Monday, March 23, 2026

McGlinchey: America Throws Its Service Members Into An Unjust War For Israel








by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Mar 22, 2026 - 02:20 PM


Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities


President Trump’s decision to join Israel in launching a regime-change war on Iran has so far cost the lives of at least 13 American service members. More than 200 have been wounded, dozens seriously enough to require evacuations to military hospitals in Europe and the United States. Among them are individuals who’ve suffered traumatic brain injuries, burns and shrapnel wounds. One was facing potential amputation of an arm or leg.

As much as these service members and their families are victims of Iran’s justified retaliation for a surprise attack perpetrated amid ongoing negotiations, they’re victims of a betrayal perpetrated by their president and the joint chiefs of staff, who cast them into an unconstitutional war of aggression, packaged in lies and initiated to advance the agenda of a foreign government, while undermining the security of their own country.

Of course, US casualties comprise a small subset of the total bloodshed. In executing this unjust war, Americans have collectively inflicted far more death and dismemberment than they’ve endured, teaming up with their Israeli counterparts to kill more than 3,000 Iranians, including some 150 schoolgirls — mostly between age 7 and 12 — whose school was destroyed by Tomahawk cruise missiles at the war’s very start.

Though it should have already been apparent, Operation Epic Fury should make clear that — service members’ good intentions aside — combat waged under the US flag rarely has anything to do with American security. Moreover — and I say this as former Army Reserve enlistee and Regular Army officer — anyone thinking of starting or extending a military career should understand that their government may send them to be killed, maimed or psychologically damaged, and to slaughter foreign innocents, so long as it helps those in power remain in the good graces of the extremists who rule Israel, and their powerful collaborators inside the United States.


The casket of a soldier killed in the US-Israeli war on Iran is carried past President Trump (Mark Schiefelbein/AP via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)


Under international law, a war of aggression is considered a supreme war crime unto itself, and Operation Epic Fury is precisely that. Like so many of America’s wars before it, this one was launched on false premises. Contrary to the US-Israeli narrative…

1. Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. In 2007, the US intelligence community assessed that Iran halted any effort to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. Since then, the intelligence community has periodically re-validated that conclusion, most recently in March 2025. Belying Trump’s claim that the United States had only two weeks in which to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this week testified that Iran had made “no efforts” to rebuild its enrichment capacity after it was devastated by last summer’s US bombing.

Note that, in 2005, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa — a formal interpretation of Islamic law — asserting that “the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.” In the opening act of their latest warfare on Iran, the United States and Israel collaborated to kill him.

2. Iran did not stray from the 2015 nuclear deal until Trump did. When Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran was in full compliance. Among other things, the JCPOA required Iran to eliminate its medium-enriched uranium, slash its cache of low-enriched uranium by 98%, limit future enrichment to 3.67%, agree to even more external monitoring than it was already submitting to, and render its heavy-water reactor worthless by filling it with concrete. After Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, Iran waited a year, but then began straying from its own commitments, using elevated enrichment as a lever to push for a new agreement and relief from suffocating sanctions. Iran says the JCPOA permitted it to suspend its commitments after Trump’s withdrawal, citing language governing “material breaches” and “significant non-performance.”

Iran is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has long cooperated with international inspections and monitoring required by the NPT. On the other hand, Israel has refused to join the NPT and has some 200 nuclear warheads, a situation that makes every dollar of American aid to Israel illegal under US law.


3. Iran wasn’t the problematic negotiation partner. When historians write about the run-up to this latest of American regime-change disasters, they’ll surely emphasize that fact Trump assigned Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to represent the United States in negotiations. While people rightly scoff at their lack of credentials, it’s far more important to appreciate their intimate ties to the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who has been trying to maneuver the United States into a war with Iran for decades.

As Branko Marcetic writes in an excellent account of the negotiations at Responsible Statecraft,


Witkoff is known as a staunch supporter of Israel. He counts pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson as a “dear friend” and carries a custom pager gifted to him by Netanyahu and senior Mossad officials, in a reference to an operation in which Israel remotely detonated thousands of pagers that allegedly belonged to Hezbollah officials…

Kushner, meanwhile, has been steeped in the pro-Israel community his entire life. He counted Netanyahu as a family friend growing up, with the future Israeli prime minister occasionally borrowing the teenager’s bedroom during visits. Kushner reportedly consulted with Netanyahu officials to pen Trump’s 2016 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and he is both friends with hardline pro-Israel figures and has donated money to illegal West Bank settlement-building.

In addition to their glaring conflicts of interest, Witkoff and Kushner refused to bring nuclear experts to their meetings with the Iranians, which reportedly left the Iranians perplexed about how any progress could be made in negotiating such a highly technical subject.

