation. 

READ: Miliband comes under fire after poor start fails to break with Starmer’s Gaza policy

The Israeli military has also confirmed it is building a physical barrier in Gaza along the Yellow Line, “to prevent infiltration and protect Israeli troops and Israeli communities near Gaza.” Palestinians are already prevented from accessing the entirety of Gaza, which means that anything that is being constructed is being done with colonial expansion in mind, rather than rebuilding Gaza as the Board of Peace likes to remind and lament about. 

Hosny Salah at Pexels

As Palestinians were butchered during the genocide, the international community refused to question Israel’s intent. The settler march organised by Nachala should raise many questions in the context of all the different strands of forced displacement employed against Palestinians in Gaza. This was not just a protest march – it was an affirmation that already has proposed plans awaiting the Israeli government’s approval. As elections approach, colonial expansion will play a major role since Israel was founded upon settlement and expansion on Palestinian land. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s silence regarding settlements is not opposition; it simply means that for now, biding his time is a better game.

Whether settlements in Gaza are imminent or not, the fact remains that plans exist, and it is precisely these plans that lend further complicity between settler movements and the government. One cannot survive without the other. 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Via Middle East Monitor

Unless otherwise stated in the article above, this work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

(The Conversation) – Coverage of the conflict between Iran, Israel and the United States has largely focused on battlefield developments, political statements and international diplomacy.

However, another story has been unfolding on the streets of Iran.

Despite fears of further military escalation dominating daily life, residents continue take up space, both in person and online. Night after night, they gather in public spaces, posting the evidence on social media.

In this process, many have turned to culture and the arts to show solidarity, and to encourage coming together during this uncertain time.

Battling crisis through community

It’s common for civilians living through conflict to seek community.

Ukrainian protesters met in public spaces following Russia’s 2014 invasion. New Yorkers assembled after September 11. And in the second world war, masses of Londoners gathered underground during the Blitz bombing campaign by Nazi Germany.

In moments of crisis, public visibility becomes a way to reclaim agency when all else feels precarious. In Iran, this response is taking shape across three interconnected layers: physical presence, cultural presence and digital presence.

Physical presence

The Iranian public has maintained a noticeable presence in streets, parks and public squares. What began as gatherings shaped by shock, mourning and uncertainty gradually evolved into a kind of ritual.

The significance of these gatherings goes beyond displays of courage. During wartime conflicts, empty streets can become symbols of fear, instability and social disruption.

Public presence, by contrast, communicates continuity. By remaining visible, citizens symbolically assert they have not completely surrendered to the logic of war.

For many, this isn’t necessarily about supporting a certain political system or leader. It’s about protecting the places, communities and relationships that define their lives.

Years of work, family histories and collective memory are threatened by this conflict. Remaining present is a way to defend these attachments.

In April, after US President Donald Trump threatened Iran’s critical infrastructure, musician Ali Ghamsari protested by travelling to the Damavand power plant and playing his music in front of the facility. Ghamsari’s image quickly became part of a broader conversation around civic responsibility.

We also saw the strength of mass physical presence demonstrated earlier in July, during the funeral ceremonies for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Tens of thousands of mourners gathered in Tehran in a major public display of collective mourning.

Cultural and artistic presence

Artists, musicians and cultural figures have played a key role in Iran’s collective response to the war.

Their participation helps instil a sense of belonging, while encouraging people to remain engaged with public life.

In this sense, art and culture function not only as entertainment, but as a form of social infrastructure connecting individuals with communities.

Music, poetry, religious chanting and visual art have all become ways to collectively process fear, grief and uncertainty – and explore broader questions of resilience and identity.

One example is the song Hasbi Allah by Iranian singer-songwriter Mohsen Chavoshi, with lyrics by Mehdi Abbasi.

This song draws on a long tradition of Iranian poetry, music and spirituality. It reflects on the human cost of war, mourning those who have suffered, while expressing attachment to the homeland.

Similarly, religious chants (maddahi) have become an important part of wartime gatherings.

Traditionally associated with mourning and collective remembrance in Shia Islam, these chants in a conflict context often combine religious symbolism with expressions of love for one’s country, and a willingness to sacrifice for it.

Some chants also draw on Iran’s broader cultural and historical imagination. Another video, for example, references figures such as Arash the Archer, or Arash-e Kamangir. This hero from Persian mythology is said to have sacrificed his life by shooting an arrow that defined the borders of Iran.

These performances create a bridge between religious devotion, historical memory, and national identity.

