"French General Michel Yakovleff just compared joining Trump's Iran war to 'buying cheap tickets for the Titanic' after it already hit the iceberg"

And then it got even worse for Trump. Yakovleff is no random talking head. He's a three-star general, former commander of the legendary French Foreign Legion, and held senior positions within NATO itself. He is one of the most respected military voices in France and regularly weighs in on matters of international security. So, when he was asked about Trump's desperate pleas for Europe to join his Iran catastrophe, his answer carried serious weight. He didn't mince words. He laid out five distinct reasons why every European nation should flatly refuse. And each one is more damaging than the last.

First, Trump doesn't understand how NATO actually works. You don't get to launch your own unilateral bombing campaign and then invite allies to run a separate operation underneath you. That's not how alliances function. If Trump wants NATO involved, NATO takes command. One operation, one flag, one chain of command. "I don't think he understood that," Yakovleff said. That alone is a devastating indictment of a man who claims to be the greatest dealmaker on earth.

Second, nobody knows what the actual strategic goals are. Beyond forcing open the Strait of Hormuz, what is the endgame? Regime change? Containment? A negotiated settlement? Trump hasn't said. He apparently can't say, because he doesn't know himself.

Third, and this one is particularly brutal, you can't coordinate a multinational military campaign through tweets that change every two minutes. If allied nations are going to put their soldiers in harm's way, they need explicit, written objectives from the United States. As Yakovleff put it, "It's going to be necessary for Trump himself to know what he wants." The quiet contempt in that sentence could strip paint off a wall.

Fourth, there is the fundamental issue of trust. Trump has abandoned allies before and everyone knows he would do it again without hesitation the moment it became politically useful. The Kurds know it. The Afghans know it. Europe knows it. "He would let us down whenever it suited him," the general said. Why would any nation put troops on the line for a leader with that track record?

And fifth, the knockout punch. Yakovleff cited a principle he said he learned at the U.S. Army War College: "You don't reinforce failure. You move on. You find something else." A decorated French general is using American military doctrine, taught in American war colleges, to explain to the world why following this American president into battle would be strategic malpractice.

The global response has been just as damning. Japan said no. Australia said no. The United Kingdom said no. The European Union said no. Meanwhile, Iranian missiles and drones have made the Strait of Hormuz so dangerous that insurance companies won't cover oil tankers passing through it. Twenty percent of the world's petroleum normally flows through that strait. Oil prices are skyrocketing and consumers everywhere are feeling it. Trump started this. He escalated it. He isolated America from its allies in the process.

Donald Trump’s Racism Mirrors Jeffrey Epstein’s

 

Jeffrey Epstein was not only a rapist and a child predator, but also — wait for it — a White supremacist. While some speculate that the Epstein issue is just a distraction from President Trump’s virulent and endless racism, others feel that the video the president posted at the beginning of Black History Month of Barack and Michelle Obama as apes was meant to divert attention from the growing Epstein fallout.

Well, as it turns out, the two crises are not as far apart as you might imagine. Bombshell articles in The Atlantic, Mother Jones, and at MS Now pulled the covers off Jeffrey Epstein’s noxious racism.

Reporters culling the most recently released Epstein files discovered numerous pieces of evidence in emails and other documents suggesting that he advocated the faux “science” of racial eugenics and held racist views not distinct from those promoted for decades by Donald Trump.

Epstein built (or at least tried to build) ties and develop friendships with some of the most notorious eugenicists and White nationalists around the globe, including Nobel Prize laureate and geneticist James Watson, political scientist Charles Murray, and artificial intelligence researcher Joscha Bach, among many others. He also circulated posts from White supremacist websites that promoted bogus, supposedly genetically based intellectual differences between the races.

Eugenics is the “race science” that was developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century to justify European slavery and colonialism. Proponents contended that humans were biologically and genetically separated into distinctly unequal “races.” Everything from intelligence, criminality, and attractiveness to morality was, so the claim went, genetically determined.