Iran put forward a fresh offer less than 48 hours before being attacked. In the last meeting before bombs dropped, Iran offered concessions that included dilution of its 60%-enriched uranium, a multi-year pause on new enrichment, subsequent enrichment capped at 20%, and expanded IAEA oversight. Sources say UK national security advisor Jonathan Powell, who attended that meeting, was surprised by the strength of the Iranian offer, and saw it as reason to be optimistic about reaching a deal.Steve Witkoff (left) and Jared Cushner at an October 2025 meeting in Israel with Netanyahu (Maayan Toaf/GOP via Times of Israel)


After learning that Witkoff was grossly mischaracterizing Iran’s stance — if not outright lying about it — Oman’s foreign minister, who’d been mediating the discussions, made an urgent trip to Washington to tell the administration and anyone who’d listen that Iran had made substantial concessions, some of which surpassed the provisions of the JCPOA. His mission failed. In the aftermath, a Gulf diplomat bluntly told the Guardian, “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”

4. Iran’s ballistic missile program wasn’t built for offense. In an example of moving goalposts that would be laughable if the context weren’t so tragic, the Trump administration reopened nuclear negotiations with a new demand — that Iran surrender its conventional ballistic missiles. The White House claimed Iran was building a “conventional shield” that would enable future “nuclear blackmail,” but anyone who’s been paying attention could see the demand sprang from last summer’s 12-Day War, when Iran effectively used cutting-edge ballistic missiles to retaliate against Israeli aggression.

That use is consistent with US intelligence’s characterization of Iran’s military posture as primarily defensive. As the US Defense Intelligence Agency wrote in a 2019 report, “Iran’s conventional military strategy is primarily based on deterrence and the ability to retaliate against an attacker…If deterrence fails, Iran would seek to demonstrate strength and resolve, [and] impose a high cost on its adversary…this strategy is unlikely to change considerably in the near term.”

The demand for Iran’s conventional disarmament and the demand for the scientifically-advanced country to end any nuclear enrichment had something in common: both were made knowing they’d be refused. Here’s how Joe Kent — the former National Counterterrorism Center Director who resigned this week in protest of the war — characterized the enrichment demand in his in-depth, post-resignation interview with Scott Horton:


I really frankly don’t think the Israelis cared that much about…nuclear enrichment…What I think the Israelis care about is regime change. They wanted to push this war as fast as they could, so they came up with this talking point that zero enrichment was the starting point, knowing that was a non-starter for the Iranians.”

5. Iran hasn’t been waging war on the United States for 47 years. To the contrary, the hostilities have overwhelmingly originated in Washington, and any thorough survey of the history should go back at least 73 years, to 1953. That’s when the United States and United Kingdom orchestrated the ouster of Iran’s democratically-elected prime minister, and the installation of the Shah. The ledger should also include US support of Iraq’s eight-year war on Iran in the 1980s, which included giving artillery targeting intel to Iraq, with the knowledge those targets would be hit with chemical weapons. Then there’s decades of economic blockades, which, mirroring the morality of Al Qaeda, intentionally inflict suffering on civilians with a goal of forcing political change. Last summer brought America’s unprovoked bombing of Iran’s imaginary nuclear weapons program. The ceasefire that ended the so-called 12-Day War turned out to be a mere strategic pause before all-out warfare was initiated by Israel and the United States on Feb 28.




A central line in the “47-year war” narrative blames Iran for killing “thousands” of Americans in Iraq, by supposedly directing Shia militias to target Americans, and equipping them with improvised explosive devices (IED). In a concise treatment at his Substack, former Marine officer Matthew Hoh, who led counter-IED efforts in Iraq, dismantled that well-entrenched narrative. His key points:

The great majority of American service members killed in Iraq died at the hands of Sunni resistance groups. Iran provided some support to Shia militias, but Hoh calls out the hypocrisy of US officials saying Iran alone has blood on its hands, pinning no such blame on US-aligned Gulf monarchies that backed Sunni militias in Iraq.


Americans were an occupying force in a country that US forces had devastated and which was beset by civil war, which means both Shia and Sunni militias had their own reasons for using violence against US troops. Hoh notes that the now-decades-old narrative that Iraqis were killing American soldiers and Marines on orders from Iran “not only helped justify a longed-for war with Iran but also bolstered the fiction of the American occupation as a benevolent and liberating one.”


The charge that Iran killed Americans with IEDs centers on the claim that Iran provided Shia militias with a special type of IED called an explosively formed penetrator (EFP). “Anyone with a simple understanding of explosive principles and a half-decent machine shop can make an EFP,” says Hoh. Given the abundance of explosives and other materials around war-torn Iraq, Hoh says “Shia forces were able to mass-produce EFPs in Iraq. Smuggling in EFPs from Iran was unnecessary.”

6. Iran isn’t the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” If that title were awarded on the merits, top contenders would include Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel. The US government selectively applies the “state sponsor” label to vilify countries and — more importantly — as the basis for imposing economic sanctions. As we’ve seen in the case of Cuba and others, American secretaries of state have full discretion to slap the “state sponsor of terror” label on and pull it off, with no due process or burden of proof required.

“The US’s list of terrorist organizations is at this point really laughable, because we take groups off willy-nilly based on whether we like them politically or not — not whether they’ve actually engaged in or continue to engage in terrorism,” said Trita Parsi, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft co-founder, in a recent appearance on Judging Freedom. “The Sudanese got off the State Department’s terrorist list by simply agreeing to normalize relations with Israel — nothing else.”