Digital presence

One of the most distinctive features of this conflict has been the emergence of AI-generated videos, memes and parody as vehicles for wartime storytelling.

Photo by rezasaad رضاصاد on Unsplash

Unlike the highly ideological, martyrdom-centred narratives in earlier eras of Iranian propaganda, much of this content adopts the language of contemporary internet culture.

One example is a series of AI-generated Lego animations that have gone viral, with some accumulating hundreds of millions of views. These videos recreate military events, while incorporating references to Iranian history and mythology and humour – often parodying Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Many are overlaid with English music and lyrics, which suggests they were designed to travel beyond Iranian audiences. Yet the creators behind them are largely anonymous.

We’ve also seen younger residents use irony, memes and pop culture references to communicate their feelings about the war.

For instance, the video below combines patriotic themes with playful visuals and self-aware humour. The rap repeats the line, “from us remain spirits that live on because they love the homeland”.

These examples reveal a significant shift in the language of wartime communication. Iranian citizens are no longer just audiences receiving official messaging. They are active participants in building narratives about the war.

Some of the most compelling stories of the conflict have emerged not from the battlefield, but from the people who refuse to watch along helplessly.

Hamideh Khaleghi Mohammadi, Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of Sydney and Ali Abbasi, Sessional Academic and Researcher in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Things are changing in the US, as well. On July 15^th, 103 Democrats voted to cut $3.3B in aid to Israel in the State Department spending bill. This is a profound expression of rejection of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership by a majority of House Democrats. While this vote is only symbolic for now, it represents a tectonic shift within the Democratic Party and a dramatic reckoning.

Two years ago, just 37 House Democrats voted to cut off U.S. aid for Israel. Now more than half of the Democratic representatives have come around to recognizing: 1.) That unconditional US support for Israel is no longer tenable, and 2.) Netanyahu’s Likud government has become a global pariah state, and 3.) Continued support of Israel brings the US global alienation; and BTW, probably cost Kamala Harris the 2024 presidential election. Though the Democratic leadership remains captive to the AIPAC payroll, the US-Israeli relationship has never been more tenuous. This occurs in tandem with the rise of similar grassroots movements within Israel.

The vote on an amendment to the State Department spending bill passed 314-104, on the strength of unwavering Republican support for the MAGA-Likud alliance; so Israel will continue to receive $3.3B. Convicted felon Donald Trump and Netanyahu have forged a symbiotic “Siamese criminal conspiracy,” and positioned Likud as the Israeli wing of MAGA. To his credit, lame duck Rep. Thomas Massie introduced the amendment to cut off aid to Israel, but all other Republicans remain in lockstep with the MAGA-Likud alliance. The 103 Democrats who voted to cut off aid to Israel are listed here.  Lamentably, AIPAC still gets a free pass on unlawful interference in US election campaigns.

The UK was the original benefactor-protector of Israel during World War I, before Israel was founded. It was also the genesis of the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, as the Crown made two separate agreements on the same piece of real estate to ensure their hegemony in the region. The motivation was to protect the shipping lanes in the straights of Suez. In 1915, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Henry McMahon engaged Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca in a diplomatic correspondence in an effort to enlist Arab support against Germany and Turkey in World War I, and spark an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. As that was playing out in a series of eight transmissions over the next two years, the UK issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, to express their support for a “Jewish homeland” in the Levant. Ultimately, the UK decided that the nascent Jewish state would be a more reliable client and guardian of the Suez Straights than the Arabs, and formulated their policy accordingly.

The United States supplanted the UK and France as Israel’s benefactor-protector in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez War. That also happened to be President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s (Ike) finest moment as president, in a display of integrity that once characterized American presidencies. Just days before the 1956 presidential election, Ike ordered Israel, the UK and France to quit their military campaign in the Suez. Ike was trying to pressure the Soviet Union to quit their invasion of Hungary. He essentially told them, “How can I tell the Soviets to quit Hungary and stay out of the Middle East, when you guys are invading Egypt?”

Eisenhower’s role in ending the 1956 Suez conflict represented a true “profile in courage,” in the spirit of his successor John F. Kennedy. Israel’s invasion of the Sinai on October 29 had been pre-arranged with Britain and France, who followed up with air support on November 5. This happened to be Election Day in the U.S., and occurred, despite a UN brokered cease-fire that was issued on November 2. In 1950, the US, Britain and France formed their own tripartite agreement “to assist the victim of any aggression in the Mideast.” Ike was furious that his closest allies had violated the spirit of that agreement AND kept him in the dark about their plans for invasion.