It should surprise no one that, in such an imagined hierarchy, Whites were at the top and, in most configurations, people of African descent at the very bottom with Asians and indigenous people somewhere in-between. Those four (or five or six) categories were considered immutable. And it mattered remarkably little that, for a long time, social and natural scientists had overwhelmingly argued with irrefutable evidence that racial categories were social constructs invented by humans and distinctly malleable over time as political and social life changed.

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

In Nazi Germany, eugenics led not only to the sterilization of Jews, Blacks, and the disabled, but to the state-organized mass murder of literally millions of people. It was a core tenet of Nazism that all non-Aryans were genetically inferior and a threat to the White race. The Nazis railed against Jews “poisoning the blood” of White Germans, a term Trump used in describing non-White immigrants from the global South. Despite this history, Epstein came to deeply believe in eugenics and genetic determination, as has Donald Trump. To that end, Epstein sought to connect with the notable race theorists of his day.

Epstein on Race

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

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

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

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

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

Epstein also had ties to a number of other researchers and scientists, including Joscha Bach, who received funding from the convicted felon and was hired at MIT’s Media Lab with his help.

In one exchange in 2016, Bach wrote to Epstein, stating that African American children “have slower cognitive development” and “are slower at learning high-level concepts.” With the release of those files in January, Bach tried to explain why his statements were not racist and that “scientific discussion about the heritability of traits… [is] very complicated and not my area of research.”

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

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

The “Great Gene” President

Epstein’s eugenicist views are in line with the longstanding genetic determinism of Trump. There is no bigger racist science believer than the current occupant in the White House. For decades, he has bragged about his genetic superiority relative to the rest of humanity. The examples are endless:

“Well, I think I was born with the drive for success because I have a certain gene. I’m a gene believer.”

“You have to have the rights — the right genes.”

“Do we believe the gene thing? I mean I do.”

“I have great genes and all that stuff which I’m a believer in.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In January 2026, Trump essentially halted almost all refugees coming from Africa. The administration stated that it would admit only 7,500 total refugees from around the world in 2026, the lowest number on record. This meant near zero for Black Africans.

At the same time, the Trump administration sought to process 4,500 White South African refugee applications per month starting in January. The president also issued Executive Order 4204 in February 2025 falsely, claiming that Whites in South Africa were being mistreated and deserved an expedited process to become permanent residents of the United States. The new target, contained in a previously unreported document from the State Department dated January 27th and reviewed by Reuters, signals a push to ramp up admissions from South Africa, while refugee applications from other areas have been severely curtailed.

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

Beginning in the early 1950s, real science, as opposed to the fraudulent versions embraced by Epstein and Trump, was able to make life-changing breakthroughs as a result of access to what became known as HeLa cells. Those cells would be responsible for understanding and creating vaccines and treatment for polio, cancer, HPV, Parkinson’s, measles, HIV, mumps, Zika, and Covid 19, among other diseases. They would lead to the creation of the field of virology.

It is highly unlikely (and would likely have been mortifying) that either Epstein knew, or Trump knows, that those cells came from an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks. They were cynically named HeLa, combining the first two letters of her first and last names.

In 1951, when she was admitted to Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore, deadly ill with cervical cancer, cell tissues were taken from her body without her or her family’s permission. That unethical theft — legal at the time — would lead to countless billions in profits for pharmaceutical corporations.

After the publication of Rebecca Skloot’s book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks in 2010, her story became well known and family-initiated lawsuits proceeded. In 2023, the family reached a settlement with Thermo Fisher Scientific, and, in February 2026, another settlement with Novartis, a Switzerland-based pharmaceutical mammoth.

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

Clarence Lusane is an author, activist, scholar, and journalist. He is a professor and former Chairman of Howard University’s Department of Political Science. He is author of many books. His latest is Twenty Dollars and Change: Harriet Tubman and the Ongoing Fight for Racial Justice and Democracy.

 -Clarence Lusane, CounterPunch

Gaza is only the start. The new world order is one where the weak are obliterated by the strong, the rule of law does not exist, genocide is an instrument of control and barbarism is triumphant

 

   

The war on Iran and the obliteration of Gaza is the beginning. Welcome to the new world order. The age of technologically advanced barbarism. There are no rules for the strong, only for the weak. Oppose the strong, refuse to bow to its capricious demands and you are showered with missiles and bombs.  