It’s true that Iran has sponsored various groups in the Middle East that seek to thwart US and Israeli hegemony in the region. At times, some of those groups — like Hamas — have used violence against civilians to achieve political ends, which is the honest definition of terrorism. However, US and Israeli condemnation of Iran’s support for such groups is intensely hypocritical, considering the United States and Israel have themselves backed forces that have carried out terrorism. Indeed, if sponsorship of Hamas is damning for Iran, it’s also damning for Israel and Netanyahu, who long fostered the rise of Hamas even after it turned to terror.

Then there’s the regime-change campaign in Syria, which saw the United States and its Gulf allies empowering head-chopping terrorists, and saw Israel patching up al Qaeda members and sending them back into Syria to raise hell. Keep in mind, Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Shia militias were instrumental in beating back ISIS, the monstrous terror entity that sprang from the Syria regime-change campaign carried out for Israel.

The war on Iran isn’t about nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles or state-sponsored terrorism. It’s the continuation of a long-running Israeli program to achieve total dominance over the Middle East by repeatedly shattering surrounding states and territories. Here’s how the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer has described it:


“The Israelis want to make sure that their neighbors are weak and that means breaking them apart, if you can, and keeping them broken…The Israelis want Syria to be a fractured state. They want Lebanon to be a fractured state. What do they want in Iran? …What the Israelis want to do is to break Iran apart. They want to make it look like Syria.”

For many in Israel, this strategy isn’t merely about safeguarding the current version of Israel. Rather, it’s a means of achieving an expansionist dream of “Greater Israel.” While interpretations vary, this vision typically goes far beyond annexing the West Bank and Gaza, also taking Egyptian territory east of the Nile, along with all or portions of what is now Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.


IDF soldiers in Gaza were seen wearing patches depicting Greater Israel


The US government has aided and abetted this ruthless strategy in a variety of ways, from the arming of Israel, to running covert operations to foment unrest and equip militant groups, to direct use of American military force. The human cost has been incalculable. In the regime-change wars against Iraq and Syria alone, more than a half million people have been killed, and several times more are believed to have died from secondary causes like disease.

Sadly, it seems it’s now Iran’s turn to be shattered in the pursuit of Israeli supremacy. Iran has been Netanyahu’s white whale: After the launch of Operation Epic Fury, Netanyahu gushed that Trump’s collaboration meant Israel was finally doing what Netanyahu had “yearned to do for 40 years.”

Underscoring the cold-blooded and maliciously dishonest nature of the regime-destruction campaign, consider that Israel and the United States have framed their surprise attack on Iran as a virtuous endeavor meant to liberate the Iranian people from theocratic rule. On the day Israel and the United States launched this new war on Iran, Netanyahu called on Iranians to rise up: “Do not sit idly by, very soon the moment will come when you must take to the streets to finish the job and overthrow the totalitarian regime.”

However, at the same time Netayahu was calling for an Iranian uprising, senior Israeli officials were privately telling US diplomats that “the people will get slaughtered” if they act on those exhortations. Of course, any such slaughter would serve the Israeli agenda, since it could be used to propagandize for more vigorous regime-change action, up to and including what is likely Netanyahu’s greatest wish: a US ground invasion.

It’s hard to imagine, but there could be something even worse than committing one’s self to the defense of America, only to be killed or maimed in a campaign to advance the agenda of a foreign government that is far less an ally than a parasite— and that’s killing, wounding and immiserating innocent people for that same government.

Through March 19, more than 3,000 Iranians have been killed by American and Israeli attacks, according to HRANA, an Iran-focused human rights group. Of that total, 1,394 were civilians, including those several dozen schoolgirls killed on day one; 639 deaths have yet to be classified as military or civilian.


Some 150 elementary-age schoolgirls were killed by a US cruise missile strike in the opening salvos of the US-Israeli surprise attack on Iran (Ali Najafi/ AFP and Getty via NBC News)


There have been more than 1,100 Iranian military fatalities. Among those dead Iranian service members are 87 sailors whose lightly-armed ship was sunk by an American torpedo off the coast of Sri Lanka. The ship was not only far away from the war zone, but it was reportedly lightly-armed as it was returning from a largely-ceremonial, multi-national exercise hosted by India in the interest of building international maritime cooperation.

Given they died on the receiving end of an unjust war of aggression, these and other dead members of the Iranian military were likewise innocent victims of America’s war for Israel. Note too that, unlike every American who’s dishing out death from the sky, land or sea, most Iranians in uniform are conscripts, not volunteers.

That said, there’s reason to empathize with volunteer American service members who’ve now been ordered to wage this war. Ahead of their enlistment or commissioning, most are ill-equipped to peel back the patriotic red-white-and-blue veneer and discern the true nature of US military service. In a sense, they’re victims of a grand fraud. Millions of their fellow citizens are oblivious collaborators in that fraud, to the extent they help perpetuate the false assumption that military service is inherently virtuous and invariably serves the American people.