The US became Israel’s guardian and financier after the 1956 Suez crisis, and a bipartisan agreement between America’s governing parties has held sway for unqualified support for Israel ever since. Now, that may be nearing the end of its course, as a majority of Democrats have voted to end unconditional aid to Israel. Though he has received over $1.7M from AIPAC during his leadership, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently called for a “major reset” in US-Israeli relations.

Perhaps the most astonishing development is that 15 House Democrats who had prior AIPAC endorsements (and funding) voted for the aid cutoff. AIPAC promptly removed their donation links on their site. That unprecedented display of courage illustrates cracks in the AIPAC dyke, and represents a dramatic policy shift. Since the 1978 Camp David Accords, the US has given Israel about $250B (adjusted for inflation).

AIPAC tries to argue that NYC Mayor Zohran Mandami, and others who oppose the illegal West Bank Settlements and Gaza genocide, are supporting Hamas. After October 7, 2023, Israel had overwhelming global sympathy, which they quickly squandered with the genocidal overkill in Gaza. As the situation has worsened, more US elected officials have questioned or abandoned their support for Israel including Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-WA). She said, “This is U.S. taxpayer dollars. And we have not upheld the Israeli government to any of our domestic laws or international laws in terms of requirements, completely unaccountable money. And it has to stop.”

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Public Domain. Via Picryl

AIPAC has supported over 100 climate-change deniers and 2020 election deniers in Congress, in their campaign to aid and promote Trump. But, their solid standing in the US is at greater risk than ever, because they are defending an untenable position.  Yet, they’re still strong enough to finance primary challenges to Democrats who have broken with Israel in a way that is blatantly unlawful for a foreign lobby. The FBI’s Foreign Influence Task force and Justice Department responsible for prosecuting such crimes have been silent under Trump.

The Trump-Netanyahu partnership has been disastrous for both nations and the world. Now it’s prompting a reckoning in US and Israeli politics, and hope for a change. The State Department spending vote is a dramatic first step, as is the rise of “A Place for Us All” in Israel. But opposition movements in both countries have a long way to go. The base must be broadened in both movements to: a.) Overturn the entrenched, unqualified support for Israel in Congress, and b.) Grow the new Israeli base way beyond the current 50,000 supporters. That would amount to only 0.8% of the projected October vote for a new government, far short of the 3.25% needed to gain four Knesset seats. But the tide has turned.

(The Conversation) – On Monday, the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen announced they would impose a “maritime embargo” on Saudi Arabia, in what could mark a dangerous escalation in the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran.

The Houthis have indicated they plan to target Saudi Arabian vessels travelling through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, also known as the “Gate of Tears”, which connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

This escalation threatens to have a significant impact – particularly for Saudi Arabian crude oil travelling via the Red Sea, much of which has been recently diverted there to avoid the Strait of Hormuz.

In a statement, Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry expressed the country’s “strongest condemnation” of the threats, and said it would take “all necessary measures” to protect its ships. It is not clear how effective this approach will be.

And as we’ve seen in the past, threats alone can be enough to disrupt the flow – and cost – of shipping activities in the Red Sea.

The ‘Gate of Tears’

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait, whose name means “Gate of Tears” in Arabic, is a narrow waterway located between Yemen to the northeast and Djibouti and Eritrea to the southwest.

Together, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Red Sea and Suez Canal form a vital maritime channel for global shipments, connecting nations in Europe with those in Asia and the Pacific.

About 10–12% of global maritime trade passes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait each year.

Saudi Arabia’s ‘Plan B’

This year, the Red Sea has grown even more important for global shipping – and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest oil producers. China is the largest buyer, but other major buyers in Asia include Japan, South Korea, India and Singapore.

With severe, ongoing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, Saudi Arabia has been diverting exports to the Red Sea to bypass it.

The country’s east–west oil pipeline, connecting Abqaiq in the east with Yanbu on the Red Sea, was restored to full capacity earlier this year.

The port at Yanbu now reportedly handles more than 70% of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil exports.

The bigger risk in the Red Sea

At this stage, the Houthis have only declared a blockade on Saudi Arabian ships – not a “closure” of the shipping corridor to all traffic.

If the maritime blockade via the Red Sea is expanded further to other countries, global trade for manufactured goods, retail products, electronics and machinery could be severely impacted.

To avoid the Red Sea, ships can use an alternative path around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. This is a much longer and more expensive route.

Possible trouble for inflation

Insurance costs for ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz have surged since the beginning of the conflict, reportedly now ranging from 3–10% of hull value (the value of a ship itself, not the cargo). That extra insurance can add millions of dollars to each shipment.