Hospitals, elementary schools, universities and apartment complexes are reduced to rubble. Doctors, students, journalists, poets, writers, scientists, artists 

and political leaders — including the heads of negotiating teams — are murdered in the tens of thousands by missiles and killer drones.

Resources – as the Venezuelans know – are openly stolen. Food, water and medicine, as in Palestine, are weaponized. Let them eat dirt.

International bodies such as the United Nations are pantomime, useless appendages of another age. The sanctity of individual rights, open borders and international law have vanished. The most depraved leaders of human history, those who reduced cities to ashes, herded captive populations to execution sites and littered lands they occupied with mass graves and corpses, have returned with a vengeance.

They spew the same hypermasculine tropes. They spew the same vile, racist cant. They spew the same Manichaean vision of good and evil, black and white. They spew the same infantile language of total dominance and unrestrained violence.

Killer clowns. Buffoons. Idiots. They have seized the levers of power to carry out their demented and cartoonish visions as they pillage the state for their own enrichment.

“After witnessing savage mass murder over several months, with the knowledge that it was conceived, executed and endorsed by people much like themselves, who presented it as a collective necessity, legitimate and even humane, millions now feel less at home in the world,” writes Pankaj Mishra in “The World After Gaza.” “The shock of this renewed exposure to a peculiarly modern evil – the evil done in the pre-modern era only by psychopathic individuals and unleashed in the last century by rulers and citizens of rich and supposedly civilized societies – cannot be overstated. Nor can the moral abyss we confront.”

The subjugated are property, commodities to exploit for profit or pleasure. The Epstein Files expose the sickness and heartlessness of the ruling class. Liberals. Conservatives. University presidents. Academics. Philanthropists. Wall Street titans. Celebrities. Democrats. Republicans.

They wallow in unbridled hedonism. They go to private schools and have private health care. They are cocooned in self-referential bubbles by sycophants, publicists, financial advisers, lawyers, servants, chauffeurs, self-help gurus, plastic surgeons and personal trainers. They reside in heavily guarded estates and vacation on private islands. They travel on private jets and gargantuan yachts. They exist in another reality, what the Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank dubs the world of “Richistan,” a world of private Xanadus where they hold Nero-like bacchanalias, make their perfidious deals, amass their billions and cast aside those they use, including children, as if they are refuse. 

No one in this magic circle is accountable. No sin too depraved. They are human parasites. They disembowel the state for personal profit. They terrorize the “lesser breeds of the earth.” They shut down the last, anemic vestiges of our open society.

“There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life,” as George Orwell writes in “1984.” “All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.”

The law, despite a few valiant efforts by a handful of judges — who will soon be purged — is an instrument of repression. The judiciary exists to stage show trials. I spent a lot of time in the London courts covering the Dickensian farce during the persecution of Julian Assange. A Lubyanka-on-the-Thames. Our courts are no better. Our Department of Justice is a vengeance machine.

Masked, armed goons flood the streets of the United States and murder civilians, including citizens. The ruling mandarins are spending billions to convert warehouses into detention centers and concentration camps. They insist they will only house the undocumented, the criminals, but our global ruling class lies like it breathes. In their eyes, we are vermin, either blindly and unquestionably obedient or criminals. There is nothing in between.

These concentration camps, where there is no due process and people are disappeared, are designed for us. And by us, I mean the citizens of this dead republic. Yet we watch, stupefied, disbelieving, passively waiting for our own enslavement.

It won’t be long. The savagery in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza is the same savagery we face at home. Those carrying out the genocide, mass slaughter and unprovoked war on Iran are the same people dismantling our democratic institutions.

The social anthropologist Arjun Appadurai calls what is happening “a vast worldwide Malthusian correction” that is “geared to preparing the world for the winners of globalization, minus the inconvenient noise of its losers.”

Oh, the critics say, don’t be so bleak. Don’t be so negative. Where is the hope? Really, it’s not that bad. If you believe this you are part of the problem, an unwitting cog in the machinery of our rapidly consolidating fascist state. Reality will eventually implode these “hopeful” fantasies, but by then it will be too late.