With Marines now steaming toward the Persian Gulf, the 82nd Airborne Division gearing up and Netanyahu cryptically referring to the necessity for a “ground component”, the number of dead, wounded, dismembered and PTSD-inflicted Americans could soar higher. Given the unjust nature of this war, many are certain to face a lifetime dealing with a lesser-known type of wound — moral injury, which is psychological and emotional distress springing from having witnessed, participated in, or failed to prevent acts that go against one’s moral convictions.

Importantly, the suffering that springs from this war of aggression isn’t confined to the United States, Israel, Iran and Gulf states hosting US bases. People around the world are already coping with growing scarcity and increasing cost of oil and gas. Asian countries are particularly vulnerable, and they’re already taking measures like rationing fuel, cutting workweeks, urging more people to work from home and closing hotels hit by diminished air travel — all this after less than three weeks of the Strait of Hormuz being closed to most traffic.

There’s much more to this Pandora’s box of harms. For example, the world’s supply of medicine is in growing jeopardy. “Nearly half of U.S. generic prescriptions originate in India, which relies on the Strait of Hormuz for the arrival of key inputs in drug manufacturing,” explains CNBC. The Gulf also supplies about half the world’s urea — a fertilizer component — and the price US corn farmers are paying for fertilizer has jumped upwards of 70%. That presages higher food costs all over the world, with malnourishment and starvation a distinct risk in some parts of the globe.

Clearly, if the war continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, it’s certain to result in a global health catastrophe, a devastating economic depression, surging crime and social unrest. America’s standing will be profoundly and irreparably damaged in a world united in outrage over a US president’s lawless decision to launch this demented war of choice in service to Israel. American citizens are likely to suffer terrorist acts inspired by this latest savagery inflicted on a Muslim country.

And it will have all started with weapons fired by American service members…

…service members who swore to defend the Constitution, but were given unconstitutional orders to wage war without congressional authorization

…service members who joined the military to defend America, but became attack dogs for a foreign country that saps America’s wealth, depletes America’s arsenal, undermines America’s security and standing, exerts alarming influence on America’s institutions, and inspires terrorism against Americans back home

…service members who should now recognize a stark reality — that they are cogs in a machine that repeatedly inflicts death, dismemberment, disease and destitution on countless innocents in service to the expansionist State of Israel.










Sunday, March 22, 2026

Tamim likens Urimai to Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers amid temple row










Tamim likens Urimai to Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers amid temple row


Published: Mar 22, 2026 11:41 AM
Updated: 2:59 PM



Self-styled land activist Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak has compared United for the Rights of Malaysians Party (Urimai) to Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Tamim, who is sought by authorities over the desecration of a sacred Hindu symbol, made the comparison while sarcastically expressing pity for Urimai secretary Satees Muniandy, but did not elaborate on his comment.

In a post on Threads yesterday, Tamim said “Ingat semua, Urimai = LTTE”, and attached a screenshot of comments responding to Satees’ Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting.

The screenshot showed one commenter rejecting Satees’ greeting, telling him to handle the issue of “illegal” temples while saying that Tamim and independent preacher Zamri Vinoth do not disturb legitimate temples.

Another commenter warned others to be careful as “Tamil wayang (theatre) is (on)”.


Urimai secretary Satees Muniandy


On Friday, Gerakan Rakyat Anti Haram (Garah) interim chief Haniff Khatri Abdulla said his group was painted in a bad light due to the actions of “immature and irresponsible third parties”.

However, he neither named the other parties involved nor addressed the actions of controversial individuals linked to the movement, such as Tamim.


Controversial activism

Tamim was supposed to be charged in Langkawi on Tuesday for stepping on a holy Hindu trident, or soolam, but prosecutors sought a postponement to allow them to bring him to court as he had fled the country.

On Thursday, Tamim agreed to surrender himself to the police on the condition that authorities demolish a list of allegedly “illegal” Hindu temples.

He made his statement on the Threads account for “Tanah Malaya”, an activist group he founded that actively collects and shares information about temples allegedly built without permission in Malaysia.

He previously courted controversy after he began demolishing the Sri Utchimalai Hindu temple in Rawang Perdana.


The Sri Utchimalai Hindu temple in Rawang Perdana


On March 6, PKR secretary-general Fuziah Salleh said that Tamim’s application had been received and that several procedures would need to be observed before it could be accepted.

But in a Facebook post on March 8, Tamim admitted that his publicly announced bid to join PKR was nothing more than a prank.

The next day, PKR said it was considering legal action against Tamim over the bogus membership application.

Free Malaysia Today reported PKR deputy secretary-general Aidi Amin Yazid as saying the party takes every membership application seriously and expects applicants to share its values.


Iran says will hit region’s energy sites if US, Israel target power plants

 



Iran says will hit region’s energy sites if US, Israel target power plants

Iran’s parliament speaker warns country could ‘irreversibly destroy’ vital infrastructure across the region after Trump threatens to attack power plants if Strait of Hormuz is not opened.

Iran has threatened to hit energy sites in the Middle East after United States President Donald Trump threatened to attack its power plants if Tehran does not open the Strait of Hormuz.

Critical ⁠infrastructure ⁠and energy facilities in the region could ⁠be “irreversibly destroyed” should Iranian power plants be ⁠targeted, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said in comments posted on ‌X on Sunday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“Immediately after power plants and infrastructure in our country are targeted, vital infrastructure as well as energy and oil infrastructure across the entire region will be considered legitimate targets and will be irreversibly destroyed,” Ghalibaf posted.