Insurance costs for ships transiting the Red Sea have reportedly already risen in the wake of the Houthis’ announcement.

Ultimately, higher insurance costs for shipping are typically passed onto end consumers. This can add to inflationary pressures around the world.

Photo by Nassim Wahba on Unsplash

What’s on the horizon

We don’t yet know how effective a Houthi blockade on Saudi Arabia will be. Nor if the situation will escalate any further from here.

For countries around the world, this new maritime blockade has likely dimmed hopes the economic disruption from the conflict in the Middle East will be over soon.

Businesses and governments need to continue to examine their supply-chain resilience, and consider long-term alternatives for sourcing and shipments of key goods, including oil.

Moving forward, it is also important to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and continue transitioning toward renewable energy for transport, logistics and manufacturing.

Sanjoy Paul, Associate Professor in Operations and Supply Chain Management, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Let’s face it: Donald Trump should be considered an atomic bomb of a president (potentially all too literally, even if in slow motion, thanks to climate change). When it comes to actual atomic weaponry, he’s been threatening for a while first to restart the testing of nuclear weapons, which the U.S. stopped 33 years ago, and then (at least implicitly) to use just such a weapon against the Iranians. In April, in fact, he insisted that, if Iran refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back” — only to later deny that he meant he would ever consider using an atomic weapon against that country.

Of course, once upon a time in school (think the 1950s), the young Donald Trump, like me, must have “ducked and covered“ under his desk in preparation for a potential Soviet atomic attack on our city (New York). During those Cold War years, of course, atomic testing was considered normal, while our country and the Soviet Union were indeed facing off globally in a remarkably threatening fashion. But no ducking and covering now, not from our president anyway.

Once upon a time, in the last century when I was an editor at Pantheon Books, I published Unforgettable Fire: Pictures Drawn by Atomic Bomb Survivors. Then, at the invitation of the Japanese editor of that book, I actually visited Hiroshima and went to the museum there dedicated to my country’s nuclear devastation of that city and Nagasaki to end World War II. I’ll never forget that dead 12-year-old’s charred lunchbox or that human shadow etched in stone by the atomic blast. Of course, as a boy, I had all too typically grown-up dreaming (in the sense of a nightmare) about mushroom clouds exploding over New York City.

 

Buy the Book

But in all those years, I never quite imagined that there might be a slow-motion version of atomic warfare on this planet, which we’ve come to mildly label “climate change.” (It should, of course, be called something more like “climate catastrophe” or “climate hell.”) Nor had I ever quite imagined that we would elect a president seemingly intent on making it happen ever more quickly and severely. After all, he’s pushed remarkably hard to further fossil-fuelize our world. As Juan Cole noted all too aptly at his Informed Comment website, just as the 250th anniversary of this country’s founding was passing, “Trump’s promotion of coal burning and cancellation of wind turbines makes him the Benedict Arnold of America’s current struggle.”

These days, of course, nine countries have nuclear arsenals (enough weapons to wipe out any number of Earth-sized planets), and Donald Trump has recently been at war with Iran, the country he feared might become the tenth. And yet, in the 80 years since my country ended World War II by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people (including an estimated 38,000 children), consider it a miracle that another of those weapons (now horrifically more powerful) has never been used, although since the first nuclear test in 1945, there have been more than 2,000 other “tests” in which such weapons were exploded, which have, of course, sent cancer-causing radiation across the planet.

But don’t push that miracle idea too far, since it turns out that we humans proved all too capable of coming up with another way to devastate this planet, a distinctly slow-motion version of atomic warfare. In fact, at this very moment, I’m sitting in an air-conditioned room writing this piece, while the world more or less burns outside my window. Recently, high temperature records were tied or broken across 21 states in my country, including my own state, with worse potentially still to come in our future. (The same, by the way, has been true across much of Europe, the part of the planet reputedly heating fastest in this increasingly strange world of ours, with Spain only recently topping a record 113 degrees Fahrenheit.) I’m thinking, of course, of climate change and, sadly, at this very moment, when it comes to that version of warfare — and it should indeed be thought of as a form of warfare! — against this planet, there really is no ducking and covering (unless you count air conditioning, which uses electricity and so only makes matters worse). If you happened to live in Europe recently or in the midwestern and eastern parts of the United States where temperatures rose to striking heights or simply went crazy (including hitting 104 degrees in my hometown, New York City), you would certainly know that.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash

In short, it’s increasingly hot, hot, hot, damagingly so on this planet of ours, and Donald Trump, the second time around, not only doesn’t give a damn (an all too appropriate term under the circumstances) but seems remarkably intent on making this planet hotter still. At least, to look on the bright side, climate change did make something of a mess of his celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence, or was that the 250th anniversary of Glorious Donald? When it comes to him and the possibility of either a potentially devastating nuclear war or a fossil-fuelized heat war on this planet, he seems perfectly willing to engage in world-ending activities as long as they’re in slow motion and, at 80 years old, he (like me) won’t be around to experience the resulting holocaust, which he has, of course, termed a “green energy scam” and a “hoax.”