True despair is not a result of accurately reading reality. True despair comes from surrendering, either through fantasy or apathy, to malignant power. True despair is powerlessness. And resistance, meaningful resistance, even if it is almost certainly doomed, is empowerment. It confers self-worth. It confers dignity. It confers agency. It is the only action that allows us to use the word hope.

The Iranians, Lebanese and Palestinians know there is no appeasing these monsters. The global elites believe nothing. They feel nothing. They cannot be trusted. They exhibit the core traits of all psychopaths — superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance, a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception, manipulation and the inability to feel remorse or guilt. They disdain as weakness the virtues of empathy, honesty, compassion and self-sacrifice. They live by the creed of Me. Me. Me.

“The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane,” Eric Fromm writes in “The Sane Society.”

We have witnessed evil for nearly three years in Gaza. We watch it now in Lebanon and Iran. We see this evil excused or masked by political leaders and the media.

The New York Times, in a page out of Orwell, sent an internal memo telling reporters and editors to eschew the terms “refugee camps, “occupied territory,” “ethnic cleansing” and, of course, “genocide” when writing about Gaza. Those who name and denounce this evil are smeared, blacklisted and purged from university campuses and the public sphere. They are arrested and deported. A deadening silence is descending upon us, the silence of all authoritarian states. Fail to do your duty, fail to cheerlead the war on Iran, and see your broadcasting license revoked, as the Chair of the F.C.C. Brendan Carr has proposed.

We have enemies. They are not in Palestine. They are not in Lebanon. They are not in Iran. They are here. Among us. They dictate our lives. They are traitors to our ideals. They are traitors to our country. They envision a world of slaves and masters. Gaza is only the start. There are no internal mechanisms for reform. We can obstruct or surrender.

Those are the only choices left.

The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

"Trump’s assault on US democracy is truly without precedent"

 

A report released on Tuesday by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden has found that President Donald Trump and his administration are dismantling democracy in the US at a speed that “is unprecedented in modern history.”

In its report, V-Dem categorizes the first year of Trump’s second term as “a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.” In fact, V-Dem says that the Trump administration has accomplished in just one year what most budding autocracies take a decade to achieve, adding that “the speed of decline is comparable to some coups d´état.”

Of particular concern is the failure of the legislative branch of the US government to apply any kind of oversight or check upon the executive branch, the report explains. “The Republican-controlled Congress seems to have abdicated its constitutional role in favor of the executive branch, ceding significant legislative, fiscal, and oversight powers during 2025,” the report says. “The Trump administration has de facto repeatedly taken over the Congressional ‘power of the purse’—enshrined in the Constitution and in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act—unilaterally cancelling or reallocating federal funding.”

The report also points fingers at the US Senate for repeatedly rolling over and confirming unqualified Trump nominees, which it says is tantamount to letting the White House “sideline” the upper chamber’s authority altogether.

V-Dem goes on to document the administration’s repeated assaults on the judicial branch and the rule of law in general during his second term, starting when Trump issued a mass pardon to more than 1,500 alleged or convicted criminals who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Since then, the administration has waged a pressure campaign against judges who rule against it consisting of “impeachment resolutions and misconduct complaints,” while also using executive orders to punish major law firms simply for representing the president’s political enemies in court.

The lone bright spot in US democracy, says V-Dem, is that the administration has not yet been able to attack states’ powers to administer their own elections, although not for lack of effort. “Actions taken in 2025 raise concerns regarding the integrity of the 2026 midterms,” the report warns. “This primarily concerns attempt to assert federal control over election processes, which must be decentralized and state-run, according to the Constitution.”

The report notes that Trump has issued an executive order that attempts to override states’ election laws by restricting mail-in voting and mandating voter IDs at polling places nationwide but adds that “many provisions of this order have been blocked, and others are still being challenged in federal court.”