Ghalibaf’s comments came after Trump on Saturday said the US will “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours.

Qalibaf ⁠said regional infrastructure would ⁠become “legitimate targets” should ⁠Iran’s facilities be hit, and that its retaliation would increase ‌the price of oil “for a ‌long time”.

Earlier, a spokesman for the Iranian armed forces had said there would be retaliatory attacks on all US-linked energy and desalination facilities in the region if Iran’s power plants are hit.

Iran, which has effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz since the US and Israel attacked the country on February 28, says the key waterway is already open – except to the US and its allies.

The strait remains open to all shipping except vessels linked to “Iran’s enemies”, Iran’s representative to the International Maritime Organization was quoted as saying in Iranian media reports published on Sunday.

The closure of the strait, a narrow choke point that carries around a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies, has caused the worst oil crisis since the 1970s.

INTERACTIVE - Strait of Hormuz - March 2, 2026-1772714221

Iran has also retaliated with drone and missile strikes targeting Israel, along with Jordan, Iraq, and several Gulf countries, which it says are targeting “US military assets”, causing casualties and damage to infrastructure while disrupting global markets and aviation.

But the latest developments signal the war in the Middle East, now in its fourth week, could be moving in a dangerous new direction.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called on world leaders to join the US-Israel war on Iran.

Speaking from the site of the Iranian attack in the southern Israeli city of Arad, he claimed some countries were already moving in that direction, as he urged broader international involvement.

Netanyahu accused Iran of targeting civilians and claimed it had the capability to strike long-range targets deep into Europe.

Meanwhile, a Turkish diplomatic source told the Reuters news agency that Turkish ⁠Foreign ⁠Minister Hakan Fidan held separate calls with Iranian Foreign ⁠Minister Abbas Araqchi, ⁠Egyptian Foreign ⁠Minister Badr Abdelatty, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja ‌Kallas, and US officials to discuss steps to end ⁠the war.

Trump is spending tomorrow’s security today


FMT:

Trump is spending tomorrow’s security today


3 days ago
Stephen Holmes

The Wall Street Journal, TIME, and a dozen other outlets have reported in detail on the depletion of US munitions and what it means for deterrence in the Pacific





The great theorists of war agreed that squandering one’s military power is the cardinal strategic sin. Sun Tzu, writing some 2,500 years ago, warned that an army that improvidently wastes its resources will collapse before the conflict is won. The people who sustain that army will be ruined along with it.

Likewise, Carl von Clausewitz insisted that a state’s fighting forces, its territory, and its alliances should not all be expended at once, because the capacity to continue the struggle across time must be preserved.


Niccolò Machiavelli even counseled princes against forms of generosity that exhaust one’s resources, warning that a ruler who spends his military means on a single display of power without securing his position in the long run invites disaster.

Whatever their differences, strategic thinkers agree on this: the future is not a luxury. It is the point.


By now, the recklessness of US president Donald Trump in Iran has been extensively documented. The Wall Street Journal, TIME, the Financial Times, and a dozen other outlets have reported in detail on the depletion of US munitions and what it means for deterrence in the Pacific and support for Ukraine. So, what could drive a commander-in-chief to court so foreseeable a catastrophe?

The answer lies not in miscalculation but in something more radical. Before Trump launched “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that American munitions stockpiles were already dangerously depleted.

The US had burned through roughly a quarter of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor inventory during the 12-day Israel-Iran exchange last June and had not replenished those stocks in the intervening months.


Trump pressed ahead anyway. The Pentagon has since struck nearly 2,000 Iranian targets with more than 2,000 munitions, including large numbers of Tomahawk cruise missiles that cost US$3.6 million each and take years to manufacture. The US purchased only 322 over the preceding five years.


A Heritage Foundation study estimated that critical American precision-guided munitions would be exhausted within the first weeks of a high-intensity conflict with China.

The operational absurdity of the battle now being waged in Iran was captured by Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, a combat veteran: Iran fires Shahed drones manufactured for US$30,000 apiece; America responds with interceptors costing millions per round. As Kelly put it with blunt precision: “The math on this doesn’t work.”

The administration’s response to such concerns has been emphatic and revealing. Secretary of “war” (defense) Pete Hegseth declared that the US has “no shortage of munitions” and that American stockpiles of “defensive and offensive weapons allow us to sustain this campaign as long as we need to”.

He later described the supply of gravity bombs as “nearly unlimited”. Trump himself posted on Truth Social that the US possesses “a virtually unlimited supply” of the munitions being used against Iran.


These reassurances share a common flaw: they treat the question of scarcity as if it were simply a matter of current inventory. But scarcity, as any economist will explain, is not a snapshot. It is a structural condition – the relation between finite means and the torrent of uses to which those means might be put across time.

An arms stockpile adequate for a time-limited campaign against Iran is also one that will not be available to deter other hostile powers tomorrow. To deny scarcity by pointing only to what exists now is to treat the unavoidable future as if it didn’t exist.