Yes, make no mistake about it, while he’s officially ended that 33-year moratorium on nuclear testing, that may be the least of our problems. Whatever other recent presidents have (or haven’t) done in terms of climate change, he seems remarkably intent on doing so much worse by wildly promoting fossil fuels, while doing everything he can to dismiss anything that might make this planet less hot, including wind and solar power of any sort. (In the process, he’s giving imperial decline a new meaning by turning what’s left of imperial power on this planet over to China, which now controls so much of green energy development and production.)

If his dreams (oh, sorry, nightmares) come true, he will certainly be known historically (if, of course, there is any “historically” then) as the president of the United States who did his best to end it all (even if in slow motion).

Under the circumstances, we should consider Donald Trump the human equivalent of a slow-motion atomic bomb.

Critics now see Israeli military aid as a misguided strategy and political target. The most visible shift has occurred inside the Democratic Party.

A collapsing bipartisan consensus on Israel

Driven by voter and demographic shifts, humanitarian concerns in Gaza, and the unwarranted conflict with Iran, more than 100 House Democrats recently supported an amendment seeking to block billions of dollars in Israel-related assistance, an extraordinary departure from previous voting patterns.

House Democratic leadership (including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) has officially called for a “major reset” in U.S.-Israel relations.

Senate efforts to restrict weapons transfers have also attracted substantial Democratic support, reflecting growing concern about civilian casualties, international law, and U.S. responsibility.

The Republican coalition is also less unified than before. While most Republican lawmakers remain strongly supportive of Israel, MAGA-aligned figures influenced by anti-interventionism, “America First” priorities, and skepticism toward foreign aid have increasingly questioned open-ended commitments.

Growing opposition within the MAGA movement to U.S. arms transfers centers on a deep ideological rift over foreign interventionism. Former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene left office in January 2026 after a bitter falling out with President Trump.

While much of the base supports President Trump’s foreign policy, a growing, vocal faction—backed by prominent voices like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Representative Thomas Massie—challenges continued, unconditional weapons shipments.

The result is a new political landscape: traditional pro-Israel Democrats, evangelical conservatives, progressive Democrats, libertarian Republicans, and anti-interventionist conservatives now approach the issue from fundamentally different premises.

The debate is therefore no longer simply “pro-Israel versus anti-Israel.” It concerns whether U.S. strategic interests, domestic law, international obligations, and humanitarian concerns can continue to be reconciled under existing policy.

From political controversy to legal challenges

At the same time, legal initiatives accusing U.S. officials of complicity or failure to prevent alleged Israeli violations have moved the debate from politics into courts, international institutions, and questions of historical accountability.

The legal debate has developed along several tracks. The most significant U.S. case was Defense for Children International–Palestine v. Biden, brought by Palestinian organizations, Gaza residents, and Palestinian-Americans against President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, for their alleged “failure to prevent and complicity in the unfolding genocide against Gaza.”

Along with the human rights organizations, the lawsuit was promoted by Josh Paul who had resigned from the U.S. State Department over arms shipments to Israel; Jewish Voice for Peace; and genocide and Holocaust scholars spearheaded by international lawyer William Schabas.

The plaintiffs proposed that a genocide, or serious risk of genocide, of Palestinians in Gaza was occurring. They also argued the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in the genocide. Those U.S. failures were seen to contribute to the erosion of “long and widely held norms of international law,” including the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Palestine et al. v. Biden et al. case was dismissed by the U.S. Court with a ruling that “while it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide,” U.S. foreign policy was a political question over which courts lacked jurisdiction. In a written decision, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White quoted approvingly from a prior preliminary ruling (by the ICJ in the case brought against Israel by South Africa). It found Israel’s conduct in Gaza may amount to genocide and ordered it to stop killing and wounding Palestinians.

Other initiatives include advocacy and legal campaigns by groups such as Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), which warned U.S. officials that continued assistance after awareness of alleged violations could raise questions of aiding and abetting.