In an interview with The Guardian, V-Dem founder Staffan Lindberg used historical context to explain why Trump’s assault on US democracy is truly without precedent. “Our data on the USA goes back to 1789,” he said. “What we’re seeing now is the most severe magnitude of democratic backsliding ever in the country.” He also said that other authoritarian leaders have taken much more time in ripping down their states’ democratic institutions than Trump has. “For Orbán in Hungary, it took about four years,” Lindberg said, “for Vučić in Serbia, it took eight years, and for Erdoğan in Turkey and Modi in India, it took about 10 years to accomplish the suppression of democratic institutions that Trump has achieved in only one year.”

-Brad Reed, Common Dreams

"He may not have had much of a strategy at all"

 

Trump went to war against Iran without explaining his strategy to the American people or the world. It now appears that he may not have had much of a strategy at all. Almost three weeks into the war, Mr. Trump has no apparent plan for bringing about the demise of the Iranian regime, something he had said he seeks. 

If his goal is more modest, such as the seizure of Iran’s nuclear materials, he has not offered credible ideas for accomplishing it. And he has failed to plan for a predictable side effect of a war in the Middle East: a disruption of oil supplies that causes a price spike and impairs the global economy.

The war has become an exemplar of Mr. Trump’s chaotic, ego-driven approach to the presidency. He has relied for advice on a smaller circle of aides than past presidents did when ordering military action and eschewed the careful process intended to surface objections and potential problems. He has made ridiculous and contradictory public statements, including a claim that the war has nearly achieved its goals. He has tried to mislead the world about the tragic deaths of dozens of Iranian schoolchildren, which were caused by a mistargeted American missile. Almost daily, he demonstrates why he cannot be trusted with the most consequential matters of government.

Despite all this, the war has had some tactical successes, and we believe it is important to acknowledge them even if they remain untethered to a strategy. Mr. Trump’s instincts about Iran were correct in a few ways. Its government is distinctly dangerous, having spent decades oppressing its own people, sponsoring terrorism, trying to destroy Israel, turning Lebanon into a failed state, protecting a horrific regime in Syria and pursuing a nuclear program. Mr. Trump also recognized that Iran’s regime was weaker than it pretended and could be weakened further through confrontation.

Over the past few years, a combination of economic sanctions imposed by the United States and allies and military attacks, mostly by Israel, has left Iran less capable of sowing regional problems. The value of its currency has plunged. Many of Iran’s leaders and nuclear scientists are dead. Its aerial defenses are mostly destroyed, and its missile stockpile is depleted. Two of its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are degraded. Its client state in Syria has been overthrown by local rebels.

But in launching this war two and a half weeks ago, Mr. Trump asserted larger aims than containing Iran. “To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Mr. Trump said shortly after the first strikes. He has called for the unconditional surrender of Iran’s government and said that he must approve the country’s next leader. He has promised to make Iran great again.

Mr. Trump has not even begun to explain how he will accomplish any of these goals. His defenders have claimed that his coyness is a strategic gambit, to preserve his options and keep his enemy guessing. Increasingly, the truth appears to be that the president of the United States has started a war without any idea of how to end it.

Three strategic problems have become clear since the war began.

First, Mr. Trump repeated a mistake that American presidents have made for decades — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and even Iran itself, in the 1950s — and imagined that regime change would be easier to accomplish and maintain than it was. In this instance, Mr. Trump’s hubris has been stunning. Air power alone almost never topples a government. Only troops on the ground can seize the instruments of state power and install a new leader.

In defiance of this history, Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel have conjured dreams of regime change. Sometimes there is loose talk of arming Iran’s Kurdish minority or hastening the return of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late deposed shah, who now lives in an affluent suburb of Washington. Other times, Mr. Trump encourages Iran’s security forces to defect or its people to “take over” their government. There is no evidence that any of this is working. After Mr. Trump encouraged street protests in January, Iran’s regime massacred thousands of demonstrators and remained securely in charge of the country. Since then, protests have largely ended.

Second, it remains unclear how the United States will achieve a crucial goal: assuring that Iran’s murderous regime does not become a nuclear power. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to be intact, in a tunnel complex under mountains near the city of Isfahan. If the war ends with Iran maintaining that stockpile, it will have a path to building a bomb. The military humiliations it has endured over the past few years give it an incentive to take the final steps toward a weapon that it has not previously taken.