The conventional explanation for such decisions is incompetence or impulsiveness. Neither fits the case here. Whereas incompetence produces random damage, the decision to attack Iran fits a pattern of decision-making that is too consistent to be accidental.

Likewise, impulsiveness implies a future that one has failed to calculate properly, but Trump’s relationship to the future is something different than miscalculation.

Across his presidency, in domain after domain – fiscal policy, scientific funding, alliance management, climate commitments, and now munitions stockpiles – present consumption comes at the expense of future resilience.

Trump is not a man who discounts the future too steeply. He is a man for whom the future does not register as a real cost when measured against the spectacle of decisiveness that he wants to stage. This is not recklessness within a strategic framework; it is the collapse of any strategic framework’s first axiom: tomorrow is coming.

Most of Trump’s temporal nihilism operates on longer, less legible timelines. Defunding pediatric cancer research produces no visible casualties this year, but the scientists who will not invent the next generation of breakthroughs were simply never trained.

Hollowing out the Foreign Service creates a missing generation of diplomats whose absence will be felt for decades. The same logic applies when the US abandons its climate commitments.

The case of munitions depletion is different because it is concrete and measurable, with identifiable officials having issued warnings in real time. The numbers are known, the timeline is defined, and the strategic stakes are specific: the hard military power on which deterrence of China, defense of Taiwan, and support for Ukraine all ultimately depend. What Trump is spending in the skies over Iran is not borrowed money but finite strategic capacity.

This is what distinguishes the current moment from mere policy disagreement. It marks a departure from the entire tradition of strategic thought running from Clausewitz through Cold War deterrence theory.

The concept of deterrence itself – maintaining capabilities whose value lies in persuading adversaries never to test them – is meaningful only to a leader who understands that military strength is often best served by not expending it, so that it remains available to shape what comes next.

Trump’s approach is the opposite of deterrence: high-visibility expenditure today that erodes the credibility of deterrence tomorrow. This is neither isolationism nor unilateralism. It is the militarisation of presentism – using the instruments of future security to create today’s imagery of strength.

Clausewitz’s most profound insight was not about tactics, but time. The purpose of strategy is to preserve the capacity to win the war that matters, not merely the current battle. Trump has inverted this in Iran, which means that America’s adversaries – principally China and Russia – will benefit without firing a single weapon.

This is not a strategy. It is strategy’s negation – and its costs, unlike a news cycle, will not pass.




Stephen Holmes is professor of law at New York University School of Law and a Richard Holbrooke fellow at the American Academy in Berlin.

The mirage of weakness


FMT:


The mirage of weakness


Letter to the Editor


Why the West misread Iran’s ‘strategic patience’ until the 'great explosion' of 2026





From Abdolreza Alami

The smoke from the conflicts of 2026 has not yet fully cleared, but the post-mortem of intelligence failures has already begun.


When the first wave of Iranian ballistic missiles struck targets across the Persian Gulf, hitting not only Israel but also key American allies in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, Washington’s reaction was nothing short of absolute shock.

Donald Trump’s blunt admission – “We were shocked; they weren’t supposed to go after that many other countries” – was more than a mere slip of the tongue; it was a profound confession.


This sentence pulled back the curtain on a decade-long cognitive bias that had blinded the West, Israel, and regional powers to the reality of Iran’s intentions.

The central question now echoing through the corridors of the Department of State and the Pentagon is simple: Why, until the moment the missiles were launched, did no one believe Iran would actually do it?

To find the answer, one must look beyond military hardware and examine a “triple crisis” in deterrence theory, strategic doctrine, and political psychology.

1. The credibility crisis: when deterrence fails the ‘believability’ test


In international relations, deterrence is as much a psychological construct as it is a physical one. It is often expressed as a simple equation: Deterrence = Capability × Will × Credibility. If any of these variables are perceived as “zero” by the opposing side, the entire structure collapses.

For two decades, Iran possessed the capability (a massive missile and drone arsenal) and emphasised its will in rhetoric. However, the credibility variable was systematically hollowed out, not by the enemy, but by Iran’s own doctrine of “strategic patience.”

Between 2020 and early 2026, Tehran’s behaviour followed a repetitive and predictable pattern. Faced with high-level provocations – the assassination of senior generals, sabotage of nuclear facilities, or the killing of guests on its own soil – Iran reacted with what analysts called “calculated restraint”. These responses were often delayed, symbolic, or designed to avoid human casualties (such as the 2020 Ain al-Asad attack).

To the West, this was not seen as “patience” but as “incapacity”. This interpretation created a dangerous feedback loop: the more Iran patiently endured, the more the West believed Iran’s “red lines” were merely verbal suggestions.


By 2026, the West had effectively “normalised” Iranian restraint, reaching the fatal assumption that Iran feared an all-out war more than it feared national humiliation.

2. The ‘carpet weaving’ metaphor vs Westphalian pragmatism

Strategic analysts in the Middle East have long likened Iranian foreign policy to weaving a Persian carpet: a slow, meticulous process, painfully focused on a long-term pattern. In this view, every tactical retreat or “restrained” response was merely a knot tied for a larger design.