DAWN wanted the ICC to investigate Biden, Blinken, and Austin for violating Articles 25(3)(c) and (d) of the Rome Statute. These crimes featured those identified in the ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Intriguingly, the DAWN submission widened the net of “accessorial liability” to include several other U.S. officials as well.

More recently, DAWN and allied organizations have also challenged Trump administration’s measures targeting ICC-related advocacy.

Genocide scholar William Schabas and other international-law experts have supported arguments that third-party states may face responsibility if they knowingly facilitate atrocities. In the mainstream corporate media, these remain contested (though increasingly popular) legal interpretations. Yet, the latter have expanded the debate beyond Israel itself to states providing weapons, diplomatic protection, or political cover.

Biden cabinet’s accessorial liability

Critics of the Biden administration argue that responsibility cannot be limited to the president alone. They point to a broader decision-making network involving arms transfers, diplomatic protection, intelligence coordination, and political messaging.

During her failed presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris touted her readiness for executive responsibility by supporting continued military aid to Israel. Although she acknowledged that Gaza was a “humanitarian catastrophe,” she said that she would not shift policy from Biden. Nor would she end arms sales to Israel.

The role of Secretary of State Antony Blinken was most critical because he served as Biden’s right-hand in the Middle East and led the administration’s (largely futile) diplomacy in the region. The State Department oversees diplomatic relations, arms approvals, and implementation of human-rights-related foreign assistance standards.

U.S. military support relied on his subordinates who failed to raise the alarm on the use of arms transfers to Israel in disregard of U.S. foreign policy, domestic legal standards, and international obligations, including Bonnie Jenkins, the Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security, and Stanley L. Brown, acting as Assistant Secretary Political-Military Affairs, which coordinates between the State and Defense Departments on arms transfers and oversees the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.

Along with Blinken, Pentagon had the vital role. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and senior officials were involved because the Department manages military assistance and security cooperation. Israel’s military support relied on senior officials like Amanda Dory, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who provided strategic direction for international arms sales, and Mike Miller, as Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Other officials identified by critics include National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan who advised the President on the strategic implications of arms transfers and ensured the coordination between defense, diplomatic, and intelligence agencies. In turn UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield had a high-profile role in the UN Security Council. She vetoed seven resolutions calling for immediate ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and limits to Israeli attacks against civilians. She was the public face of a cabinet that was more willing to finance arms for genocide than to end the atrocities.

As Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen may look like a gentle grandmother, but she also pledged the U.S. could afford to offer huge amounts of military aid to Ukraine and Israel at the same time, enabling the ceaseless flow of arms in both wars. She warned Iran that nothing was “off the table” for sanctions if Tehran were to be linked to the Hamas-led attack on Israel.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo oversaw dual-use technology exports. CIA Director William J. Burner and the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines were intimately linked with the Biden cabinet’s actions regarding Gaza.

So, in addition to the big three and the supportive six members of the Biden cabinet, the widening net of accessorial liability includes at least half a dozen other heads of executive departments and some ten cabinet-level officials.

The legal question is not whether every official who supported policy decisions shares identical responsibility. The narrower issue is whether individuals who knowingly continued, facilitated, or defended policies that allegedly contributed to unlawful acts and mass atrocities could or should face political, reputational, or legal consequences.

Historically, accountability after mass atrocities has increasingly examined not only battlefield actors but also the widening web of political leaders, administrators, financiers, and institutions that enable military campaigns.

Are mass atrocities crimes without punishment

In Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov thought he was above ordinary morality. Since some are destined to rise beyond good and evil for a higher purpose, he commits a murder but discovers that he will gain no salvation without atonement. Raskolnikov’s unraveling reveals a deeper truth. No mind, no matter how brilliant, can erase its own humanity.

But perhaps things have changed since Dostoyevsky.

After leaving office, many senior Biden officials moved into academia, consulting, publishing, advisory boards, and policy institutions. Today they pontificate on their great achievements in the Biden cabinet.

After leaving office on January 20, 2025, former President Joe Biden has been writing his White House memoir. Thanks to a deal with Creative Artists Agency (CAA), a Hollywood giant, he hopes to cash on future opportunities. He has made only selective public appearances, due to ongoing treatment for prostate cancer.

Having served as Biden’s echo chamber on Gaza, Vice-President Kamala Harris moved to Los Angeles with her family. Like Biden, she, too, signed with CAA to focus on speaking and publishing. 