When this war began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that ground troops might be the only way to capture the uranium. “People are going to have to go and get it,” he said. Yet when a Fox News Radio host asked Mr. Trump about uranium last week, he replied, “We’re not focused on that.” There are no easy answers here. But the scattered approach to war planning does not inspire confidence.

The third problem involves the global economy. Middle Eastern wars are notorious for causing economic turmoil by raising the price of oil. Iran had a clear way to repeat the pattern by throttling the traffic of ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Yet Mr. Trump tried to wish away this situation.

Before the war, his top military adviser, Gen. Dan Caine, warned him that Iran would likely respond by attacking ships in the strait and effectively closing it. Mr. Trump replied by suggesting that Iran’s government would capitulate before it could close the strait or that the U.S. military could keep the strait open, according to The Wall Street Journal. He was wrong, as should have been obvious. The price of oil has since jumped more than 40 percent.

His responses have had an air of desperation. He temporarily lifted oil sanctions on Russia, which is a gift to an enemy. Over the weekend, he resorted to pleading with Britain, France, Japan, South Korea — allies he has spent years disdaining — and even China to send naval forces to protect the strait.

War is uncertain, and it remains possible that any of these problems will begin to look less serious in the coming weeks. Perhaps an Iranian opposition will somehow emerge, and the current regime will fold as quickly as the Assad government in Syria did in late 2024. Perhaps special forces will remove the enriched uranium without casualties. Perhaps the U.S. military, whose performance continues to be mostly impressive, will work with allies to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Indeed, we would welcome any of these outcomes.

The first weeks of this war do not inspire confidence, however. They instead suggest that the behind-the-scenes planning in the White House may have been as reckless as its public behavior. It did not seek congressional approval for the war, as the Constitution requires. It did not plan ahead with allies in Europe or East Asia. It offered the American people only superficial rationales for the war.

Throughout his business and political career, Mr. Trump has often sought to create his own reality. When the truth is inconvenient, he ignores it and tells self-serving falsehoods. It has often worked out for him. But war tends to be less amenable to spin than politics or marketing. The early reality of the Iran war is not cooperating with Mr. Trump’s bluster.

-Editorial Board, NY Times

 

A Malignant Narcissistic Abuser

For years, mental health professionals have argued that President Donald Trump’s behaviors, which some have called “malignant narcissism,” are a detriment to the nation. Much has been written about the president’s tendency to gaslight ― a form of psychological manipulation weaponized by narcissists to make victims question their own reality, memory and perceptions.

Most recently, some have said that Trump has tried to gaslight the American people into believing that there is no real affordability crisis (he’s called it a “hoax” cooked up by the Democrats), despite widespread concerns about the rising cost of living and his running on a platform heavily focused on bringing down prices. (In spite of that, energy bills have increased as much as 13% since Trump took office.)

But psychologists say there’s another classic narcissist tactic that Trump appears to employ with alarming frequency that’s less talked about: DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. DARVO is a manipulative tactic often used by narcissistic abusers to evade accountability: They deny the abuse, attack the person confronting them and then reverse the roles to portray themselves as the victim. And because most of us are unfamiliar with DARVO, we’re not well equipped to counter the tactic.

Jennifer Freyd, a pioneer in the field of trauma psychology who coined DARVO, said it’s a strategy that Trump and his team have weaponized for years to distort reality. In an opinion piece that ran in The Hill last spring, she and her co-researcher pointed to how Trump made the case for imposing steep tariffs on other countries by arguing that America had been humiliated and exploited by foreign nations (both critics and friendly trade partners) for decades. We were the victims, not the countries facing steep new tariffs.

Whether he knows the term or not, Trump is well versed in DARVO, Freyd wrote: It’s helped him to discredit women who’ve accused him of sexual assault, deflect blame during “Signalgate,” and blame Ukraine for Russia’s invasion.