However, Western political psychology, rooted in Westphalian pragmatism and the short-term “win-loss” cycles of democratic elections, lacks the tools to comprehend this timeline. For a Western politician, if you do not respond immediately and more forcefully, you have lost.

This gap in perception led to what psychologists call the “fundamental attribution error”. The West attributed Iran’s restraint to internal weakness, fear of regime collapse, or the effectiveness of sanctions. In reality, Iran likely saw itself as buying time, waiting for the precise geopolitical moment where its strike would have the maximum regional impact.

While the West was playing “Tic-Tac-Toe” for the next move, Tehran was advancing a long-term chess game for regional hegemony.

3. The road to 2026: a chronology of misleading signals

To understand the shock of 2026, one must look at the six pillars of Western cognitive error – events that convinced Trump and his generals that Iran was a “paper tiger”:

The Soleimani precedent (2020): 

After the assassination of Iran’s most iconic military figure, the “hard revenge” manifested as a pre-announced missile strike on an empty base. For the US intelligence community, this was the “original sin” of miscalculation, creating the mindset that Iran would always choose an honorable exit over real escalation.


The Damascus consulate (April 2024): 

When Israel attacked a diplomatic site, Iran’s response was large-scale but heavily neutralised by a Western-Arab coalition. Israel’s subsequent strike on Isfahan went virtually unanswered. The West’s conclusion? Iranian offensive and defensive capabilities were “manageable”.


The Haniyeh assassination (summer 2024): 

The killing of Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran was a massive intelligence failure. When weeks turned into months with no response other than “diplomatic pleas”, the West concluded that Iranian deterrence was dead.


The fall of Damascus (December 2024): 

The collapse of the Assad regime, which Iran had spent billions to maintain, was met with relative silence. The closing of the “Golden Corridor” was seen as the end of the “axis of resistance”.


The elimination of Hezbollah leadership (autumn 2025): 

The removal of Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah’s central cadre – Iran’s most prized regional asset – led only to five days of public mourning. This was the peak of Western overconfidence; they believed Iran would not even fight for its own “child”.


The 12-day nuclear war (June 2025): 

When Israel and the US finally directly attacked nuclear facilities, Iran’s response was a strike on Al-Udeid base in Qatar – again, with prior warning! This was the final nail in the coffin of the credibility of Iranian threats.


4. The psychological gap: ‘devaluation’ vs the win-win trap

Harold Rhode, a veteran Pentagon adviser, once pointed to a critical cultural difference. In the Western mind, a “win-win” scenario is the ultimate goal. But in the Iranian political tradition, “compromise” is often synonymous with “Tanzil” (devaluation and humiliation).

Paradoxically, however, the West viewed Iran’s strategic patience as a form of compromise. They misread a cultural refusal to be humiliated as a pragmatic surrender to reality. They failed to realise that for Tehran, strategic patience was not a substitute for war, but a preparation for it.


5. 2026: the day the mirage collapsed

When the flames of the 2026 war finally ignited, that “calculable” Iran disappeared. In its place emerged a regional power acting on a scale no think tank had predicted:


The hammer of Hormuz: 

By immediately closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran did what the West considered a “suicidal” move. Oil prices did not just rise; they paralysed the global economy.


The 700-mssile barrage: 

The volume of fire – over 700 ballistic missiles -saturated the defence systems the West had been so proud of.


The end of ‘warnings’: 

This time, there were no calls to Baghdad or Doha. The 18 fatalities among US and Israeli forces in the first 48 hours proved that the era of “performative strikes” was over.

6. Conclusion: a new architecture of deterrence

The 2026 war taught us a bitter truth: deterrence is a living, fragile entity. If you allow an enemy to believe for too long that you are weak, you eventually invite the very war you were trying to avoid.

For observers in the region, including us in the Malay world and Asean, these lessons are profound. Peace, as we have learned, is not the absence of war; it is the presence of a threat that the enemy truly believes in.

Trump’s shock in 2026 was the price of 20 years of hubris – the hubris of believing we could read the mind of an adversary we never bothered to truly understand.



Abdolreza Alami is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Communication and Media Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM).


In Tamim's world, law is negotiable












Mariam Mokhtar
Published: Mar 21, 2026 12:02 PM
Updated: 3:02 PM




COMMENT | Self-styled activist Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak first drew public outrage after a video emerged showing him repeatedly stepping on a Hindu sacred symbol - a trident, or soolam.

The reaction was immediate. Police reports were lodged. Protests were held. Community leaders warned of rising tensions.

Acts involving religious symbols are never contained to the individual. They resonate across entire communities.

At first, such incidents may appear isolated, but what we are witnessing here is not a one-off controversy. This is a clear progression, where the events escalate step by step.

First, the provocation: stepping on a religious symbol.

Second, the amplification: the act is filmed, uploaded on social media, and widely shared.


A screenshot of Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak stepping on a soolam


Third, the justification. After the public backlash, explanations emerged, with claims of ignorance that the object was mistaken for scrap metal, or that the site was not recognised as religious.

Finally, the escalation emerges in the form of demands, most notably a conditional offer to surrender tied to the demolition of temples deemed “illegal.”


