Friday, 6 March 2026

An unnecessary, illegal and very wicked war

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked how long the Iraq War would last (Feb 7, 2003)

"The monstrosity of the situation lies both in the very fact of the aggression, the colossal number of victims in these very first days, and the lack of an adequate response from those who are killing innocent people.

"You have probably noticed that no words of sympathy or condolences were spoken. Only aggressive rhetoric.

"They managed to talk about everything except one thing: Not a single word of sympathy for the relatives who suffered the loss. Fathers and mothers who will never see their children again..."

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the US-Israeli massacre of Iranian schoolgirls


'In Gaza, Israel and Biden normalized war crimes beyond anything we have seen before. And now, Israel and Trump are using that model against Iranian civilians.'
Trita Parsi

Pete Hegseth said this was "the first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since WWII" (which is false, but that's beside the point), so I decided to look at what happened in WW2 and... this might surprise no-one: turns out the Nazis were more humane than the Americans.

Probably the most abject part here is that the warship had many survivors - 32 to be precise (apnews.com/article/sri-…) - and the U.S. made zero effort to rescue them, despite it being required by the laws of naval warfare and simply being the honorable thing to do.

It took little Sri-Lanka, with its very modest means - especially compared to the $1 trillion US defense budget - to do the honorable thing and launch a (successful) rescue operation.

Even the literal Nazis, during WW2, rescued the survivors of ships their U-boats sank. It was considered a matter of basic honor.

The history of this is actually interesting: the Nazis rescued survivors all the way until the so-called Laconia Incident in 1942 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…).....

Netanyahu has been enormously successful - he can be compared to Bismarck. The other German Chancellor whom he resembles was a complete failure.

I share Charles Moore' philosophy but dislike his political positions, from his enthusiasm for Margaret Thatcher to - much worse - his enthusiasm for Netanyahu. He is right though that Netanyahu has been enormously successful in manipulating the USA and in extending Israeli power to Africa and Latin America.


Protestant Zionism


A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.

US Air Force veteran Mikey Weinstein runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and said that since Saturday morning, 'the MRFF has been “inundated” with complaints about euphoria of the commanders about how this new “biblically-sanctioned” war is clearly the undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian “End Times" as vividly described in the New Testament Book of Revelation. Many of their commanders are especially delighted with how graphic this battle will be zeroing in on how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology.'

Thursday, 5 March 2026

A friend asked me at dinner tonight how long I thought the war would last

I was stumped. If Trump is wise he'll end it in a couple of days but it looks like he will stir up the Kurds, Baluchis and perhaps even the Azeris to rebel. The Kurds I expect will fight and die and be betrayed by the Yanks in Iran as in Iraq and Syria.

All because Trump wanted to score a win and was conned by Netanyahu. The War of Trump's Ear.



Well done, Sir Keir! Starmer for the first time has done something right

I can't tell you how much I despise Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch for saying Ukraine and Israel are fighting proxy wars on our behalf. 

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."


Dr. Stephen R. Parsons writes this

[An Iranian woman in Denmark in her early thirties] told me that 40,000 people had been killed in the two-day protest in January, and although her parents still lived in the country, she put her faith in the coming military attack by the US (´the only hope`). Again, a case of my enemy`s enemy is my friend.

First, of all I told her that a figure of 40,000 was absurd and I asked her how she as a scientist could believe in such a number? I said I`m not in doubt that the authorities in Iran are ruthless when it comes to repressing opposition but any serious person knows that such a high number of fatalities would require bombs, tanks, and machineguns and for people not to run away. The Israelis have needed 2 years and an estimated 200,000 tonnes of explosives on a population confined to an area 141 sq. miles to kill about 100,000. Moreover, if really tens of thousands had been killed, mass burials would be necessary, given that every inch of Iran is under satellite observation – the Americans would have released pictures of such a thing. I`m afraid I`m getting crotchety in my old age – it makes me angry when educated people don`t use their common sense and just swallow such obvious propaganda. One believes something because one wants to believe it (on one occasion, another colleague told me she believed the report in her newspaper that the Russians had blown up the Nord Stream pipeline).

If 40,000 had been killed, then an attack using 500 missiles or even a tactical nuclear weapon seems less outrageous. Since when have unprovoked (Iran has not attacked another country – it has been the victim of attacks by Iraq, Israel, and America) aerial attacks not led people in the said countries to back up their government/state? Even if such a military action collapses the existing power structure (which I doubt – recently, an estimated 30% of the population were out on the streets to mark the founding of the Islamic Republic), what would come in its place? As I said to the woman in question, ´don`t think something cannot be worse than it already is`(there needs to be some coherent political strategy that doesn`t mean you end up as a fifth column for foreign powers that are not motivated by the interests of the Iranian people). Ethnic division and bitter civil war, and a splitting up of the country as has happened in Libya and Syria? In Syria, the Kurds (who put their faith in the Americans) are now being militarily suppressed, and the country has a former ISIS/al-Qaeda leader as its president, with areas under Israeli and Turkish occupation. As with Iraq, the historic presence of Christians has now ended.

The United States is now an amoral predator, dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Tehran

America is dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Tehran. 

Bombing open cities used to be considered barbaric. 

It became normal in World War Two but it remained and remains barbaric.

See here the damage being wrought on civilians in a war that has no justification, legal, moral or even pragmatic. 

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed about 9,000 lb but the nuclear device's yield was exponentially higher than conventional 2,000 lb bombs due to fission.

The Iranians will like America after this?

The United States is now "a predatory hegemon", a dominant great power that “views all bilateral relations as inherently zero-sum and seeks to extract the greatest possible benefits from each one”, according to Stephen Walt in February 2026 in an article in Foreign Affairs, house magazine of the US defence establishment. 

You recall that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote the leading book about the Israel Lobby which Jeffrey Epstein got cancelled with the help of Alan Dershowitz.

Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General: "NATO is there to protect us collectively against any adversary, be it Russia or whoever, or terrorism. But also it is a platform for the United States to project power on the world stage." 

That's candid, at least. It's as much aggressive as defensive and we'd all be better off without it.




It's obligatory to refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance" even as it attacks countries that have not even threatened NATO countries. Here Rutte explains that the role of NATO also entails projecting power around the world.
We had air superiority over Vietnam, and spent 8 years dropping millions of tons of bombs on it. They never begged for peace, let alone let us pick their leader.