“Because DARVO has been a central strategy in Trump’s political playbook for years, it has undoubtedly contributed to distorted perceptions of what is true and what is ‘fake news,’” her op-ed read. “When leaders like Trump weaponize DARVO, the public becomes more disengaged and confused.” For some people ― namely narcissists ― acknowledging wrongdoing threatens their sense of power or control and brings them closer to facing accountability for harmful conduct. 

In a bind ― when they’re being forced to take responsibility ― the DARVO user cleverly shifts attention away from their original wrongdoing, said Sarah Harsey, an assistant professor of psychology at Oregon State University-Cascades and the co-author of the Hill op-ed. “This technique injects a misleading or fictitious counter-narrative that can be compelling for people to believe. It can also be confusing: Who’s telling the truth, what really happened?” Harsey told HuffPost.

DARVO is a tactic often used by sexual abusers to deflect accountability by reversing the roles of victim and offender, she added. Harsey and Freyd’s research shows that DARVO is associated with higher rates of sexual harassment perpetration and greater acceptance of rape myths. But run-of-the-mill narcissists use it, too, because of how effective it is: The person employing DARVO doesn’t need to convince everyone that the counter-narrative they’re offering is true, Harsey said. They just need to muddy the waters enough that people feel the truth is hard to determine.

DARVO puts the other person ― the real victim ― on the defensive and makes them feel like they need to explain themselves, defend themselves or question themselves, said Avigail Lev, a psychologist in San Francisco. Lev offered an everyday example to show how convincing DARVO can be: Imagine a spouse is confronting their partner about why they’re home so late. The DARVO-using spouse will deny it and attack their partner, saying something like, “Why are you so insecure? We never agreed that I had to be home at 10 p.m. That didn’t happen. You’re so jealous.”

In doing so, the deflecting spouse discredits their partner and flips the situation, allowing them to claim the moral high ground while leaving their partner confused, Lev said. “They become the victim,” she said. “This allows the actual perpetrator to continue harmful behavior while still feeling justified, because they now see themselves as wronged or victimized.” As Freyd and Harsey wrote in The Hill, Trump has been using DARVO from the start.

“Even before his inauguration in 2017, he said that the voice heard in the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape wasn’t his,” Harsey told HuffPost. A few years later, she said, “he used DARVO against E. Jean Carroll, who described being sexually assaulted by Trump in her memoir. He denied ever meeting her, he made repeated attacks against her, like calling her a ‘nut job’ and a ‘whack job,’ and, in Carroll’s defamation case against him, he argued he was the victim of a ‘witch hunt.’”

Harsey thinks DARVO is harmful when any government official uses it. She pointed to how former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used it when confronted with sexual harassment allegations, denying he’d harassed anyone and calling himself a victim of “cancel culture.”

But Trump’s use of it is “exceptionally blatant,” the professor said. He consistently denies, attacks and plays the victim, almost to an absurd degree, she said. And it appears he’s enabled those in his inner circle to follow suit: Harsey pointed to how Vice President JD Vance used DARVO pretty unabashedly in January when talking about Renée Good and Alex Pretti, two Minneapolis residents who were killed by federal agents amid protests over the administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigration. Vance called Good a “domestic terrorist” and reposted a social media post that described Pretti as an “assassin.”

Just a few weeks ago, Attorney General Pam Bondi extensively used DARVO tactics during her House Judiciary Committee hearing, Harsey said. “She seems to have favored the ‘attack’ aspect of DARVO, given the way she repeatedly insulted the lawmakers questioning her,” Harsey said. “There are ways the president and his officials could refute claims without using DARVO, yet they choose this tactic that inflicts as much harm as possible.”

One way to fight back against DARVO is to simply understand that it is a manipulative tactic and to learn how to recognize it when it happens, Harsey said. “Because DARVO follows a predictable pattern (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender), it becomes fairly easy to spot when it’s used,” she explained. “We’ve conducted research that shows how educating people about DARVO renders it a little less convincing.”

To defend yourself against DARVO in the moment, it’s important to name the manipulative strategy and label the behavior as soon as you sense it’s happening. But for Americans experiencing DARVO from the president, the obvious dilemma is that they’re not in direct conversation with him. Normally you can hold firm to facts and call them out rather than engaging in defensive arguments. “If you were calling someone out directly for DARVO in a personal interaction, the response would look very different than when an entire society is experiencing it from a political leader,” Lev said.