Dangerous line


In short: provoke first, justify later.

If this situation is allowed to fester, compliance itself becomes conditional, and that is a dangerous line.

On the “Tanah Malaya” social media account, Tamim said he would return to Malaysia and surrender to the police only if the authorities demolished a list of allegedly “illegal” Hindu temples.

He wrote: “We, the strategists of Tanah Malaya, come from technical backgrounds instead of arts, and thus we are familiar with only one thing: problem solving.”

This framing goes beyond activism. It turns a legal process into a negotiation, where compliance with the law is tied to political demands.

Calling themselves “strategists of Tanah Malaya” and saying they deal only in “problem solving” sounds confident and technical, but there is irony here. You cannot solve a problem if you are the one defining what the problem is in the first place.




When that definition is disputed, it begins to sound less like problem-solving and more like self-praise dressed as expertise.

The attempt is to make compliance with the law conditional. It links a personal legal situation to an ideological demand, introducing a precedent where the law is treated as negotiable under pressure.


Tensions not new

This is not the first time Malaysia has faced such tensions.

In the case involving convert and controversial preacher, Zamri Vinoth, public perception was that early inaction allowed tensions to build, with enforcement only coming later when the risk of escalation had grown.

Whether that perception was entirely fair is secondary. What matters is the lesson it offers: delays in acting on sensitive, provocative incidents do not calm situations. They often inflame them.

Hesitation creates space for anger to grow, for narratives to harden, and for communities to feel unprotected.

If there is one lesson to be drawn, it is this: timely, consistent enforcement is essential.

When provocative acts are seen to gain attention or receive delayed responses, others may feel emboldened to act.


The demolished Hindu temple in Rawang Perdana


They do so not necessarily out of malice, but from the belief that they are defending legality, identity, or justice. This is how vigilantism begins, not as defiance, but as misguided justification.

Once individuals begin to take matters into their own hands, believing the law will bend or delay, the consequences become harder to contain. Recent incidents involving religious desecration have already set a public expectation: that action must be swift, enforcement must be firm, and standards must be equal.

If one case is handled decisively while another drifts, the issue is no longer about law.

It becomes about whose sensitivities are protected, and whose are not.

That perception alone is enough to fracture trust.


Rule of law cannot be conditional

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, under Article 11, guarantees freedom of religion. It requires the state to:

  • protect all religious communities
  • act fairly and impartially
  • prevent acts that inflame tensions





Enforcement cannot bend to the pressure of any kind. Once it does, constitutional protections begin to feel conditional.

At its core, this issue is simple. No person alleged to have broken the law can be allowed to set conditions for compliance or hold enforcement hostage to demands.

The balance of authority must remain with institutions, not individuals negotiating with the law.

That is a line a functioning state cannot blur.

This is where leadership is tested. There will be pressure to manage sentiment, to avoid backlash, to respond tactically, but leadership is not about managing outrage. It is about upholding principles.

Politicians must act in accordance with the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all Malaysians.

This moment demands clarity. Not rhetoric. Not delay. Not negotiation.

The rule of law cannot be conditional. Provocation cannot be rewarded, and no individual can be allowed to hold the nation to pressure or make demands. We should draw the line now, clearly and firmly, because if it is not held here, it will be tested again.

Next time, containment may not hold.



MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army, and the president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Blog, X.


***


Remember the Kerling Indian Temple Incident in teh 1970's.


ICC Chief Prosecutor Khan cleared of sexual misconduct by judges



 

ICC Chief Prosecutor Khan cleared of sexual misconduct by judges: Report

Karim Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position in May.

Judges have cleared the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, of all wrongdoing after an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct, Middle East Eye reports.

A report by Middle East Eye published on Saturday said a panel of three judges submitted a confidential report to the court’s oversight body, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), on March 9.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The Panel is unanimously of the opinion that the factual findings by [The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services] OIOS do not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant framework,” the report concluded, according to the sources cited by Middle East Eye.

The OIOS investigation was commissioned by the head of the ASP in November 2024 after a member of Khan’s office accused the prosecutor of sexual misconduct.

In August last year, a second woman came forward and alleged that Khan had abused his power over her while she was working for the British lawyer.

The woman had described his behaviour to UK newspaper The Guardian last year as a “constant onslaught” of advances.

Khan has denied the allegations and took voluntary leave from his position at the ICC in May, while awaiting the inquiry’s results. His deputy prosecutors have been in charge of his office in his absence.

According to Middle East Eye, the ASP met on Monday to discuss its response to the panel’s report. Under the court’s rules, if the bureau determines that no misconduct has occurred, the investigation should be closed.

The ASP has 30 days from receiving the report to make its preliminary assessment of the alleged sexual misconduct. Khan will then have 30 days to respond, and the bureau will have another 30 days to make its decision.

Khan declined to comment on the report, the outlet said.

The allegations of sexual misconduct came as Khan’s office was pursuing an investigation into alleged war crimes and genocide by Israeli officials and forces in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory.

Khan sought arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, over “criminal responsibility” for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

He also sought arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children during Moscow’s ongoing war on Ukraine.