Former State Secretary Blinken entered the policy and academic circuit. He has a book deal with Crown Publishing. The memoir promises to provide a “candid” and “rare glimpse” of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza. Blinken is likely hoping a new post in a post-Trump Democratic administration or a return to lucrative private sector consulting.

Former Defense Secretary Austin has also returned to defense-policy and advisory circles. Prior to the Biden White House, he earned seven figures from defense companies, while working alongside Blinken at Pine Island Capital Partners, a private equity firm investing in defense companies. In summer 2025, he rejoined the Carnegie Corp., while launching a consulting firm, Clarion Strategies, with former NATO officials. As CEO and co-founder, he now stood to benefit from the global defense industry.

Jake Sullivan, the former National Security Advisor joined Harvard Kennedy School as the inaugural Kissinger Professor of the Practice of Statecraft and World Order. After the Gaza genocide, he teaches international affairs and global strategy.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the public face of the Biden cabinet in the UN, works as a senior advisor at the global advisory and advocacy firm APCO Worldwide. Over the years, APCO’s multiple controversies include corporate campaigns for the tobacco industry, lobbying for foreign governments with poor human rights records, ties to Israeli defense contractors, and investigations into spying on journalists.

Gina Raimondo, former Secretary of Commerce, joined the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a distinguished fellow, co-chairing a task force on economic security.

After her role in arms transfers to Israel and the Gaza genocide, Bonnie Jenkins serves as a visiting professor of international affairs at George Washington University. Specializing in security assistance, weapons destruction, and international security operations, Stanley Brown continues to do what he did during the Gaza genocide.

Janet Yellen, William Burns, and other former officials transitioned into advisory, institutional, or private-sector roles.

Supporters argue these transitions reflect normal democratic circulation between government, academia, and policy institutions. Critics say they demonstrate a structural problem. Officials involved in controversial foreign-policy decisions often face limited consequences and can continue operating within elite networks. Revolving doors between the White House and the private sector compound the problem.

The broader issue is institutional rather than personal. If officials who design or defend disputed policies face no meaningful review, future administrations are likely to conclude that reputational costs are manageable and legal risks minimal.

President Joe Biden hosts a strategy meeting with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Friday, September 13, 2024, in the Blue Room of the White House. Seated alongside the President are Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz). Public Domain. Via Picryl.

The Trump escalation: Gaza, Iran, the ICC, and complicity allegations

The second Trump administration has transformed the Gaza debate from a question of U.S. military support into a broader confrontation over the limits of executive power, international law, and American responsibility for allied conduct.

Critics argue that President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Mike Waltz, ex-Security Adviser and current US Ambassador to the UN, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have moved beyond Biden-era policies by rejecting many external constraints on U.S. and Israeli actions.

On Gaza, the Trump administration has supported positions that critics describe as facilitating potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, or forced displacement.

The most controversial proposal was Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. could take control of Gaza and relocate its Palestinian population — a plan critics argued raised serious questions under international humanitarian law, while supporters presented it as a reconstruction and security initiative.

As the Trump administration pursued policies hostile to international accountability mechanisms, the confrontation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) became a defining issue. Trump issued Executive Order 14203 imposing sanctions and other restrictions on ICC officials involved in investigations affecting U.S. personnel or Israeli officials, arguing that the Court had acted illegitimately against American sovereignty and its allies.

Critics argue that attacking the ICC while shielding Israeli officials facing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity severely risks weakening global accountability mechanisms.

In Iran and the wider Middle East, the administration adopted a “maximum-pressure” strategy, restoring sanctions and intensifying efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, regional networks, and military capabilities. Critics warn that escalation policies — including support for Israeli military actions against Iran and threats of overwhelming retaliation — risk expanding regional warfare, generating new civilian harm and participating in war crimes and mass atrocities.

The central legal argument against the administration is not that every official personally committed crimes, but that senior policymakers may incur political or legal exposure if they knowingly authorize, facilitate, or shield actions that violate international humanitarian law.

The historical question is whether these policies will be remembered as necessary exercises of state power — or as a precedent where a great power increasingly exempts itself and its partners from the rules they claim to defend.

Collapse of credibility

The central question is whether controversial wartime policies become temporary exceptions or permanent precedents. If extensive civilian harm, unrestricted weapons transfers, collective punishment allegations, or attacks on the accountability of institutions become politically acceptable, the consequences will extend beyond Gaza.

The United States has historically promoted international legal norms with strategic exceptions. The Gaza debate exposes that contradiction more sharply than many previous conflicts because Washington is simultaneously a military supplier, presumed diplomatic protector, and global advocate of a “rules-based order.”