Some of us do have some power, though. Reporters in the White House press corps should ― and sometimes do ― call it out directly: Look at how CNN’s Kaitlan Collins called out press secretary Karoline Leavitt last week, when the latter claimed the reporter was mischaracterizing something Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had said. Calmly, Collins read Hegseth’s quote back verbatim.

When we experience DARVO collectively, our role is to continue speaking the truth and articulating facts so that we’re not further gaslit and can maintain some shared understanding of reality, Lev said.

At the same time, the psychologist thinks we should be cautious about getting pulled into identity politics and instead focus more on cultivating critical and discerning thinking. “This allows people to examine the facts and form their own values-based opinions grounded in their moral judgments, rather than simply adopting what one side tells them they should believe,” she said. Once you’re able to spot DARVO, it’s important to help others recognize instances of it, too.

“We should encourage people to use critical thinking and deductive reasoning and to notice cognitive distortions and manipulations so that we can maintain a shared sense of reality rather than falling for propaganda,” she said.

-Brittany Wong, HuffPost

 

Iran's new leader is keeping a list for revenge

It’s been two weeks since President Donald Trump ordered a bolt-from-the-blue missile strike to assassinate Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. Now, the murdered man’s son has taken over. That’s convenient for those of us struggling to follow this unwanted insanity, because at least the new boss has the same name.

The new Ayatollah Khamenei — full name Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, age 56 — was badly injured in the same sneak attack that blew apart his father. He reportedly suffered wounds to both legs and one arm and has not been seen in public since. In addition to recuperating, he’s no doubt mourning: We murdered not only his father, but also his wife, his teenage son, his mother, his sister and his 14-month-old niece.

Iran has lashed out in response against our bases and forces throughout the Middle East. So far, the Pentagon says, 14 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 150 wounded, some of them severely. Of those 150 wounded, how many have had life-wrecking injuries — loss of vision, loss of limbs, severe traumatic brain injuries? Why did we even provoke this mess?

Now, the murdered man’s son has taken over. Expect worse to come. The new ayatollah has promised more revenge against us (i.e., “the enemy”) for the suffering we’ve chosen to inflict upon Iran. “Every member of the nation who is killed by the enemy becomes a separate case in the file of retaliation,” he said.

Sounds ominous, especially when Khamenei particularly singled out the way we Tomahawk’d a bunch of elementary schoolgirls, leaving more than 175 dead, as holding “a special status in the process of accountability.” Until retribution has been had for these murdered children, ages 7 to 12, he said, “this file will remain open above other cases.”

Already our two weeks of U.S. and Israeli bombing have killed more than 1,200 civilians (including more than 200 children). We’ve destroyed more than 17,000 homes and, per the United Nations, displaced more than 3.2 million people (many of whom have fled areas like Tehran that are being heavily bombed).

“Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today,” Truthsocial’d our gleeful president going into the weekend. He says the Iranians have “been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years,” and went on, “and now I, as the 47th President … am killing them. What a great honor it is to do so!”

Yes, the president has been in fine form. It is his great honor to be killing them. These deranged scumbags. The ones whom he sneak-attacked and murdered, with a couple of hundred children caught up in his wild crossfire.

On Sunday, the president was boasting about how we just demolished infrastructure at Kharg Island, an oil transport hub in the Persian Gulf just off Iran’s coast. “We may hit it a few more times just for fun,” Trump told NBC News.

I picture him saying these things with a thick, vaguely European accent, maybe while wearing a monocle. Is he even aware how he sounds? Is he putzing around the White House in a motorized wheelchair with a blue-eyed Persian cat on his lap?

His jaunty Truth Social posts feel like the equivalent of the scene in a bad movie where the evil mastermind offers his unforced confession — where he lays out the entire dastardly scheme to a captured audience. If only we could walk out of this movie.

-Matt Bivens, Truthdig, the following story is co-published with Matt Bivens’ Substack newsletter, The 100 Days.