The ultimate issue is therefore the collapse of the U.S. institutional credibility, due to the fatal gap between Washington’s stated values and observable events.

There is no return to status quo ante Gaza.

It was America’s first Gulf War in 1991 that led me to read John Esposito’s 1992 book, “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?” I read that work to understand why the Western media portrayed my ancestral Iraq as part of a greater Muslim threat to the United States, as if America needed to create a civilizational enemy to replace the Soviet Union and Red Scare.

Indeed, in that influential book, Esposito argued that Western representations of the Islamic world — and the tragic foreign policy decisions that resulted — were in part the distorted products of Islamophobia. Esposito was one of the foremost scholars of a pre-9/11 Islamophobia that I personally experienced, emerging as a result of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the 1991 Gulf War, the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, as well as the 1996 Oklahoma City bombings, for which Muslim Americans were initially blamed even though it was the work of Timothy McVeigh, a member of a right-wing militia.

His 1992 work proved prescient. He rejected the term “Islamic fundamentalism,” for him a construct that emerged as part of the post-Cold War anxiety seeking a replacement for Communism. Reading the book now, one can draw enduring lessons about the path to America’s two-decade-long “War on Terror,” and its current conflict with Iran.

XLIX.

‘Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays :
      Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

The original was the Bodleian manuscript no. 94. It is on the internet here :

از روی حقیقتی نه از روی مَجاز
ما لُعْبَتَکانیم و فلک لُعبَت‌باز
یک‌چند در این بساط بازی کردیم
رفتیم به صندوقِ عدم یک‌یک باز

The first line contrasts the the literal or “real” with the figure of speech or simile.

The great Arabist Wolfhart Heinrichs, who from 1998 became the James Richard Jewett Professor of Arabic at Harvard, explained the origins of this pairing in a classic article.

He noted that the term for “figurative” had its own history before it became paired with the word for “real” or “true,” but once this pairing became common it affected the connotations of both words.

Heinrichs explains that the term for “figurative,” according to one medieval commentator on the Qur’an, could refer to metaphor, analogy, allusion, “and intending something general with a phrase referring to something particular and vice versa.”

He also cites a passage from the great writer al-Jahiz, who died in Baghdad at 92 around 868 or 869 CE when his bookshelf fell on him. Al-Jahiz said that the “fire of war” is used “in the way of an image not in the way of reality” but that “the fire that is raised to guide the traveling party” . . . is used “according to reality not according to (use of) images.”

So the first line of this quatrain alerts the reader that what follows is reality or literal, not a mere simile or figure of speech. But of course it is.

The second line says that we are little playthings, and the heavens are the player.

I translated the last two lines non-literally this way in blank verse:

Let’s play upon the cosmic checkerboard
’til one by one we’re put back in the box.

I followed FitzGerald in invoking checkers as the game being played with us by the heavens, though in the Persian the term probably referred to a chess or backgammon board.

—-
Order Juan Cole’s contemporary poetic translation of the Rubáiyát from

Bloomsbury (IB Tauris)

or Barnes and Noble.

or for $13 at Amazon Kindle
—–

Shams of Tabriz as portrayed in a 1500s painting in a page of Kamâl ud-Din Gâzurgâhî Madjalis ul-‘Ushshaq. BNF Paris. Illustration of Ghazal 163. Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.

In the Divan-e Shams-e Tabriz,, the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi also appeals to the image of the chessboard to elucidate the mysteries of human life. He says, for instance, addressing God,

زهی شهی که شهان بر بساط شطرنجت
به خانه خانه دوند از گریزخانه مات

What a King you are, that other kings on your chessboard
run from square to square to escape being checkmated.

God is the king of kings, and the other lesser kings are the egos of human beings, which are reduced to shuffling around the board trying to avoid being cornered.

In Rumi’s thought, the only way to avoid being checkmated on God’s board is to surrender your ego and become one with the divine. As usual, the Omarian poetry is instead cynical, offering no escape from the meaningless game of life save at the end when God puts the chess pieces away.

Incidentally, the English term checkmate is a corruption of the Persian phrase shah mat or “the king is confused;” i.e., game over.

Chess was invented in India, then went to Iran, from which it spread to Europe. Thus, some of its terminology is Persian. Rook is from rukh, which means chariot originally, before the Europeans made it a castle. (A moving chariot makes more sense than a moving castle.)

—
For more commentaries on FitzGerald’s translations of the Rubáiyát, see

FitzGerald’s Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám: Commentary by Juan Cole with Original Persian